Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contemplated featured list review

I think, whether you happen to agree with this perspective or not, that it is fair to say that there are a lot of editors who would not consider this article an example of wikipedia's best work given what they see as its awkward and/or ungrammatical title. At a minimum, whether it is an appropriate title is debateable, as reflected by the somewhat acrimonious discussion above and the lack of any sort of consensus about what is an appropriate title.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this? I mean, clearly certain editors think the current title is fine, but I don't think that's the standard for a featured list. To be a featured list, shouldn't everyone be able to agree that the entire article is great? That is plainly not the case here. AgnosticAphid talk 18:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It went through the FL process with this title in place. It was adequately supported by reviewers and the consensus was that it is an FL. If the FL process had taken place under a different title you may have a leg to stand on, but as the current name was there during the FLC, a review would not be a constructive step. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not a very convincing response. The amount of discussion about the appropriateness of the title in the featured list review, which I did read, is completely swamped by the amount of vituperative commentary above. The fact that there may have been a consensus for the title a year ago doesn't mean that there is still a consensus for it. There plainly isn't a consensus for the current title; that's what the closer of the requested move said. As did the closer of this related discussion. Where there's no consensus, the wikipedia rule is to keep the current title until a better one can be discerned – but that doesn't mean that lists with non-consensual and controversial titles should be featured. AgnosticAphid talk 18:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion about this non-issue, but an FLR is the most disruptive and least appropriate course of action. A lot of ignorance over the correct use of the comma in British English was shown in the above thread, and I'm afraid that is no reason to start a disruptive process just because you don't happen to like something. There are much more important things to be doing round here rather than re-opening closed and settled discussions, so maybe it's best that you looked at doing something else - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

And you are entitled to your opinion about this issue, but a lot of ignorance about the correct use of the comma shown in the above title. I'm afraid just because you happen to like it is not a reason to keep it, and the discussion was hardly settled. Maybe it's best if you stop trying to bully other editors from discussing it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to bully anyone, so perhaps you could try to be less uncivil and not smear others by innuendo please. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would submit that featuring articles that cause lots of acrimony as shining examples of our best work is disruptive.

I have no interest in rehashing the substantive dispute. But even assuming that the current title is grammatically proper in British English, Wikipedia strives to be universal and to many readers the current title just seems wrong. If the best that can be said to defend this extremely controversial title is that it currently exists and arguably isn't incorrect, to me it isn't an example of our best work. I really don't think any other convincing justifications for the title were offered.

Finally, I do appreciate that you're so concerned about me wasting my own time here on Wikipedia, but I'm capable of managing that issue myself. I have as much of a right to be interested in this article and whether it's featured as anyone else. AgnosticAphid talk 19:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

An out of process FLR based on something that was passed during the FLC process is disruptive, misguided and unwelcome - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it "out of process"? WP:FLRC says "Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates), or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt." I mean, it can't reasonably be suggested that there is currently a consensus for the title, so since the consensus about the title has changed since the article was promoted a year ago, I have a hard time seeing how it would be inappropriate to nominate the article at WP:FLRC. Alternatively, can you suggest what would be an appropriate amount of time to wait before nominating the article on this basis? AgnosticAphid talk 19:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As I've alreaady explained, the title was in place when the article went through the FLC process, our highest level scrutiny. The consensus from that process was that the title ewas appropriate. To start an FLR because you don't like the title is utterly inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, WP:FLRC does say "FLs should be kept at current standards regardless of when it was promoted." Certainly you have more experience than I do at WP:FLRC, but. I have experience with a similar circumstance, the pink slime article. That article was demoted and/or not promoted mostly because people thought the title was biased even though the title had been present all along. Indeed, it underwent four good article reviews in a year, and nobody complained that they were "out of process."

All of that being said, I would defer to your expertise at WP:FLRC, except that you didn't specify how long I would want to wait to re-nominate the article. As such, your position appears to be that the article can't ever be subject to an FLRC because of something that existed at the time of the original featured list nomination. Such a view is directly at odds with the sentence "FLs should be kept at current standards regardless of when it was promoted." I cannot find anything at WP:FLRC that supports your view, and apparently neither can you. So, unless someone else has a thought about this, I suppose I will see you there. AgnosticAphid talk 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As you have pointed out "FLs should be kept at current standards": the standards have not changed and neither have the policies on naming. That's why it would be out of process: there is no basis to start the FLR except your personal dislike of a title that has passed though our highest-level scrutiny. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I resent that you are trying to personalize this. What you and I think about the title is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that in order to satisfy WP:FL the list must comply with our rules about article titles, and unlike when the article was promoted there is currently no consensus about whether this particular title is appropriate (per discussion above), and there is likewise no consensus about whether this format of title is appropriate at all (as per the discussion I linked). Your argument is that a title that is not contentious at the time of the featured list review cannot subsequently prevent an article from being delisted, no matter how contentious later turns out to be, and no matter how much vitriol it ends up spawning? Such a title is not a shining example of our best work. This entire talk page lacks any semblance of collaboration about the title and if it is wikipedia's best work then it is no wonder we are losing editors. AgnosticAphid talk 20:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the consensus comes from the high-level scrutiny the article went through at FLC. I am sorry if you cannot accept that the consensus that the FLC process brings, but I am afraid it does. I also hardly think that this one low-visit page has anything to do with us losing editors; such straw men arguments are not helpful. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Good God! Not this fatuous non-issue again! Move on, and let's write more FAs and FLs rather than wasting our time on such trivia. Tim riley talk 20:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Featured list review

I have opened a featured list review. Please add your comments. AgnosticAphid talk 20:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

God bless and save us! What a shocking waste of the time that we could be using to work on improving WP instead of indulging the arrogance of those who imagine they understand the Queen's English! Tim riley talk 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So, if you are unable to establish a consensus for a change you want, then you bring a FLR to punish everyone you disagree with? What a bad way to use WP resources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I would never do anything on Wikipedia for any other purpose than to improve the encyclopedia, and I think that everything I've done is entirely proper. I regret that you take the review personally, as an attempt at punishment. Regardless, I responded to the substance of your point at the appropriate venue, the list review. AgnosticAphid talk 23:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Happily, all is now settled and we can get on with writing and improving Wikipedia, without, let us hope, further unnecessary disruption, though of course one acknowledges the disruption was well intentioned. Tim riley talk 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think Speedy Retain after two interested votes is a fair result, so I am tying to clarify matters. I will report back for everyone's edification. AgnosticAphid talk 01:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• As I've replied on my talk page: discussion on the title should be here. There are parties who consider the current title acceptable, and there are those who do not. Discussion of disputed titles, where the MOS is silent and allows both (or all), should be done on a case-by-case basis – i.e. the article talk page. FLRC should be for more serious and in-depth issues, rather than a content dispute which would be best handled on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Title again

I make a plea for sanity: Most readers interested in this topic will simply have clicked on the link in the John Gielgud article, and so they will be linked here because they want to see the full list of his roles and/or awards. Most others who come here will have searched for John Gielgud in our search and have seen that the second choice is this article, which, on its face very clearly focuses on "roles and awards". Even if you simply search Google for John Gielgud's roles and awards, you get this article as the first result. Therefore, there cannot possibly be any confusion. The title of the article clearly fulfills the purpose of a title as stated in WP:NAME: "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." So, my plea is: since this issue has been raised and discussed, and no WP:Consensus has been formed to change the name, please leave it alone for a reasonable period of time and let people go on to work on more productive tasks for the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, a year is actually quite some time to wait in between contentious discussions (like for instance there was a one-year moratorium on talking about whether to change USPLACE), and the unanimous consensus at the FLRC and after talking to Crisco was that editors should raise their concerns about whether the title is "best of wikipedia"-worthy on the talk page. Also, this list could easily be featured on the main page. But rest assured that nobody would dash off a quick RM without thinking about it and if it's me that proposes it I will try to get some well-rounded input. AgnosticAphid talk 03:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's at least wait another month so it'll really be a full year. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was expressly and repeatedly implored today to bring up my concerns with the article title here on the talk page (indeed, because "the most recent detailed discussion was almost a year ago, and consensus can change," according to the closer of the FLRC), and I don't see what's so sancrosant about a year, but personally I will not get to it before then most likely anyway. AgnosticAphid talk 04:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps you mean "sacrosanct", and if so I concur. A twelvemonth is not all that important. What is more important, me judice, is the cessation of pettifogging (and, if I may say so, ill-informed) quibbles about punctuation. The comma is fine in the header. Please try to understand, Agnosticaphid, that a header is not a sentence: it does not have a subject and predicate, a main verb, a full stop at the end. It is important to understand the difference. I wholly agree with Ssilvers's wise advice, above, and it seems plain that you could contribute something useful elsewhere in Wikipedia, as I'm sure, with your obvious interest in the Queen's English, you will be equipped to do. Tim riley talk 22:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

To me, it is a bit rich for an editor to say "If you don't like the name, the proper course of action is to open a discussion on the Talk page about changing the name" and then to turn around, the same day, and say about the name "since this issue has been raised and discussed ... please leave it alone for a reasonable period of time" instead of discussing it on the talk page. But regardless, the person who closed the FLRC also specifically encouraged me to continue to raise this issue because "the most recent detailed discussion was almost a year ago, and consensus can change," as I noted above. I proposed the FLRC because I thought it would be easier to agree that the title was unworthy of featured status than to propose another move discussion. But now I've seen the error of my ways and realize that as ssilvers and crisco said, a requested move is the appropriate action.

I will resist the urge to comment on your untoward and unnecessary spelling dig. AgnosticAphid talk 22:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A dig? Not a bit. I think you do remarkably well in your use of English, but pray do native English writers, writing about an English subject, the courtesy of supposing that they may know what they are doing. You could be doing something useful, you know. Tim riley talk 23:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest if you think that discussing the title is an unprofitable endeavor that you stop stonewalling attempts to change it? And perhaps you could equally consider that other "native english writers" such as myself might also know what they are talking about? How refreshing it would be to discuss the substance of this issue instead of constantly battling against efforts to belittle those who don't share the view of the writers of this list! AgnosticAphid talk 23:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologise unreservedly. I had inferred from your prose that you were not English, and hence my conclusion that you might not quite understand how the way the English write English differs from foreign variants of it. But I must say that I am surprised that another Englishman or -woman such as your good self doesn't understand the the point I make above about the difference between a sentence and a headline. You have but to look at your daily newspaper, after all. Tim riley talk 00:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of why my "remarkably well" written comments made you think I wasn't a native English speaker, descriptive article titles are supposed to be a natural piece of prose – not a "headline" – and the chosen title is not one that would ordinarily be encountered in prose (at least in the United States, which means for many readers). As sroc said above, the title is something you would encounter in an index, not a (an American?) sentence. Even assuming the chosen construction is technically correct in British English prose, which is not something I'm qualified to opine about, it would best to avoid a title that contains what readers perceive as an error. That's why the title needs to be changed. I'd be interested in hearing your substantive response to this. AgnosticAphid talk 01:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think such things are an inescapable consequence of WP:ENGVAR. It might, with hindsight, have been a good idea from the beginning of Wikipedia to standardise on American spelling and usage, but as that didn't happen, American readers will continue to boggle at "Legion of Honour" and so forth. There are some wonderfully indignant exchanges on the talk page of that article. – Tim riley talk 12:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as how one of the very first sentences of ENGVAR is "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles", I'm afraid I continue to find the opposition to changing the title to be reflexive and entirely unconvincing. Trying to compare this to something like how the title of the alumin(i)um article is spelled is entirely inapt because for spelling there are mostly two national choices and no substitute universally correct option as there is here. There is absolutely no reason to choose a title that is grammatically incorrect in at least one variety of English.

Indeed, I am going to go to the mat: this title is gramatically wrong in all varieties of English, as far as prose is concerned. Nowhere in the many pleas above for an example is there any demonstration of what uniquely British gramatical rule creates a new, additional allowable use for a comma that is unknown in the mother country's children.. I would ordinarily defer about something like this, but you changed your justification from "its a headline, not a sentence" to "its okay in a British sentence so I win bc of ENGVAR" and this whole "shoot the messenger rather than consider the message" thing doesn't give your arguments a very weighty stature. There could be more of a thoughtful argument about whether our titles really are prose, but that's something that can be considered during the move request. It seems a broader audience is probably more likely to have a fruitful discussion about that.

Finally, I don't find your extraordinarily extensive use of sarcasm to be helpful. Nobody wants to have to try to figure out whether someone is being genuine when they say something like "we should have used american spellings from the get go" or taking a snarky potshot. I suppose you will apologize unreservedly for it. AgnosticAphid talk 14:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"Snarky" is a term new to me, but the Oxford English Dictionary tells me it means "Irritable, short-tempered". If you will forgive my saying so, that seems a sadly ungracious message. As somebody says, above, "I resent that you are trying to personalize this". Verbum sat. I don't think I can reproach myself with being short-tempered on this matter, and I have a respectable track record of following American usage when writing of American subjects (Cole Porter, Jerome Kern etc), but I am careful to make sure my attempts are vetted by native Americans, who can correct my inadvertent Anglicisms. Please assume good faith. – 16:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's not devote any more resources to arguing about a comma in this case where no confusion is caused and where the vast majority of readers coming to this article arrive simply by clicking the link in the John Gielgud article, so that the exact name of the article is irrelevant. I am an American, BTW, and see nothing wrong with this article name. Can't you see that this discussion is a waste of time? Really, don't you have anything else that you want to work on in Wikipedia? Or is your mission here to find unimportant, irrelevant things to argue about with a large group of very productive Wikipedians to distract them from working on the encyclopedia? If so, that is so shameful and destructive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ssilvers, you requested that I continue this discussion here on this talk page, as did the admin who closed the FLRC, and I took your advice and am doing so. So did the admin who closed the FLRC. Some editors, such as myself, are particularly interested in article titles, and this title is particularly poor. Article titles are part of the encyclopedia and deserve to be worked on as well. If you don't think they're important then perhaps you could leave discussing them to those of us who do. AgnosticAphid talk 17:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I simply pointed out that Talk pages, in general, are the appropriate place to discuss such things, and that your bringing the FLR, after you had failed to form a new consensus here, was an abuse of Wikipedia's processes. I, and several other editors, disagree with you that this article title "deserves" to be discussed any more. It is wasteful, IMO, to spend any more time on it, and I think a sensible person would see that. But, we are repeating ourselves. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Good gracious! It is astonishing and distasteful to see a respected and experienced editor attacked for "not discussing" Agnosticaphid's point here when we have spent so much wearisome time doing just that. What, in the end, is there to discuss? AA, if I may presume to shorten his/her name, doesn't like the title. We should politely note his/her personal view and move on, I suggest. As Ssilvers rightly remarks we could be doing something productive with our time. Tim riley talk 20:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Alas, nowhere in these many kilobytes of text is there any response to any of the substantive concerns raised about the title. Until those concerns are given a substantive airing, I am afraid there will be many future discussions of this topic – regardless of whether you think editors should be doing something that you view as "more productive" with their time. AgnosticAphid talk 21:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Alas there is, but your view is too deeply entrenched to even bother thinking that someone else's opinion may have merit. There has been far too much time wasted on this minor petty point, and your endless comments are becoming disruptive; your cultural insensitivity on the ENGVAR point here says more about you than anything else, and I find this thread to be pointless and divisive. - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What is your response to me noting that one of the very first sentences of ENGVAR is "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles"? AgnosticAphid talk 22:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That a comma is punctuation, not a term. That much is obvious to all, except you, it seems. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm. I fail to see the distinction between spelling and grammar and find this to be wikilawyering. One of the greatest lessons of ENGVAR is that we should choose universal things to avoid acrimony, be the item in question prose or not. I think that goal is not advanced here and I think these discussions are a perfect example of what happens when people ignore ENGVAR. These are interesting titling questions, though. AgnosticAphid talk 22:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Alas, alack and even eheu, AA's "substantive concerns" have no substance. They boil down to "I don't think it's grammatical" (or as AA repeatedly prefers, "gramatical"). If anyone cares to produce a reference from Fowler or any other authority in support of AA's WP:IDONTLIKEIT then by all means let us treat it seriously. Otherwise, AA please let us get on and stop harrying us. Tim riley talk 22:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"I fail to see the distinction between spelling and grammar": that tells me all I need to know about AA's understanding of language, and I am duly unsurprised by your lack of understanding or knowledge of the correct use of a comma, and your cultural insensitivity in addressing such an issue. (Having said all that, we have numerous articles in a similar vein: United States presidential election, 2012, etc is the same concept, so if you'd like to go and bother those pages rather than this one you'd be doing everyone a favour). - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Your tone is unhelpfully negative. I see that you didn't understand that I meant that the difference between spelling and grammar is not a relevant difference for the purpose of the statement that we should encourage universal things. I should have been more clear. But comments such as attacking my basic understanding of language or accusing me of lacking cultural sensitivity are a little extreme, don't you think? I'm still interested in your thoughts, though. (edit conflict) To comment on your belated reference to the election, I am glad that you saw that I was concerned about that inconsistency when you reviewed the comments I made about this article elsewhere today. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping this title, and this format of title is very unusual among biographical article titles and for some reason especially distasteful to many editors. If we could sort out these things, it would be nice. But the vitriol expressed on this page, like, again, attacking people for lacking cultural sensitivity and saying they obviously don't know what they're talking about, isn't the way to get there. AgnosticAphid talk 22:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm unhelpfully negative?! I'm not the one who is harrassing and bullying editors into trying to change a title based on nothing but my dislike of something and my ignorance of how correct it is. Time to move on and stop being so disruptive and divisive, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat, you must of course make your own judgement, but for my own part I think he/she has delighted us long enough. Well meaning, no doubt, ill-informed assuredly, and a time-waster indubitably. He/she has complained on my talk page that it is unfair of me to point out his/her repeated errors in English – and errare humanum est, of course, but there are limits. This editor, I am astonished to see, is a member of a WP copy-editing task-force. – Tim riley talk 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is mean-spirited to dismiss my thoughtful comments and to say I'm unqualified to be on the copy-editing team, because I made two or three spelling errors on a talk page, yes. We are supposed to comment on the content, not the contributor. AgnosticAphid talk 22:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

AA, I wish you well, but unless duty calls me back to this page I shall not, I hope, have to engage with you again. But in the Wikipedian colleaguely spirit I send you my sincere greetings. I realise from your earlier comments that you disbelieve my sincerity, but my greetings are sincere nonetheless. WP:AGF, you know. – Tim riley talk 23:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it is hard to assume good faith given the many personal attacks you and SchroCat leveled against me, but as a good Wikipedian I shall try. AgnosticAphid talk 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! Glad we part on good terms. Tim riley talk 23:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

from my talk

Stop edit warring. These are largely old and dead treads that are being archived. You are being disruptive and petty. Stop now, move on. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. If you want to archive the old and dead threads, do only those, not largely those. You are being disruptive and petty. Stop now, move on. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If you'd have spent a couple of seconds explaining the revert rather than brainlessly reverting wthout comment, or maybe partially reverting, leaving the dead threads in archive, maybe you could have gained an iota of respect. as it is you have shown yourself for exactly what you are. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Or you could have spent a couple of seconds to archive only the old and dead threads rather than archiving brainlessly, maybe you could have gained an iota of respect. Probably not, since you would also have to abandon these personal attacks as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You are a disruptive and petty little editor. Reveting the entire archive? How silly and childish can you actually get? Grow up, try and behave like some semblance of an adult and stop being as obnoxious as to just mindlessly edit war without explaining why the fuck you are doing what you are. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem here is that you are archiving discussions that are very recent, in a silly and childish manner. Grow up and stop mindlessly edit warring without explanation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is your mindless reverting without comment or explanation. The recent threads that were archived are closed, with both parties signing off as it being closed, so could happily be archived. Either way, next time you want to mindlessly revert someone's good faith edits, explain your actions, or they will be reverted (and if you're going to de-archive on the talk page, try taking the bloody threads out of the archive at the same time, rather than leaving them duplicated). - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Your lack of care (or mindlessness) in archiving does not create more work for me to clean up after you. I have explained my reverts: you "archived" discussions that were not yet aged enough to be archived. And regardless, stop making personal attacks in edit summaries or on talk pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not try to mislead through falsehood. You did not explain anything until a message was left on your talk page asking you to stop edit warring. You made three reverts with absolutely no expanation. It is difficult to assume any good faith in your actions if you fail to explain them. That is the main purpose of edit summaries, and if you revert good faith edits again and again and again without explanation, then you are being disruptive in the extreme. The fact that your reverts were as sloppy as to leave the threads duplicated in the archive that had been set up, then the impression of being disruptive for no other reason than to be disruptive is reinforced. In future 1. leave edit summaries; 2. Do not edit war; 3. try not to do a half-arsed job just to be pointy. This is becoming less constructive as it goes on, so I'm stepping away from this. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• JHunter, please disappear. Cassianto^Talk 19:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree that these threads should be archived. Considering that another move request is in the offing, it would be better not to just archive the whole prior discussion. AgnosticAphid talk 21:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Please do not leave misleading edit statements. These threads were not "recent": they took place a year ago and more. As per my recent edit summary, the threads can still be linked to in he archive for people to read. – SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

And another pointless discussion just because you don't like the title? Do you really have nothing better to do round here than be so disruptive on this page? That's just pointless... - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Both of those editors believe that it is your behavior that is disruptive, and sadly so must I. This is unacceptable behavior, and it leads me to the conclusion that it is nothing other than your own DONTLIKEIT. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight: I have not reverted more than three times in a 24 hour period. I have archived threads older than a year. The fact that a couple of malcontents pushing a single and disruptive agenda is bordering harassment, and the DONTLIKEIT tag can be thrown their way just as easily. – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed my comment. Forget about the three revert thing. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A minor point of etiquette, but next time, if someone has commented on your comments, please don't delete something you've written, but instead strike it out to show you've changed your stance. This ensures that the following comments make sense (as mine now don't, given you've removed the section on edit warring). Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How ironic that you would say this after repeatedly doing the same thing yourself on this page -- as well as on the 3RR noticeboard. AgnosticAphid talk 22:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not changed the sense of any of my comments, or removed any information after someone has commented. I have corrected an ocassionally typo, that is all. I do not know why you are deciding to attack me in something so minor. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You attacked JHunterJ before he moved this discussion off of his talk page, which would mean something. You must have attacked him just to garner his attention towards you. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of the segue, or of your logic, which is questionable. Perhaps you could try and keep future comments more pertinent to the matter in hand. - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

So ... so ... so ... boring is this discussion. Do any of you have anything to add about John Gielgud's roles or awards? I don't see that you have contributed anything of interest or value. If you have nothing of interest to discuss concerning this article, then you are on the wrong page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Gielgud, roles and awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419023829/http://www.olivierawards.com/about/previous-winners/view/item98520/Olivier-Winners-1985 to http://www.olivierawards.com/about/previous-winners/view/item98520/olivier-winners-1985/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)