Please add new incident reports at the BOTTOM of this page. Don't forget to sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically.
Edit warring: Emma Watson
Yesterday I edited the above page because the first part of her dual nationality was stated (incorrectly) as "English". As I have pointed out, this is wrong because England is not a nation; it's a country, one of the constituent countries of the nation of Great Britain, and the corresponding nationality is thus "British". (This is a common error, but the fact of it being common doesn't make it any less an error.)
Despite this, Jack "BtR" Saxon has reverted the edit (and re-reverted my correction), claiming that "English is a nationality". Which is nonsense; England is not a nation, and only nations have associated nationalities. It would make just as much sense to claim that "Londoner" is a nationality.
As a neutral party, pointing out:
- Per Wiktionary:
- Usage notes
- (British) Following the establishment of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, England, Scotland and Wales are normally considered distinct nations. Application of the term nation to the United Kingdom as a whole is deprecated in most style guides, including the BBC, most newspapers and in UK Government publications.
- And Dictionary.com defines "nation" as (1) a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own, or (2) the territory or country itself.
So I think "English" could be a valid nationality. --19:28, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
- The Oxford English Dictionary states that a nation is a group united by factors that include language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory and the Office for National Statistics found that 58% of people in Britain described their nationality as being English. -- Saxon 19:44, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
- Gave a warning since they've only done a couple of minor edits. If they do any more though, they'll get blocked. - Nick O'Demus 06:21, April 14, 2015 (UTC)
- Gave a warning about removing those templates. If they do it again, they'll be blocked. - Nick O'Demus 08:14, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
- The user also vandalized File:Dhharryroomhighreso.jpg, File:PromoHP7 Harry Potter.jpg and File:Blood Quill.jpg. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:14, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
- Sock puppet of a rather persistent vandal. Blocked. - Nick O'Demus 08:14, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
Could someone have a look on the article Harry potter which is a redirect page to R.J. Lupin which is already a redirection page and my talk page? Seems this user has a problem! I also reverted page blanking vandalism on the article Harry Potter. 15:58, April 27, 2015 (UTC)
- He also vandalised the talk page of Cubs Fan2007 and this page.
16:06, April 27, 2015 (UTC)
- Banned. - Nick O'Demus 16:53, April 27, 2015 (UTC)
Edit required on protected page
Template:DYK states that Hogwarts has "one hundred forty-two staircases". This is American grammar; to conform to British grammar per policy, it should be "one hundred and forty-two". — RobertATfm (talk) 14:59, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Done - Nick O'Demus 15:08, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
User:Nguonnhanluc853 is constantly adding fanon regarding the Fantastic Beasts films (specifically, assuming characters mentioned in the book will be in the film with no official source backing these assumptions) and edit warring with users when these are removed. I think there may be a language issue here, as his talk page posts have been in very garbled English, occasionally even lapsing into his (assumed) native Vietnamese. Regardless, he clearly is presenting disruptive behaviour. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 18:58, June 5, 2015 (UTC)
User:1337star hate me or something, right me is people Vietnamese thus then how uncle.I do not have the right to edit stars, so he did not see sin give I stars, have must he hates me, have right not User:1337star?.-- Nguonnhanluc853 (Drop me a line!) 1 10:58, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
- Is the above supposed to be in English? This looks to me like another false and malicious complaint, in retaliation for the (legitimate) one above it. — RobertATfm (talk) 10:26, June 20, 2015 (UTC)