Talk:I'll Take My Chances

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Nigeria Low‑importance

	Nigeria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

AfroCreatives

This article is within the scope of WikiProject AfroCreatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of AfroCreatives articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfroCreativesWikipedia:WikiProject AfroCreativesTemplate:WikiProject AfroCreativesAfroCreatives articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:
edit history watch purge

Could someone look over the following and recommend something?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

"Most part of the film was shot on location in"

the original statement was "most parts" that when matched with "was/were" I sided with "were" that prompted the author to change "parts" to "part" so that "were" could be "was". Please do something!66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamie Tubers: Is an experienced editor on en.Wikipedia, the revert was done due to grammatical mistake. CutestPenguin^Hangout 02:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

and "Most part of the film was shot on location in" is better written than "Much of the film ......" Your statement sound more like an endorsement of the status quo that what is better? I hope that merely by sticking around WP is not how one gains authority.66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the statement you pointed our reads more nicely, you can change it yourself. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the permission but your compadre seems to think otherwise.66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This IP keeps making unwarranted edits. It's like he/she's making edits just because he/she can. I'm not against him/her making copyedits, but he/she should atleast do it rightly and not distort meanings or make grammatical errors in the process.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In another statement, this editor has proposed that article language reflect that of those that are going to most likely read it. Last I was aware, WP articles are generally not limited to being viewed and thus read by people only of a particular area since the interests of people can vary greatly. Otherwise with people so involved with the tribulations of their home place it just might be likely that they have no other interest--but that is not always true. This editor wants the articles to be grammatically correct and yet when these type of inconsistencies are pointed out they remain under the guise that the expression is of the locality. As I tell people that demand perfection of others, you can have it one way or the other way but you cannot have it both ways. If others are subject to the editor's style of grammar then he should not find it unexpected to be subjected to the same treatment by others especially as it is the intention of WP to have well written articles.66.74.176.59 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I was explaining to you was that there are different varieties of English, and the one you speak in your country which you may think is the accepted way, is just in fact another variety! According to wikipedia's manual of style, all varieties of English are equal and can be used, inasmuch as it is consistent to one variety throughout the article. So what you think is inappropriate may not be. Generally, the preferred variety for any article is usually that of the country of origin. You can't come here and change how an entire article is written just to suit your version of English. And I think I'm done replying you. Cheers.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]