User talk:Kind Tennis Fan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Hello, Kind Tennis Fan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Kind Tennis Fan, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Kind Tennis Fan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Golf major winners[edit]

Hi, thanks for clarifying the statement about golf major winners with this edit. However, according to Grand Slam (golf)#Career Grand Slam there are 16 or 17 golfers to win at least three of the four majors (depending on whether pre-Masters-era counts), not 15. I don't see where the 15 number comes from, but I may be misunderstanding or miscounting something. Anyway, I just thought I would mention it in case you can figure it out because you probably have a better knowledge of this than me. (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the 15 golfers are Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan, Player, Sarazen (who have won all four majors). The next 10 golfers who have won three out of the four are: Hagen, Barnes, Trevino, Armour, Snead, Mickelson, Nelson, Floyd, Watson and Palmer.
Please note that Bobby Jones did not win the Masters or the PGA Championship. Harold Hilton did not win the Masters, U.S. Open or PGA Championship. (The U.S. Amateur and British Amateur are not classed as professional major championships.) Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: In 2014, Northern Irish golfer Rory McIlroy became the 16th golfer to win at least three of the four majors. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Prospective events[edit]

Hi there, friendly critique ensues: As WP is an encyclopedia, it should be engaged in discussing events that have happened, and not envisioning things that could be. The best comparisons for athletes are those who they have achieved exactly as highly as, not those who they would be comparable to if in the future they achieve more highly. A list of those who have won all four golf majors belongs in an article on that topic, not in articles about golfers who have not achieved that mark but might someday do so. (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have left your edit intact until one day perhaps Phil Mickelson wins the U.S. Open and completes the career grand slam. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Eden Hazard[edit]

Hi, sorry about not getting back to you, I glanced at your message this morning, went offline and completely forgot once I came back on. It's been protected now though. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Matty. I know that you do a lot of work to help improve football articles, which I appreciate, and if there are further instances of persistent vandalism on articles that I see, I will go direct to the "Requests for page protection" section and I will request admin directly there. Thanks. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism levels for protection[edit]

Hi there. I saw your comment/question at RfPP, and thought I'd let you know my take on it. For vandalism, I'm generally looking for around 2-3 per day for 2-3 days. Obviously, if there's a very high amount on a day, then the duration is lower, so that protection can be immediate. Every admin is different, but I think the broad consensus would be the same for most of us. Feel free to ask anything else here :) GedUK  14:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, giving your take on this. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. If you ever think a page needs protecting, just make the request :) GedUK  12:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Elm Guest House child abuse scandal[edit]

Hello, I have had a quick look but I cannot find that alleged claim by Chris Fay in any other news source. If you can find it in a more respectable news source (e.g. Guardian, Telegraph, BBC) than the Daily Express, then by all means put it back, but for now I have reverted Codeusirae's re-addition of your addition. Please see WP:REDFLAG. -- Alarics (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) And see also User talk:Ghmyrtle#Poor sources. -- Alarics (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Alarics. When the claim that was reported in the Daily Express – containing an allegation of police intimidation – was removed from the article, I accepted and understood the reason why the content was removed. When making any further edits to this particular article, I will include content from sources such as The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph rather than the Daily Express. Another editor put the content back again, which has since been removed. I have given a full reply on your talk page regarding the article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Never Let Me Down Again (Depeche Mode song)[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you removed a lot of content under Notable covers at Never Let Me Down Again, commenting "I clicked on the reference provided and it did not verify any of these quotes by Martin Gore and Dave Gahan." What you really discovered, was a dead link to a fan message board that supposedly once contained transcripts of the source/sources in question. By deleting the passage you *almost* managed to prevent any editor from improving the section and adding better links. Next time, please use Dead link template instead of deleting content, if possible. Citation needed template is very useful, too. Thank you. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sk4170. Thank you for your comments. There has been a template at the top of the Never Let Me Down Again article for over 3 years since November 2010 requesting improved additional citations, but thank you for letting me know of the Dead link template. As per guidelines at WP:GOODREFS, internet forums (or fan message boards) are not regarded as reliable sources to use. Please see WP:RSE. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a policy that requires deleting of all unsourced content from Wikipedia. The refimprove and unreferenced tags are there to encourage wikipedians to give their precious time and contribute to articles. In my opinion removing content without making the effort to fix the links that aren't working or looking for better ones is not exactly an improvement. This way a lot of good content is lost forever. I want to add that not every single word needs to be sourced, unless considered incorrect. I also wouldn't consider unsourced something that is wikilinked and essential info can be read there. For people interested only in Depeche Mode, there are well over 100 wiki articles and an army of vandals of all sorts requiring attention from those who are willing to contribute a little more of their time than average. It was pure luck that I noticed what was happening at NMLDA, but don't have time to try and fix more than this tiny detail. Just some food for thought about the reality of being a Wikipedian. --Sk4170 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nigel Farage.[edit]

Greetings KTF. I mentioned you in an edit after you seemed to doubt some of the details in the source. It appears the source was incorrectly archived -& there are 2 versions of a short interview, one with & one without a video. Just what we need on a page like this! Regards JRPG (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@JRPG: Thank you for your message to explain this. Now that I'm aware that the source was incorrectly archived, I have no further issues or concerns at present with the Nigel Farage article. Sorry for not replying earlier yesterday, but it's been a particularly busy week in the sporting calendar for people like myself who love watching tennis and association football. Yesterday there were men's semi-final matches at Wimbledon and quarter-final matches at the 2014 FIFA World Cup. The days are flying by so fast at the moment - I wish that God could give us more hours in the day! Being able to spend more time with my girlfriend and on different Wikipedia articles, in addition to playing and watching plenty of tennis and football, would make it the ideal perfect day for me! Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Kind Tennis Fan: Thank you for your thank you. It's always good to read that others are appreciating the effort put in. I did a whole run of edits the other day to deal with a whole lot of opinionated editing, but there's probably more work needed. And of course the article contains sooo much detail. But then trimming any of that would open up another few cans of worms. *sigh* All the best from Down Under. Boscaswell talk 11:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Date formats on Halifax, Nova Scotia[edit]

We do not typically use dmy dates in Canada, we typically use mdy dates. Please correct it. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the entire article to mdy dates. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Poultry[edit]

Bacon work[edit]

Hey, I noticed you've done some work on Bacon. I'm trying to get it to GA and I was wondering if you'd like to help with some more work. In the past I've done quite some work on it with others, but it's still a ways to go from GA. Thanks. -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

@Newyorkadam: Thank you for your message and for the work that you have done on Bacon. I will do a bit more work on the Bacon article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Choice of date format for astronomy articles[edit]

I'm glad to see someone taking the time to make date formats consistent within articles. For most nation-specific articles, and those with obvious ties to a country or region of the world, it's somewhat straightforward to choose mdy vs. dmy. What, then, is your criteria for astronomy articles: using the prevailing format in the article, or forcing mdy or dmy? I, and presumably others in the astronomy project, would prefer that astronomy articles, for the most part being devoid of national affiliation, adopt the more-universally-accepted dmy format. I haven't brought this up yet, though, since I just noticed your edit to Galaxy (mdy) and would like to know your thoughts and procedure.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  00:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Tom. My thoughts when adjusting the format on the Galaxy article to mdy was firstly, as the MOS:DATEFORMAT guide says, the yyyy-dd-mm format (such as 2007-04-03) is ambiguous for some dates. But apart from that particular ambiguous format, it seemed that the mdy format was the one most predominantly used for the whole article overall. And so that is why I initially chose the mdy format.
The guidelines also state that: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page."
I have now properly studied the older revisions of the article and seen that the mdy format was the first "acceptable" format used on the article.
So going by the guidelines, the mdy format is appropriate. However, I am always happy to take on board the input of others. If on any article there is a preference among editors for the dmy format ahead of mdy then I will go with the consensus of opinion. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your meticulousness; it's definitely appreciated. You've inspired me to put this on my to-do list for astro articles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  05:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

South Shields[edit]

Blimey! Well done, that's great. If you are totally bored and keen on hanging around in that lovely corner of England for a few minutes more then please feel absolutely free to drop in to Whitley Bay. I had a recent look and it made me want to bang my head repeatedly on my desk. :( Thanks again for South Shields and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I had some spare time this weekend (in between watching football), so I have also had a tidy up this evening of the article on Whitley Bay. There was a lot of inappropriate unsourced promotional content and so I have removed much of it. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow, fantastic tidy up - many thanks! DBaK (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Practice/practise (Spandau Ballet)[edit]

When I saw your change, I had to look it up myself - I wasn't sure. It is hard to keep track of these things, especially when spell check steers you wrong on so many words. Regards, Ground Zero | t 00:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit and for your other work on the Spandau Ballet article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I saw them in concert in Toronto last week -- excellent show. Their first here in 32 years. Sadly, I did not see them in 1983. Regards, Ground Zero | t 22:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I saw them in a reunion concert in 2009 at The O2 Arena in London and they were excellent. Tony Hadley has a fine voice and I think the song "Through the Barricades" is one of the best singles of the 1980s. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


A lot more than a little help with the article Rochdale would sure be appreciated partner. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joe Vitale 5: Hello Joe and thank you for your edits. I share your enjoyment of football and music. It's currently a bit of a busy time for me at the moment with some family health issues and also in my spare time watching as many tennis matches at Wimbledon as I can during the fortnight that the championships are being played. But at a later date I will do some work on Rochdale A.F.C. to help. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Date formats in the accessdate paramater[edit]

Date formats in the accessdate parameter aren't usually changed to be consistent with the rest of the article. I think accessdate is one of the few places where yyyy-mm-dd format dates are permitted, and they aren't required to be the same as dates in other parts of the article. Maybe the consensus on this has changed recently, but that's what had been worked out in years of discussion about the date format issue. Quale (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Quale. I personally feel that having all the dates in the same consistent format makes the article look neater and leaves no room for any ambiguity. The yyyy-mm-dd format such as 2011-07-06 or 2015-03-04 could be potentially ambiguous. In my opinion the dmy format (such as 6 July 2011) or the mdy format (such as March 4, 2015) is clearer. I have noticed that many of the featured articles have a harmonisation of dates to also the include the accessdate parameter. I think an article looks neater if all the dates are harmonised. But if ever you do not approve of me harmonising all of the dates in an article to include the accessdate parameter then I don't have an issue if you would like to revert the changes for a particular article. I like to edit by consensus. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, KTF, I wonder whether you're interested in installing Ohconfucius's full range of script buttons—in particular, he has one that combines date format, dashes, and the unlinking of chronological and common terms (the latter needs quick manual checking, though, after application). PS Quale, is there a problem in harmonising all of the dates in an article? Tony (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Tony. Thank you for your edits and for letting me know about this. Yes, one day I will take a look at Ohconfucius's full range of script buttons. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Harper[edit]

Hi KTF. Thanks for your efforts on Chris Grayling. I think this is particularly important for BBC news webpages as I expect them to be cut back in the near future. Could I ask if you could have a look at Mark Harper who has a lot of bare references. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello JRPG and thank you for your edits. I have today filled in 26 bare references for Mark Harper and later this week I will have a further tidy up of the references for that article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks much better now. I use the BBC website a lot and hope the Wayback Machine can preserve any lost pages. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Marie Serneholt[edit]

If you want to, please take a look at this weeks TAFI selected article, Marie Serneholt. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

paul herrin (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A belated thank you Paul for your nice gift of a kitten for me. I will take good care of it! After Pugs, cats are my second favourite animals. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

thanks :)

paul herrin (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Reversion at Indiana University Bloomington[edit]

I urge you to reconsider your reversion to Indiana University Bloomington. I concede that the edit you reverted wasn't accompanied by an edit summary or discussion in Talk but it seems like a very non-controversial update that includes a reference. I'd revert your edit (and clean up the text a bit; there is at least one unnecessary external link in the body of the text...) but I have a degree from the institution so some people might object. ElKevbo (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message ElKevbo. I have reverted my edit. The editor had created a cite error in the article. After reverting my own edit, I have now fixed this cite error. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much! ElKevbo (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for the thanks; highly appreciated! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome Joshua Jonathan. I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I enjoyed learning a bit more about it from reading the article Four Noble Truths, which you have made a major contribution to improving. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Santiago de Cuba[edit]

Greetings KTF! You were kind enough to help with bare references I pointed out on the Mark Harper article and I wonder if you could possibly do the same for Battle of Santiago de Cuba. If not, don't worry. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello JRPG. I've filled in the references for the Battle of Santiago de Cuba article. I enjoyed reading the content about this article, but the refill tool does work best with newspaper, general news (such as BBC) and website references. That can usually be done fairly quickly. But I haven't worked out yet a quicker way of doing book references. These I have to do manually, because I haven't yet mastered the technique of doing book references in a quicker way. But if there are any other articles, like Mark Harper, where you would like the news references filled in then just let me know and I'd be happy to help. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi KTF. Firstly the article does look much better. My interest stems from the fact it's a black hole in my knowledge of the background to the US and its neighbours prior to WW1 & it perhaps helps explain their nerves about the Zimmermann telegram. Ironic that the Maine explosion may have simply been an accident.
I'm so sorry that it involved you in more non-automated work than I wanted to do & I'll select more carefully in future. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Andy Murray References[edit]


I've started a talk on Andy Murray, and your response would be appreciated.


Chelisuk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelisuk (talkcontribs) 18:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chelisuk and thank you for your comment. I've now responded to your points on the Andy Murray talk page. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings and thank you[edit]

I appreciate your edits to the Rape article. I am sorry that I make so many mistakes when I add content. I don't like making more work for other editors and will try to be more careful. Your edits made the article better and gave it clarity. Thank you so much for what you do. I don't know how other editors catch these things when I don't see them. If you like(?) doing this sort of thing to improve articles, please feel free (actually I am begging!) to go to the articles I have created any time to do your editing (it's magic to me...). If you need a list of articles that I have created, just let me know and I will give you the list. If you found mistakes in the Rape article then it is guaranteed to be the same in the other things that I write.

The Very Best of Regards,
Barbara (WVS)   09:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
I don't know how you do it - consistently finding and fixing my mistakes but it is very much appreciated. You are a pretty fine editor! Barbara (WVS)   09:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Barbara (WVS) and thank you for your nice words. I appreciate them. Thank you also for your edits on articles and I understand that anybody can make small mistakes - we are all human! I appreciate you taking the time to contact me and for your contributions to Wikipedia. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Tim Westwood[edit]

Hi KTF, I note your edit and justification on Tim Westwood here. I appreciate your rationale, however I think the article is richer by its inclusion. Westwood is pretty notorious for his speech and it's rare to hear him acknowledge it. I think him doing so is classifiable as encyclopaedic and worthy of inclusion. I am requesting reconsidering the removal and adding this info back in to the article. What do you think? Rayman60 (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rayman60. Thanks for your comment. I have reverted that edit and restored the quote for the article. Although I didn't think the newspaper quote was very notable, I understand your point about including it. I've also tonight trimmed a reference from YouTube and put in place a citation request instead. This is because, according to guidelines at WP:RSE and WP:YTREF, YouTube is not encouraged as a good source for a Wikipedia reference. Also, the number of video views and subscribers to a YouTube channel regularly changes and if content is put in about the number of video views somebody has had, then this has to keep being updated regularly. Guidelines at WP:YTREF state: "Editors should also consider if the content being referenced is truly encyclopedic if the best citation that can be made points to YouTube." I agree with that and I think YouTube is best avoided on Wikipedia. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Tiffany Sessions[edit]

Hi, Thank you for you edits on Tiffany Sessions, but I just need to say that since the YouTube video I used is a news story and not a fan made video of any kind, therefore it is reliable. YouTube videos are only unreliable depending on what they are. Also I have now reworded it to make it say more what the video says. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Davidgoodheart. Thanks for this. I have slightly reworded it and left the YouTube reference as it is. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome, you are indeed kind. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio at Evil Clown[edit]

You reverted here and the content is back. I couldn't find the copyvio source. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak and thank you for your comment. When I saw the edit by an IP user of a new huge long paragraph (with a cite error for the reference) my initial thought was that the very large chunk of text had been copied and pasted from somewhere, as it seemed a very large chunk of new text to introduce to the article. The content was not in an encyclopedic style. It seemed from my impression to have been copied and pasted from an online source. With hindsight, my edit summary should have been "Possible copyvio". That would have been preferable.
I have now made a copy-edit and have divided the huge paragraph into separate paragraphs for improved readability. I have requested citations for the paragraphs as there was a cite error for the reference and it was not correctly formatted, so I could not verify the content. If the content can all be properly verified with citations to reliable sources then I'm happy for the content to remain in the article and as long as there has not been a copyvio. Apologies, that my initial edit summary should have been "Possible copyvio" before subsequently making a copy-edit for the text. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You were right, but vandal is back[edit]

Dear Kind Tennis Fan,

This is SurveyorMJF, with a problem that I hope you can help with.

You correctly recently reversed an anonymous change to the page for William Nevin Tatlow Hurst. But it has been applied again, by someone else. I suspect that it is the person who is cyber-attacking me in other places outside Wikipedia.

The original information is correct - Eliza Hurst's maiden name was Nevin. Her living descendants have numerous documents proving that she was the sister of John Nevin of Greyabbey, County Down, NI, both of whom went to Tasmania. Furthermore, as I wrote in the wiki, I have correspondence from E. Wickens of the North of Ireland Family History Society, confirming that Eliza Nevin and John Neviin were siblings.

Would you consider reversing the deletion again please?

Many thanks. SurveyorMJF (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello SurveyorMJF. Apologies for the late reply. I have reverted the deletion again. Thanks. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Kind Person :) SurveyorMJF (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for fixing the references in the Cub Swanson article. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia so I make blunders. 张雨涵 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello 张雨涵. Thank you for your nice comments. I'm happy to help with fixing the references. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Christie Brinkley[edit]

Thanks SO MUCH for revising Brinkley page back to normal. Have numerous magazines from the 80's (in storage) where Brinkley height is listed at 5'8" which I need to get for citations. I had no idea how the page got so messed up just by changing height and I really appreciate you getting that page back to normal. Lisa kristin1 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to have fixed the error, Lisa. Thank you for the appreciation. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Use DMY dates tag[edit]

Just regarding this edit, the "Use DMY dates" tag is dated by a bot; the date should not be changed. Kind regards. AusLondonder (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello AusLondonder. I made a mistake in my edit summary, by just stating "Reference". I should have stated that it was date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script. I also corrected the newspaper title of the reference, in addition to using the script in the same edit. My edit summary should have stated that I was using the script. Using the script automatically changes the "Use DMY dates" tag to the newer current month's date. It is dated by a script. As per the link
To see three other examples of other editors using this script, where the "Use DMY dates" tag is changed automatically to the current month's date, please see the examples [1] [2] and [3] Kind regards. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a mistake in the script, in my opinion. shows that the DMY order was established in the Magnus Carlsen article in January 2013 or earlier, giving it 5 years of priority. Updating the date to be January 2018 makes it look like it was a recent decision. It's a bad edit that doesn't improve the article. Also every edit you made to that article was to change valid reference dates in YYYY-MM-DD format. I understand that many people don't like this format, but it is permitted by WP:CITESTYLE and IT IS NOT VALID TO CLAIM "consistent date format. Date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT" as a reason for these edits. Please stop. Quale (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't fully understand all the points you are making. I have not changed the DMY format for the Magnus Carlsen article. I have merely kept and updated the DMY format that was already there for it to remain in a consistent format. A reference prior to my edit was as follows:[1] That had an inconsistent date format of 2007-08-07, which was changed in the script to DMY format. I can understand that you may not like the access-date of 2016-04-05 being changed. I accept that it is not essential that the access-dates have to be in the DMY format and if you would like I can go back and change the access-date back to 2016-04-05 again. But the date format of 2007-08-07 was not consistent with the article and I don't see the problem or the harm in updating it to be consistent with the rest of the article. Another reference prior to my edit was as follows:[2] That had an inconsistent date format of February 10, 2015. That was in the MDY format - inconsistent with the rest of the article. The script updates the reference to 10 February 2015 (to the DMY format) which has been in place for years. Therefore you are incorrect in your assertion that every edit prior to being changed was in a valid YYYY-MM-DD format. As highlighted, one reference was in the MDY format. Guidelines at WP:CITESTYLE state: "Citations within any given article should follow a consistent style".
If you look at many featured articles there is a consistent date format and many other editors do exactly the same as I do in updating the format to be consistent. The script I used automatically updated the DMY date template at the top of the article to January 2018. The date was changed by the script in the template from January 2013 to January 2018. This is what happens when any editor updates using the script. It updates the template automatically to whatever the current month is. It is not myself writing out a new template date of January 2018. For all the other editors who update the script in a similar manner to myself do you also ask them to stop on their talk pages or is it just me that you have an issue with? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Second Arctic Chess Challenge in Tromsø". Chess News. 2007-08-07. Retrieved 2016-04-05.
  2. ^ Ramirez, Alejandro (February 10, 2015). "GRENKE Final: Carlsen wins in Armageddon!". Chessbase News. Retrieved February 10, 2015.

The Telegraph[edit]

Re [4] and [5], you are correct in using the 'work' parameter, but is not a newspaper (which are, as the name suggests, made of paper), nor is it called The Daily Telegraph. It is a news website called The Telegraph. Firebrace (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Science fiction[edit]

Please check out Science fiction. Your recent edits (and mine) have been reverted en masse. I said to someone else that now I know why people don't waste their time on it. PopSci (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Kind Tennis Fan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Could I please get your input on this page?[edit]

Hi, Kind Tennis Fan. I was wondering if I could please get your input on this page Talk:List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom? Under the section The Guardian. I'm sorry its quite a long read. Unfortunately I've been struggling to get other editors input from many of those I have asked. Your input would be really appreciated. Thank you for your time. Helper201 (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Cover versions of Crazy Little Thing Called Love[edit]

Hi, KTF. I have reverted your removal from the article of mention of three cover versions of this song. Your edit summary said "Not notable. WP:SONGCOVER", however:

  • Regardless of what WP:SONGCOVER says, notability is not a requirement for article content, only tor the existence of entire articles. See WP:N, both the lede and item 2. A claim of "not notable" is never sufficient justification for removing content from an article. (For attempting deletion of an entire article, yes.)
  • WP:SONGCOVER offers advice as to whether "discussion" of a cover version may be included in an article, but a simple item in a list - ie a mere mention of a cover's existence - is not what any reasonable person would call "discussion". Discussion is what the article does re the Dwight Yoakam version, for example.
  • WP:SONGCOVER is not part of WP policy or guideline. It is part of WP:SONGS, which is merely an advice page written by self-appointed members of a WikiProject. Such pages carry no more weight than WP:ESSAYs; they or the WikiProject members who wrote them have absolutely no more authority over Wikipedia content than any other editors. From WP:WikiProject#Function: "WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." So even if WP:SONGCOVER did indicate that those list items should be excluded, that would not be considered authoritative or binding, not even at the "guideline" level.

Thank you for your consideration of these points. Jeh (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jeh. I'm aware that WP:SONGCOVER is an advice page. My edit removed three cover versions, of which two were unsourced. WP:VERIFY is at the heart of WP guidelines. Content should be verified from a reliable source and Wikipedia does not publish original research.
The two versions which were unsourced were Jimmy "Orion" Ellis, for what was described without a reference as an "Elvis Presley sounding cover" and secondly an instrumental version for part of the 1983 computer game "Frantic Freddie". The cover version by The Chipmunks is sourced, but in my view was not an important cover version. The two unsourced cover versions by Jimmy "Orion" Ellis and the instrumental version for the computer game "Frantic Freddie" can indeed, in my view, by removed on the grounds of WP:VERIFY. There is no source for them. The cover version by The Chipmunks (in my view) doesn't qualify as an important cover version. The supplied reference doesn't show that the cover version is important to the topic.
Describing the Jimmy "Orion" Ellis cover version as an "Elvis Presley sounding cover", without a reference, is original research and against WP guidelines. My edit summary may have mentioned the advice page of WP:SONGCOVER, but more importantly WP:VERIFY suggests that the original research of the two unsourced cover versions should not be included.
I've taken some of my guidance for music and song edits from a very experienced senior editor Binksternet, who has made over 240,000 edits. I'd be grateful Binksternet if you could please take a look at the recent edit history of Crazy Little Thing Called Love and offer your own view as to whether the removal of these three cover versions by myself was justified.
On the article Colors of the Wind, many cover versions were removed with the edit summary of "Trim per WP:SONGCOVER", even though some of the versions had references. I agree with the removal of those particular cover versions, as in my view they are not important - even though in some cases references were supplied. In future Jeh, if removing an unimportant cover version, I will try to use the edit summary of "Unimportant" rather than "Not notable". Regards Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The SONGCOVER guideline represents project-wide consensus, a general standard for song articles. Local differences may be established but without a strong local consensus, the general project standard applies. SONGCOVER is not merely advice.
I have never seen a difference between prose-based "discussion" of a cover version and the brief listing of that cover version. Both of those cases are handled the same way by SONGCOVER, as the guideline makes no distinction between them. As it stands, the guideline treats both the same.
Essentially, the guideline represents the WikiProject Songs version of the hard policy saying that Wikipedia "should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." Which means that unimportant-but-true stuff is still unimportant. I'm sure that when Kind Tennis Fan wrote "not notable. WP:SONGCOVER" in the edit summary, what was meant was "not important enough to include". Such an interpretation is cemented by the presence of a link to SONGCOVER, which is about the importance of potential article content rather than notability regarding articles for deletion.
This removal, specifically, is one I support. None of the three removed versions are shown to be important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I will not contest this removal further. Jeh (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Binksternet. Yes, in the edit summary I meant "not important enough to include", with the link to WP:SONGCOVER. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Date formats in Figure Skating article[edit]

Hi Kind Tennis Fan, I noticed that you've changed all the dates in the Figure Skating article from US English format (e.g. July 1) to UK English format (e.g. 1 July). How can you tell if an article is written in US or UK English? The first tag specifies dmy dates, which would signify UK English (but incidentally that wasn't present when the article was first created back in 2001). If it is supposed to be in UK English I have found that there are a lot of American spellings which would also need to be changed, namely "emphasize", "computerized", "organized", "organization", "penalize", "recognized". However, these spellings were present when the article was first created in 2001 which strongly suggests that the original author intended for the article to be written in US English. If this is the case then surely we should respect that and leave the dates alone? (P.S. I think "synchronized skating" is always spelt with a 'z'.) Kind regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rodney Baggins. Apologies for the slightly delayed reply. I have now changed the dates on the Figure Skating article to the mdy format. I don't have strong feelings either way whether the article is better in the dmy or mdy format. But either one of them is better in my view than a jumbled up mixture of the different date formats, which was the case before. This is because of guidelines at WP:CITESTYLE, which state: "Citations within any given article should follow a consistent style". Therefore, I think either the dmy or mdy format is preferable to an inconsistent style. If anybody has any objections to it now being in the mdy format, I'll take those views on board and will try to seek consensus on the article's talk page as to which of the two styles most editors feel is the best one to use. If nobody objects to my edit today, then I think it's better now in the mdy format. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Kind Tennis Fan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandalised for the third time[edit]

Hello Kind Tennis Fan,

One of my pages has been changed by a user who repeatedly removes true information and substitutes irrelevant information. You restored the page the page for me a couple of times, last year and earlier this year. Could you please help me again? I will enable my email contact in Wikipedia, so that we can discuss this by email if you prefer. SurveyorMJF (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Now, several hours later - It's OK. I have restored the page now (for the time being, anyway). So please do not bother about it, Kind Tennis Fan. ... Seasons Greetings to you and yours. SurveyorMJF (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you SurveyorMJF. I'm pleased that the article page is now ok again. Seasons Greetings to you as well. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Liam Fox[edit]

Thank you for your series of constructive edits to Liam Fox, which together make the article more encyclopaedic. If you collect barnstars or whatever, yer out of luck - I don't have any and I don't want any :-) MrDemeanour (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you MrDemeanour for your appreciation of the edits. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Kind Tennis Fan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

HardSunBadMoon (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you HardSunBadMoon for your nice Christmas greetings. Wishing you also a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in 2019. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


Daily Mail sources got blacklisted, but I don't see source from blacklisted nor do I see mirror blacklisted in the same format. Also verifying that the sources are not gossip pieces or opinions, if they are more factual, reporting a game. They should be okay, but it's best to leave a source until you find a new one otherwise you are leaving content unsourced which is bad form. Govvy (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Govvy. Which article are you referring to please? If it's a biography of a person, as per guidelines at WP:BLPSOURCES, tabloid sourcing should not be placed in the article. Even if it's not a biography, "The Sun" tabloid newspaper (or "") has been discussed by Wikipedia editors in detail and the conclusion reached from editors is that it's not a reliable source. Other tabloids, such as the Daily Mirror are also not encouraged as reliable sources by the Wikipedia community.
Please see guidelines at WP:VERIFY, which state: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."
I usually do indeed add a temporary "citation needed" tag to an article, especially a biography, if it has tabloid sourcing, rather than specifically remove content. Please do feel free to take up any concerns you have with the tabloid sources being removed from the article you were concerned about at the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard" at the link WP:RSN. The admin there will be able to take up your concerns. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to Ray Wilkins article, the sun source was just showing some facts about him, Not all Tabloid journalism articles are gossip, opinions, rags, there are some good sources that can be used. WP:DAILYMAIL doesn't state blocking in it's close on the RfC. Govvy (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, the Noticeboard has a lot of people not fact checking the source for which they are discussing. Each citation should have it's own weight, if for any reason you feel a source shouldn't be used, then that should be stated, but at the moment there is no total blacklist of every Sun Newspaper (online articles), this RS policy business to blacklist a whole industry that has been in print for over 100 years. That's just wrong, more common-sense is needed. Govvy (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Govvy. The Sun was deprecated in 2019. Please see WP:RSP (underneath the section: Sources) which states: "There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article."

There has been a community consensus to deprecate The Sun as a source, like the Daily Mail. The use of the source is generally prohibited. An edit filter is in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. Despite this, I have left your edit in the Ray Wilkins article intact for the time being, until a better source can be found. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


Could I make a suggestion ? ... instead of simply removing sources could you instead first atleast look for replacement sources ?,
The sourcing {[6][7][8]} took me 10 minutes tops .... It would've been far more productive if you replaced these yourself instead of relying on others,
If you have no desire to actually put any work into this Encyclopedia then it might be a good idea if you found another hobby.
Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 01:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Davey2010. Could I please ask that you spend a few minutes to check my contribution history to look in more detail at many of the 45,000+ edits that I've made so far. If I may say so, I think your comment that you've said of me: "If you have no desire to actually put any work into this Encyclopedia" is rather disrespectful towards me for the very large amount of work that I have indeed put into the encyclopedia. If you could take the time first to check many of my 45,000+ edits you'll see that among other things, I have:
  • Fixed numerous cite errors.
  • Filled in and tidied thousands of references.
  • Reverted numerous acts of vandalism.
  • Edited many articles for a more neutral point of view, as per guidelines at WP:NPOV and WP:OPED.
  • Made over 100 edits on the Cristiano Ronaldo article and over 60 edits at Rafael Nadal, to give two examples of BLP's for prominent sportsmen that I've improved the overall quality of.
  • Checked numerous references to ensure that content was verifiable, as per WP:VERIFY.
  • Ensured that many articles are compliant with MOS:PARAGRAPH and the Manual of Style.
  • Supplied new and reliable sources for many articles.
  • Given polite and hopefully some helpful advice to many newcomers and IP editors, always ensuring that I'm WP:CIVIL to everyone.
  • Gave some articles a major clean-up, such as at South Shields, for which the editor DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered later said on my talk page: "Fantastic tidy up - many thanks" and at Liam Fox, for which the editor MrDemeanour said on my talk page: "Thank you for your series of constructive edits to Liam Fox, which together make the article more encyclopaedic".
To address your points about my trimming of a few unreliable sources at the article London Zoo and replacing those with temporary citation tags, which I could've found new sources for at a slightly later date, but you have found the new sources yourself:
These were unreliable references as per Wikipedia guidelines. My edits were entirely compliant with guidelines at WP:VERIFY, which state: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.
I did not remove any of the poorly sourced content at London Zoo. I only trimmed a few unreliable sources and placed a citation needed tag as an interim step, as per guidelines at WP:VERIFY.
The temporary citation needed tag can serve the purpose of also alerting the editor who put the poorly sourced content into the article, to let him or her know, when reading the article, or the article's history, that the particular material requires a reliable source. If nobody had provided a reliable source after a period of time, I certainly would've been willing or able to find new sources, but as it happens you provided those new reliable sources yourself.
Guidelines at WP:VERIFY state: "When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page."
I did give my rationale in the edit summary, which provides an explanation to other editors who may not be sure of guidelines on reliable sources.
I stated in my edit summary: "The content on IMDb is user-submitted, and the site is therefore considered unreliable. Please see WP:RSE and WP:GOODREFS and "Please note that blogs are not encouraged as good sources for Wikipedia references. Please see guidelines at WP:RSE and WP:GOODREFS."
The guidelines at WP:VERIFY are clear that: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
As per guidelines, IMDb is not a reliable source, as it is user-submitted. My recent edits at London Zoo were compliant with one of the core Wikipedia principles of WP:VERIFY.
Would you agree that there is nothing that I did at London Zoo which was against specific Wikipedia guidelines by placing temporary citation needed tags for the poorly sourced content and that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material (although I would've been quite happy and willing at a later date to find new sources.)
To give just two recent examples in the last few days of where I provided new references.... At London Bridge, I removed a poor source and replaced it with a full citation to a more reliable source. At Ribena, I introduced a new citation to a sentence that was unsourced.
Over more than five years, since July 2013, as a Wikipedia editor, and over 45,000+ edits, I've put in a great many hours of work to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, improve many articles, counter vandalism and ensure the encyclopedia is compliant with guidelines. Having put in that effort, I do feel that I deserved a bit more respect than your inconsiderate comment, "If you have no desire to actually put any work into this Encyclopedia then it might be a good idea if you found another hobby."
I note that last year in 2018, Davey2010, you were given a block for "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy". Please try to be more WP:CIVIL to people like me on their talk pages.
I'd be grateful please if you could take the time to look in more detail at my contribution history at Wikipedia since July 2013, see that I've fixed many hundreds of references and added many references to reliable sources and then be good enough please to acknowledge that I have indeed put work and effort into the encyclopedia. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mischa Barton[edit]

I notice your trimming of the Mischa Barton article. It used a blog as a source, which looks bad at first, but that same blog was itself referenced by the preceeding Huffington post article because they were properly attributing the quoted text. It looks to me like a Wikipedia editor was merely trying to b thorough and diligent by adding the ultimate original source of the quote, not only the Huffpost reprinting of it. The Huffpost article could be used as the source of the entire paragraph including the bit you trimmed.

I would encourage you to restore the description of the photoshoot, which provides some context. Alternatively you might edit the text to indicate that it was a "meat themed photoshot". -- (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your message. I have now edited the text on the Mischa Barton article to include that it was "meat-themed" using the existing Huffpost reference. However, blogs are generally not encouraged as good sources. Guidelines at WP:GOODREFS state: Blogs, social media and fan sites are not usually acceptable. Huffpost is acceptable and so I used that as the reference. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
(Blogs not ideal but better than Twitter.) -- (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Date format changes by script[edit]

Thanks for your effort to improve date formats in Transgender history. I undid this edit for several reasons: because dates in the article were already compliant per MOS:DATEFORMAT, because usage was consistent throughout the article, and because the script also changed valid date formats inside citations that are not subject to MOS:DATEFORMAT but to WP:CITESTYLE (for example: in citations, yyyy-mm-dd is valid). There were three non-compliant (but not invalid) dates in the citations involving abbreviated months (e.g., "Feb 2006"); these have been corrected. The dd month yyyy format is more universal than the month dd, yyyy but MOS:DATETIES doesn't apply to this article, therefore, MOS:DATEVAR does. There would be no problem using that script to retain the already consistent and compliant usage in the article, but using a script to change every date occurrence in the article to a different date style is contrary to manual of style recommendations. Please ensure when using this (or any) script, that you do not overturn compliant and consistent usage. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mathglot. Apologies, I should have used the predominant MDY format for the script. As you have stated: "There would be no problem using that script to retain the already consistent and compliant usage in the article" – I have therefore used the MDY format on the script now for the article, as per guidelines at MOS:DATEUNIFY which state:
Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be: the format used in the article body text, an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body, or the format expected in the citation style being used (however, all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided).
For example, publication dates within a single article might be in one, but only one, of these formats (among others):
Jones, J. (20 September 2008)
Jones, J. (September 20, 2008)
The citation dates were not in a consistent style. They had a mixture of MDY and DMY dates. I have therefore used the script for the MDY format, as per MOS:DATEUNIFY. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. You’re correct about the citation dates; I haven’t reexamined the article but I assume it is now as you say, so we’re good. Thanks for taking care of this, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


Can you make a reflinks to Warner Music Group? Because the page is semi-protect. 2402:1980:8251:2C71:2431:214B:7439:488C (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I have done that today. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)