- 1 Disambiguation link notification for September 7
- 2 Nomination of Elisabeth Troy for deletion
- 3 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 4 Neil Diamond
- 5 Phil Collins
- 6 For real?
- 7 Anoraknophobia GA nomination
- 8 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 9 January 2018
- 10 Nomination of Ralph Salmins for deletion
- 11 Lloyd George
- 12 Strange edits
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frankie Sinatra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page My Favorite Things. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Nomination of Elisabeth Troy for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisabeth Troy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Launchballer 12:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
The Billboard page for best selling contemporary artists isn't rendering correcting on mobile or desktop, but I checked the charts not long ago after another editor altered Neil Diamond's stats. I'm sure the error on Billboard will be fixed. But Billboard is the definitive source for chart history and sales - they're the only organization that has tallied the numbers from prior to and including the Soundscan era, at least in the US. AllMusic likely got the info from the Wikipedia article. Billboard link is is here. Julie JSFarman (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that if we have a better source than AllMusic which says second, we can use that. However, I am finding the Billboard page does not verify the information that he is second, while the Allmusic source says third, so we should use that until we have confirmation of second. 19:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am really not interested in Paul Heaton, a man who undoubtedly spreads hatred (and may be a sick one, yes). I know nothing more about him and in fact I don't need to. I just thought the same as previous speaker(s) that there is too much criticism about Phil Collins. Not only in the article, but in general. Some people obviously found in him a public enemy and constantly give vent to their bad emotions and frustration by witch-hunting Collins. Some just have it this way and simply have to do such things, what a man can do? I don't question that those informations are reliable and have sources. But are they really worthy or necessary? And what is the real purpose to place such info in wikipedia - is it positive? Let the freedom of speech have any boundaries and let those boundaries be set by wisdom. Consider it please.
- The fact is that you SHOULD be interested in Paul Heaton because he is actually a very well known and critically acclaimed singer-songwriter in the UK. Lots of people own his work, he was the driving force in one of the most successful British bands of the 1990s, The Beautiful South, and when he brings an album out, he gets a lot of publicity, including TV and radio appearances. If the criticism of Collins in a song was by a folk singer nobody had heard of, I might agree with you. Rodericksilly (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- So I see that I OVERRATED you and your mind is actually closed. Believe me, in my country some Paul Heaton is commonly same nobody as any John Doe. Similarly like The Beautiful South (I actually know the band, anyhow, and it's a very poor band). However, the English version of Wikipedia is dominating over all and should be a model. I didn't convince you, you definitely didn't convince me. Pity. Seems that such situations/conflicts about the article may be appearing in the future.
- And one more thing: wishing someone to die you call "criticism", this is your world view, really???
@Dennis Lance: Carry on up the Charts, a greatest hits album released in 1994 before they released bigger hits was reported to be owned by 1 in 7 British households. I'd say he's important.188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I honestly thought it was its own genre like symphonic metal was. I was unaware that the article was no more, I haven't visited it since before July. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 12:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think a decision was made by somebody to delete the symphonic rock article as it was mostly just original research with little reliable sourcing. The progressive rock page now states in its introduction that symphonic rock is just an alternate name for progressive rock. Rodericksilly (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Anoraknophobia GA nomination
Hi. I recently reviewed the article on the Marillion album Anoraknophobia for its GA nomination and put it on hold after finding some issues that I think could rather easily be addressed. The editor who improved and nominated the article, Vlattenham, seems to have just up and stopped editing a few weeks ago. I have sent him an email but, whether he responds or not, I am reaching out to you as well since you did some work on that article afterwards, and I wonder if you'd be interested in or inclined to address the issues I raised during the next week regardless of whether or not Vlattenham decides to return and do it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Your recent editing history at Bohemian Rhapsody shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Ralph Salmins for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Salmins until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SanAnMan (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The article is written in British English, not American English, so First World War and Second World War should be used, and not World War One and World War II. See WP:ENGVAR. Also, Not only is there no need to "fix" redirects, as you have been doing, it is in fact discouraged. See WP:DONOTFIXIT. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what you're playing at on Matthew Wright, removing uncontroversial statements rather than a) trying to find a source, or b) adding a "citation needed" tag. In addition, your removal of the essential details of his joke about a murder suggests that you want the article to be favourable to its subject. If you have a conflict of interest, you should declare it. I will put back the uncontroversial statements you removed; if you think there's a reason to remove them, please say what it it. Reedsrecap (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- "your removal of the essential details of his joke about a murder suggests that you want the article to be favourable to its subject. If you have a conflict of interest, you should declare it." You've some need to talk, given that you removed the 'Controversies' section as biased against the article subject, which suggests that YOU want it to be favourable to its subject and may have a conflict of interest yourself. Try looking in the mirror before accusing others. Rodericksilly (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I did not remove any of the claimed controversies from the article. I merely placed them in chronological order. You, though, removed material to conceal the nature of the joke he told. Why did you do that?
- Also, your edit summary "given the other editor is so sanctimonious, they might at least have bothered to put dates here" was a personal attack, and suggests that you are unaware of the bot that dates maintenance tags. I did not need to date them, and neither did you. Reedsrecap (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)