![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | → | Archive 90 |
Hi Ritchie. I contacted you a while back re- the Beatles White Album. This item is nothing to do with you, but unfortunately I can't see how to get it corrected by using the edit facility on the Wikipedia page. You are the only 'contact' I have!
It's an incorrect Football League Table for the (English) 1967-68 season. I'll give the details so that if you could kindly forward to the correct person(s) they have all the info., though it's pretty self explanatory.
Wrong table is shown here: /info/en/?search=1967%E2%80%9368_Football_League
Errors: (scroll to First Division Table) Liverpool (3rd) and Leeds United (4th, also winners of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in 1967-68) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, NOT the 1967-68 tournament (!)
Chelsea (6th) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. According to the table they did not qualify for European football the following (1968-69) season.
Newcastle United (10th) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. According to the table they did not qualify for European football the following (1968-69) season.
Nottingham Forest (11th) qualified for the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. Again, wrong season. The final league position in 1967-68 may determine whether you qualify for European football the next season, in this case 1968-69.
However, this alternate Wikipedia page also shows the 1967-68 First Division table and it is 100% correct, and also gives an explanation under the table as to who qualified and why, shown as Notes [a] [b] [c] and [d]
/info/en/?search=1967%E2%80%9368_in_English_football
So the correct First Division table shown on the second link simply needs to be pasted over the incorrect First Division table in the first link.
Unfortunately I couldn't see how to do that via the Edit tab, so I bothered you. Sorry about that.
Regards Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1959 ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The table has been amended to show Nottingham Forest (11th) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. As of yesterday, this table showed them qualified for the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. This would have been impossible lol. Think about it. Nottingham Forest did not compete in the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. They competed in the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, and this was acheived by finishing second in the First Division at the end of the 1966-67 season.
Sir Sputnik - you're quite right with your link. It shows Nottingham Forest competed in the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, but they acheived this by finishing second in the First Division in 1966-67. (Sorry to repeat myself but I can't understand the confusion here) They did not compete in the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup tournament. The four English clubs who did were Liverpool, Leeds United, Chelsea & Newcastle United. http://www.rsssf.com/ec/ec196869.html#icfc
I'm repeating myself again here by borrowing from my first message yesterday, but Wikipedia are already showing the correct final table for the English First Division at the end of the 1967-68 season on another page. It's found here: /info/en/?search=1967%E2%80%9368_in_English_football
It correctly shows Manchester City (champions) and Manchester United (winners of the 1967-68 European Cup tournament, therefore the current holders) qualified for the 1968-69 European Cup tournament.
It correctly shows Liverpool (third) and Leeds United (fourth) as qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. Note, Leeds United won the inter-Cities Fairs Cup in 1967-68, so the English First Division had four participants in the 1968-69 tournament, the default three based on final league positions at the end of the 1967-68 season, plus Leeds united as the current holders.
It correctly shows Chelsea (sixth) as qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup.
It correctly shows West Bromwich Albion (eighth) qualified for the 1968-69 Cup Winners Cup (having defeated Everton in the Final of the 1967-68 FA Cup tournament).
It correctly shows Newcastle United (tenth) as qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup.
It correctly notes that Everton (fifth) failed to qualify for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup due to Liverpool's third place finish, as per the one-club one-city rule.
It correctly notes that Tottenham Hotspur (seventh) and Arsenal (ninth) failed to qualify for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup due to Chelsea's sixth place finish as per the one-club one-city rule.
This /info/en/?search=1967%E2%80%9368_in_English_football is correct.
This /info/en/?search=1967%E2%80%9368_Football_League is incorrect and misleading.
Final repeat of what I've already suggested, that the incorrect table is simply replaced by the correct table with the applicable notes of explanation.
Cheers, Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1959 ( talk • contribs) 11:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC) -- Keith1959 ( talk) 13:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, forgot to mention, it clearly notes that Nottingham Forest (eleventh) did not qualify for the 1968-69 edition of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, or the 1968-69 European Cup, or the 1968-69 Cup Winners Cup. Nothing, just finished eleventh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1959 ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) -- Keith1959 ( talk) 13:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
And also forgot to sign the above 2 messages Keith1959 ( talk) 13:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The article
Victoria line you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Victoria line for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Vincent60030 --
Vincent60030 (
talk) 14:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, regarding your decline of Sliver records on the basis of "has sources": a spam-sized flood of links to the company's own promotional materials and routine listings (see Steve Martin in The Jerk finding his name in the phone book and crying in glee "I'm famous!" or something like that) isn't remotely a claim of significance. Instead, it's pretty much an abuse, close to, if not squarely situated in, G11 territory. Largoplazo ( talk) 14:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
On 27 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Witch's Promise, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that " The Witch's Promise" is the only Jethro Tull single to feature a Mellotron? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Witch's Promise. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, The Witch's Promise), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih ( talk) 00:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The article
Victoria line you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Victoria line for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Vincent60030 --
Vincent60030 (
talk) 13:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
On 1 October 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Geoffrey Hayes, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a little known fact that a namesake of mine actually named his band after this TV series. In particular, he found Zippy a key influence on his personality. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Devastating!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tip of the Day Barnstar | |
A forensic dissection of the many meanings of Fuck Off —— SerialNumber 54129 11:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
Now...fuck off. —— SerialNumber 54129 11:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
On 29 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Renee Powell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Renee Powell was the first female golfer to compete in a British men's tournament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Renee Powell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Renee Powell), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih ( talk) 00:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
On 28 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Saturday Zoo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jonathan Ross in Saturday Zoo (1993) was described as "humour-resistant Teflon"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Saturday Zoo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Saturday Zoo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih ( talk) 00:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333, as an interface administrator I wanted to let you know that there are two pages you should consider watch-listing: Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard and User:AnomieBOT/IPERTable. The later is a bot-generated table of all outstanding interface edit requests that you may be able to handle. Thank you for your continuing support of Wikipedia! — xaosflux Talk 14:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Carol Kaye you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
100cellsman --
100cellsman (
talk) 19:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. An interesting edit was made at the Meghan Trainor article 3 hours after I nominated it for GA status. It changed Trainor's profession from singer-songwriter (which there is long-standing consensus for [1]) to singer and songwriter. Do you think this constitutes an IBAN violation since I had GA nominated it hours before this? Thankful for your help. Will add a ping for Drmies since they're familiar with this situation.-- N Ø 17:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@ MaranoFan: Sorry for the belated response, but I have blocked Winkelvi indefinitely as a clear and obvious violation of the two-way interaction ban. If you want somebody to do the GA review, I can give it a go, or see if one of the GA stalwarts at Women in Red like SusunW are interested in doing a popular culture review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Old Street station 1920.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 09:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic . Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 09:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic . Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 09:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a Sydney based journalist and I am writing a feature story on Wiki editors and administrators who make changes/reports of high profile people's deaths. Any chance you can contact me via email if you're keen to learn more? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journo10 ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, you deleted the page Syed Ghulam Moinuddin Gilani after deadlock on its deletion request talk. I wanted permission to create a new page under the same title as I have better citations now.
Zaydbinumar ( talk) 15:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic . Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 09:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
However, the reasons why I was wanting to raise the sourcing and metadata quality are threefold :
If processing a lot of images in this way is "disruptive", I'd appreciate some mentoring support or guidelines on how to make it less so, especially given that as a human reviewer, I can (and have) made mistakes or errors of analysis and reasoning which result in tags or notifcations which may be percived as badgering (or vexatious) as you and others have described.
ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 13:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I do think someone else needs to review the wording of some templates (And possibly the advice on when to use them), TWINKLE also needs an overhaul, (but of course the users of semi automated tools are still ultimately responsible for HOW and WHERE they are used).
Also would it be possible to have a multi-image/issue selector tool? That way the "wall" of notications could be be avoided, as the tool would let various issues be selected en-masse, and an image patroller could "batch" up requests, into ONE notifcation, perhaps for some uploaders containing ALL the media with issues that had been identified or flagged.
Alternatively (And possibly combined with the above), perhaps an upload "dashboard" (An extension of Special:ListFiles) for users would be helpful, so that rather than seeing a wall of notifcations on the talk page, you get a 'bell' style notification in the UI, which links to the relevant concern in the image dashboard. This would also allow for the consideration that some people don't read their talk pages often, but do respond to the 'bell' or 'tray icons. (Not all CSD notifications or image tagging operations generate notifications, my custom notifcations)
Perhaps we can discuss this in more detail, or are you able to summarise some of the things I rasise into an RFC? ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 11:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
If someone is able to extend VFC, so that it can be used as "per uploader", "multi-image", "multi-issue", one mass notifcation tool though ... ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 12:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you (possibly belatedly) for your contribution to Wikipedia.
Whilst it's almost certainly, not something you could have necessarily foreseen when you uploaded, it appears some media you previously uploaded appears to be currently sourced to a dead link. This isn't your fault as linkrot occurs on a regular basis.
I am leaving this message to encourage you to revisit this upload with a view to finding an archived copy of the media (such as from a site like) archive.org, or to provide additional information which would allow a replacement to be located if needed.
Please consider revisiting it and replace the reference with a link to an archived copy on site such as archive.org, or provide additional information which would allow a replacement source to be located.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further please use the Talk page for the media concerned.
ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 09:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
There are at least half a dozen things wrong with this comment. In order: 1) Volunteer project, nobody is holding him at gunpoint forcing him to deal with the vandal. It's his choice whether he does so or not. That's true of editors, and it's true of admins. 2) Unless his parents are entirely incompetent, they will ask what him the hell he is doing and then have their jaws smack the floor when they find out that Wikipedia allows porn on articles linked from the main fucking page. Seriously, why on God's green Earth aren't TFAs and anything else linked to from the main page at least semi-protected? That's a reputation hit for Wikipedia, not for the kid... unless they conclude that their kid is the vandal... but that's beside the point. 3) He's sixteen, the likelihood that he's seen worse stuff then that by now is very nearly 100%. No citation needed because BLUE. 4) He has rollback rights, he can't be "caught" mid-revert because there is no mid to speak of. Even if there was a mid to speak of, i.e. manual revert, then he'd be in source editing mode and the only thing his parents would see is text. Alright, I only have a third of a dozen criticisms, but I felt the need to criticize the arguments because they are unconvincing. Actually, 5) He could be fighting the vandal without admin rights, and his parents could still catch him "mid-revert" (presuming that a mid to speak of existed... which it does not). Right, 5/12ths of a dozen problems. Other than that, I think we could all see the snow falling into the volcano from base camp. Mr rnddude ( talk) 21:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | On 3 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Women in brewing, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that women brewsters were the primary producers of beer before commercialization of the industry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Women in brewing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The article
Carol Kaye you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Carol Kaye for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
100cellsman --
100cellsman (
talk) 01:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Victoria line you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Vincent60030 --
Vincent60030 (
talk) 13:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your posting here, I think this situation warrants a re-look. The two cited sources are the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Dallas Morning News, which don't appear to be gossip tabloids if you look at their Wikipedia entries. One of them is a major regional paper, and the other is among the top 20 papers in paid circulation nationwide in the United States as well as having won nine Pulitzer prizes. Concerningly, the "SKSLaw" account is a textbook WP:SPA account, having made a total of 7 edits, all to the Hollywood Forever Cemetery article, claiming that Brent Cassity has never been a part owner in Hollywood Forever Cemetery, and alleging that the material constitutes slander and defamation. "SKSLaw" is Stearns Kim Stearns, which is a litigation firm located in Torrance, California, about 25 miles from Hollywood Forever Cemetery (Google them to see their website, it's blacklisted on Wikipedia so I can't post the link here on your page). Their position that Brent Cassity has never been a part owner of the cemetery is contradicted by the two cited sources. Given that the two reliable sources support the contention that Cassity was indeed a part owner and that a Ponzi scheme was involved, can you articulate what the precise BLP violation was here with regard to the content at issue? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 01:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
"In 2010, Brent Cassity and his father, along with several others, were indicted for running a Ponzi-like scheme stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from pre-need funeral contracts. Authorities later found that the money the brothers invested in the cemetery came from the proceeds of the scheme."Given the above, what concerns (if any) would you continue to have about this content being included in the Hollywood Forever Cemetery article? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 12:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The article
Carol Kaye you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Carol Kaye for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
100cellsman --
100cellsman (
talk) 23:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333. I think there's a possibility for a couple DYK hooks from an article I recently created, 1986 Mount Hood Disaster. I was really surprised to see Wikipedia didn't already have an article on this. I'm not sure how to create the DYK template or hooks, so I was hoping you could show me how? Thanks for any help, and thanks again for all the help on the Luitpoldpark article. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)