User talk:Rodney Baggins

Archives

WPBSA

That the WPBSA was "founded in 1968" is found in multiple sources, e.g. the Association's own site, the BBC, and Morrison's Encyclopedia of Snooker. However, I believe, as per sources quoted in that article and in Rex Williams, that the PBPA was revived rather than founded in 1968, disaffiliated from the BA&CC from 1 October 1970, and was renamed the WPBSA on 12 December 1970. The difference is perhaps not that important, and there are good sources that can be quoted for founded in 1968, but just a heads-up in case this is relevant to getting snooker to FA - that article is already much improved! Let me know if you want any help with snooker sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Benny :) I must admit I was a bit confused earlier! It's probably acceptable to say the WPBSA was founded in 1968, especially as reliable sources (including their own website) carry this as fact, even though they were never actually known by that name until 1970. There's a chance this might come up in the FA if anyone notices the anomoly. Another thing that's bothering me is that we keep saying the first world championship took place in 1927, even though it actually kicked off in November 1926 and ran over into the next year, with the final in May 1927... Do you have any thoughts on that, or any sources that say anything about it actually running over six months? Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This must be the only weird naming anomoly in the snooker world... It's not like the 1971 World Snooker Championship took place in 1970 or that the World Snooker Tour is run by the World Snooker Tour. :P. I agree we can mention the date anomoly, but the lede could read "The World Snooker Championship has taken place since the 1927 event" and in the body "The first World Snooker Championship was organised by Joe Davis, held from November 1926 to May 1927 known as the 1927 Professional Snooker Championship." for example. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that what we call the 1927, 1969, 1971, and 1972 events probably weren't referred to with those prefixes at the time. I guess that after the challenge years it's only from 1973 that it was really re-established as an annual championship. The Park Drive Official Snooker And Billiards Year Book, published between the 1972 and 1973 championships, refers to the "1970 (April)", "1970 (Nov.)" and "1971-2" tournaments, and doesn't attach a year to the title of the 1973 event, which has its dates and seedings included there, just calling it the "Park Drive World Professional Snooker Championship".

Looks like it wasn't even originally expected to be annual: in the announcement for the "Professional Championship of Snooker" (that "any professional billiard player" was eligible to enter) in The Billiard Player of October 1926, it states that "The holder shall retain his title until (1) He resign; (2) He is beaten in a match under championship conditions approved by the Billiards Association and Control Council; (3) He refuse to defend his title against an approved challenger." I'll add anything I find that I think may be useful for the article to the snooker talk page. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy wikiversary

Hi Rodney - three years, eh? I didn't quite realise we'd been on the site for such a similar amount of time (I was a October 2017 guy). Maybe your superior wording and copy editing prowess made me assume you had been here significantly longer than I (somewhere you said you did professional copyediting? I may have dreamt that though).

Just a quick message to say you've been doing a grand job, especially helping me out at snooker, as well as Mark Selby and the 2019 World Snooker Championship. Keep up the good work! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Lee! Doesn't time fly, it only seems like 5 minutes ago that I took those first tentative steps into the Wiki world – it all seemed a bit daunting at first but now it's like a second home. Yes, I knew you had "joined up" a few months before me. I was a professional technical writer (slash copy editor) for quite a few years, still am I suppose, except I decided to take on less freelance work and I gradually drifted into "early retirement". I've thoroughly enjoyed working on the snooker project, especially with you and Benny, and it's sparked a renewed interest in the sport which started for me back in the 1980s when I was a youngster (and possibly before you were even born)! I'm gonna catch up with the German Masters this weekend, but I find it quite bizarre that it's happening in Milton Keynes, like everything else these days (the players must be getting so sick of that place). Later today I'll be putting some stuff on the Snooker peer review page for you to mull over. Cheers for now, Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, certainly before I was born (I'm from 1991)! It's a bit odd for me writing about some events that are very well known, but happened before I was born. I obviously got into snooker at the late 90s, which will be a target soon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Munich air disaster

Hello there Rodney. I am a new user who recently edited the page for the Munich air disaster. I added the names of all the victims because some were missing ahead of the anniversary of the disaster. You deleted my contributions, and rightly so, because my reference was next to a heading, and there can be no section links. Can you tell me where to put my reference if it cannot go next to the heading and should not come after every new name (I got them all from the same source)? I am new so I would appreciate your help, especially before the anniversary of the disaster tomorrow. Thank you very much for your help. Cheers, Jmanc2658 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmanc2658, sorry to have undone your first edit as a new user, but the alarm bells rang as soon as I saw the link in the section heading. I will add the names back in and make the necessary changes to incorporate your source. I have a better source for the journalists though so I'll use that instead. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for posting on my Talk page. Kind regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I made a start on this but it all got reverted by another user, see below. I sort of had it in the back of my mind all along that non-notable entries were probably not generally allowed, but thought as it was such a famous tragedy, people might be keen to know exactly who the 23 were and we might make an exception, but clearly not... Kind regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning

The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions-

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_705 Go to section Names of victims and survivors.

Plus see ANI discussions here[1] and here[2]. Most of those discussions took place in the last two years. There is one exceptiot- the cockpit crew of the aircraft involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: Thank you, but I still think it might be reasonable to include sources for all entries in the Fatalities list which is another thing that I was trying to do. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Brown

Thank you very much for last night's editing. Once the dust settles on editing tonight, I would like to point out that Mr Brown won five out of seven matches in deciders, including four in a row. Kindly take a look at the article tomorrow. All the best, Splićanin (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snookerpool

I can vouch that Snookerpool is a commonly played variant in Northern England. Of course, not citable doesn't make it untrue! Essentially you have 10 reds not 15, and it's played on a standard 9ft pool table The shorter table dimensions, no nap, plus the larger pockets make it much easier to compile higher breaks There's also a version with a shot clock known as 'Snookerpool Rapide' Like I say, more of an amateur game than anything of professional standing, but it's most definitely a thing. It was on the variants list for a long time prior to this removal (and no, it wasn't me who added that!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.44.114 (talk • contribs) 5:48 pm, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see my comments on your Talk page. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to Copyedit the 2021 World Snooker Championship. I've been a bit slack at keeping up this year, and I know the prose is a little dopey in places. Thanks for taking a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lee, I do love pie! I only had a quick look while I was watching the snooker this morning and I only picked up a few little errors. It looks pretty OK for now anyway and some work on the "flow" can come later! I just landed myself a job copyediting for the RSPB, but I'm hoping it won't affect my Wiki work too much.

Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pie is king. Your work is always appreciated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are on the warpath fixing up the Selby/Murphy pages! Great work. I have compiled a list of the winners of the world championship, and their assessments at User:Lee Vilenski/Working List that may be of interest. I'd love to work on getting them all up to GA. How are you enjoying the event? I know you are a Selby fan so must be really great! I must admit, I wanted Kyren to pull it out, but I like both these guys. 18-14 for Selby is my prediction. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome, I will be tremendously happy. Murphy won in 2005, just one week after my son was born (on 24th April 2005), so he's also very special to me and I would LOVE to see him win it again! I'm hoping for a final-frame decider and an early morning finish, that would be great! Any final that doesn't involve O'Sullivan is a bonus, and yes I would have loved to see Kyren progress further this year. Am getting rather frustrated with all the re-racks. It might be worth making something out of that in the article – there must be some interesting analysis in reliable sources re. playing styles, etc. ENJOY!! Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am going to expand that semi final with the fact there were four reracks in two frames! Great win for Selby, Murphy looked fantastic, probably could have gone all the way. Too many small mistakes, probably the story of Murphy's career. Selby played really well. Completely at a loss as to what to do next, now there is no more to watch! If you do see any RS talking about the relative styles, I'd appreciate it; I've wanted to do a deep dive into that stuff for years, but it's rarely commented on, other than on the broadcast. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Because we have WP:DATEVAR. Giant Snowman 09:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Thanks, but I still don't understand. WP:DATEVAR just says "retain the formats used in the early stages of the article's evolution". It says nothing about the clever autoformatting that's done by the date format templates. The reader sees the correct date format no matter what's going on behind the scenes. Never mind.

Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I only do it as I like consistency. But the template does do this for you, see 1994 British Open when I added the template, which changed the reference dates, but not the dates used in the references. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reader doesn't always see the 'correct' format - that's what the template does. Giant Snowman 12:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "that's what the template does", then ergo, the reader (not the editors) does always see the 'correct' format. I need to get to the bottom of this for my own sanity, so I've asked a question on the Date formattings Talk page. Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker FAC

Hi Rodney! It's almost time for the FAC for snooker. I just wanted to check if we have any outstanding issues with the article, or if we are good to go when the date is set. I'd like to run from 18 July, if possible. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've been chipping away at 2021 World Snooker Championship because I noticed it was up for GAN. I can take another look over Snooker for you, but I don't think there were any outstanding biggies last time I looked. Maybe the sourcing is still not quite good enough? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the sourcing was very good. There is bound to be more sources out there, but the ones we include are clearly of good quality. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodney, just as an update (as I see you are c/e the article. My plan is to nominate this article later today. Would that be suitable for yourself? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes, I've just been checking over a few things, nothing major. I'm more than happy for you to go ahead with the nomination – Did you want me to be co-nominator? Have you noticed there's an {{fv}} tag in the History section? You might want to sort that out first. Also, ref.51 looks like it might be a dead link. And... I've used the Official Rulebook (ref.4) quite heavily and I'm pretty sure I added in the page numbers a while back, but most of them seem to have disappeared (other than hidden notes), so I'm not sure what's happened there! Maybe it would be better to put the rulebook in the Bibliography/Sources section and do sfn links from the Refs section to make it clearer. Anyway, I'll be interested to find out what FA reviewers think of it, a bit nail-biting really. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll take a look now. I'm pretty sure you did add pages, so they'll be in the history somewhere. I'll take a look. In my eyes, if people have issues at FAC, and even if it fails, then at least you've got something to work on. I'd appreciate it if you would be a co-nom as you do have a lot of work on the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Hi there, sorry I've not been much help with the snooker FAC. It looks as if you've been working very hard on it. As you know, I did spend a lot of time on it a few months ago, and now I feel that it's being slowly deconstructed, so I almost daren't look at it in too much detail (sort of joking there!) I AM planning to have a good look through all the changes but I've been a bit distracted with the Tokyo Olympics this past couple of weeks. Is there anything specific you want me to look at, or anyone you want me to nudge for comments? What about the people that commented in the peer review, or other members of the snooker project that might not have noticed it's up for review? Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left messages for anyone who partook in the peer review, although feel free if I've missed anyone. I think just be on hand for any comments we get.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Mathews.

Hello. Please could you tell me why the above's name was removed from 'Notable People' of Nottingham. Thank you. Heath St John (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for contacting me on my Talk page. There are many notable people from Nottingham, far too many to be included in the main article, which is why we have a separate article called List of people from Nottingham which is linked from the Notable people section of the Nottingham article. Lester Matthews is included in this separate list article under Stage, broadcasting and film. Placing Lester Matthews in a new subsection called "Film Star" under the "Media" section of the main Nottingham article was inconsistent with WP:MOS. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, I can accept that reason. Thank you. Heath St John (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ozidi

I wrote about editors like you! [3]

I hope you will consider looking for and adding sources to articles rather than proclaiming them "unencyclopedic." The project and its readership are worse off when you delete articles like this rather than improve them. This is especially important when you are deleting work about underrepresented cultures. Jokestress (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jokestress: I just think the Ozidi article has no encyclopedic value because it tells me nothing about Ozidi that I didn't already know from the related saga article. He is a folk hero (tick), revered by the Ijaw people (tick), and other than that it tells me nothing. Please consider merging the two articles. You wrote the Ozidi article 15 years ago, so why has it still not been assessed? If you're in the habit of populating Wikipedia with short insignificant articles, you could at least make sure they are marked as stubs. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't contributed substantially since 2013 because deletionists have taken over. You are free to continue deleting everything rather than improving things (you said both pages were equally non-encyclopedic), but I hope you will instead reconsider your editing philosophy. Jokestress (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jokestress: I didn't say that both pages were equally non-encyclopedic, just the Ozidi one, which is why I think a merge would solve the problem. I only chanced upon this via the random page (which I like to visit from time to time), so it's not really all that important to me! Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This article has no encyclopedic content that I can see and no reliable sources. It has remained unassessed for 15 years. Should probably be merged into The Ozidi Saga which is equally vague and non-encyclopedic." [4] Jokestress (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Olympics C&C

Hey. What you've written in my sandbox looks great! Mentioning the incident with Krystsina Tsimanouskaya somewhere in the last paragraph would probably be a good idea, too. Other than that, I think it looks good and is a big improvement. Good job! Kaffe42 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaffe42: OK, great, I'll go ahead and implement it per WP:BOLD. If I get opposition, maybe you could back me up. I mean, it's open for discussion on the Talk page for all to see, and no-one else has chipped in or offered to help. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to give kudos for your work on the controversy section. Been watching your progress throughout the day and evening, and it's very solid work. Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your work! Kaffe42 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaffe42: Cheers, it's been a bit of a slog but we got there in the end! Thank you so much for helping me with this. I'm not sure I could have done it on my own without someone backing me up. I must admit I was finding the prospect quite daunting at first, but your initial draft gave me an excellent base to start from. I've tried to keep the live changes as transparent as possible so we can't be accused of wading in and messing things up. Mind you, I'd be surprised if we don't get people going in and changing things, which should be fine as long as it doesn't get all long and sprawly again, so best just keep an eye on that. I added Krystsina Tsimanouskaya's bit at the end, so maybe that last para could be expanded in the next few days. Will also be interesting to see if we get any more flack from Rising Sun boy – I'm hoping that the slight change of "voice" will appease him! Thanks again, Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker

Hi Rodney, thanks for all your help getting the Snooker article up to snuff. Now at FA, it's fantastic work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lee, that is totally fricking awesome!!

I can't take any credit for the FA promotion, as you did all the hard work there, but I guess I did a lot of work getting the article up to a better standard before the FA nom... My new job with the RSPB has been keeping me incredibly busy so I've only really been able to "dabble" with Wikipedia lately and not get stuck into anything too heavy. Congratulations you!!

Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Snooker

Congratulations, Rodney Baggins! The article you nominated, Snooker, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tenerife airport disaster

Hi - I see you reverted my deletion of the "Airliner accidents and incidents caused by tailstrikes" category on this article. While I have no issue that a tailstrike occurred when the aircraft tried to take off early. I can't see how the tailstrike caused the accident, none of the reference even hint at such a situation. I suspect the creation of this category was naive and if anything a sensible category would have been "Airliner Accidents that involved tailstrikes" but that is not what it currently is and it has just been through a delete/rename discussion. Thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewgprout: Yes I understand what you're saying. The accident wasn't caused by the tailstrike but it did involve a tailstrike as a result of the KLM pilot desperately trying to lift off and over the other plane. So I agree that the category is probably at fault and I have no objection to you removing it again if you wish to do so. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview request - Random Page Patrol

Hello! I'm writing an article for The Signpost about the Random Page Patrol wikiproject. We often do interviews with Wikiproject members, and I saw your name on the list of members. As the very newest project member, but still a long-time Wiki contributor, I'd love to ask about the project, why you joined it, and what you're looking forward to. I could drop a few questions for you below which you could answer in your own time over the next couple of weeks. Let me know - thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to help but not sure how much I can tell you about the RPP project. I just thought I should add my name to the list (which I found via Wikipedia:RANPP) because I've been using the Special:Random page for a while now. I find it's a good way to discover arbitrary pages that I can then check over and improve if necessary – something I like to do when I'm bored or unmotivated! I'd be happy to answer your questions if you give me a bit of time to do it. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure what you have to say would be great. I'll drop the questions below - if you could answer them by September 20th, 10 days from now, that would be ideal. If you have any questions or clarifications, just ask. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come across the Random Page Patrol?

→ I think I just noticed the random article link on the left-hand link bar (Main page - Contents - Current events - Random article, etc.) but I can't remember how I actually found the Special:Random page. From there, I eventually followed the link to Wikipedia:Random page patrol, which is when I realised there was a project dedicated to it. There was a gap of maybe 18 months or so between first discovering the random article link to finally joining the RPP project.

Why did you decide to become a random page patroller? What do you find valuable about the project?

→ The fact that it's a random process really appeals to me. I love spontaneity and sometimes find it hard to make decisions so am happy to be guided in an unpredictable direction. It's probably the same reason that many people like using the random function when playing music. I love Wiki-editing but sometimes can't decide where to look and what to edit, so when I'm being indecisive the random article is a good way to direct my attention onto something I wouldn't otherwise have thought of.

→ There are so many millions of articles in Wikipedia that you could never hope to visit every single one. RPP gives the opportunity to explore and improve the encyclopedia without the constraints of personal choice and bias. It's a good way to discover a new subject that you never knew existed – how could you ever expect to find its Wikipedia page otherwise?

How often do you randomly page patrol? Do you use it mostly as a break from other Wikipedia contributions, or is it a major part of how you spend your time here?

→ Whenever I have the time. Maybe a couple of times a week unless I'm involved in something else on Wikipedia that I want to get on with. I haven't made RPP my main focus on Wikipedia.

→ Yes I use it as a break, a sort of relaxation exercise if you will. I'm involved with the Olympics and Snooker projects and have interests in a few other specific areas, but I like to have a diversion when I'm not in the mood for anything too heavy-going.

Are there any articles you have edited as part of the Random Page Patrol that particularly stand out in your memory?

→ Yes lots, e.g. Chicago Pile-1, Valhalla train crash, Heterodyne, Maidie Norman, Adele Addison, Patricia Frolander, Alexander Wienerberger, all of which I contributed to. These are all unrelated, diverse subjects that I wouldn't normally have come across (and I've learnt a lot).

What would you say to someone considering joining the Patrol?

→ It's fun, a nice diversion, something different to do, and can be incredibly interesting. You never know what you might find! If you're well versed in Wikipedia's MOS and style guidelines, you could make a real difference to some articles that are just sitting there unnoticed and unloved.

Is there anything else you'd like to add that I haven't asked you?

→ I was very surprised when I added my name to the RPP list because I realised there are only 138 names on it. We need more editors to get involved!! Someone needs to put an advert on the main page!!

@Ganesha811: Please see my answers above. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I'll ping you a few days before publication so you can check over the article - there may be some light editing, so I don't want to misrepresent you. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodney Baggins: - the article has been edited. It's at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report - please check it out ahead of publication on Sunday, and if you feel I've changed the meaning of any of your answers through editing, let me know and I'll fix it. Thank you again for participating! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ganesha811, that looks good to me. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

England national rugby union team Featured article review

User:Bumbubookworm has nominated England national rugby union team for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography section on Jamie Dornan article

Actually the performance article was located under the acting credits section. I think another filmography section isn't needed. 103.140.176.6 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cite document

See Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 81#"Cite document" needs its own template. Redirecting to cite journal is illogical and unfriendly. (AKA I agree with your perspective but ...)--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, my description of the effect of your edit as 'pointless' was not 'undignified' (implying a WP:NPA vio!). It was simply a statement of reality. Right now, {{cite document}} is an alias for {{cite journal}}, so changing the word from the latter to the former is indeed pointless. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
756	Scrat (talk)	Add sources
3,476	Bucharest (talk)	Add sources
181	Fluent Design System (talk)	Add sources
380	Vmlinux (talk)	Add sources
8,329	Tucker Carlson (talk)	Add sources
105	Adil Shah Suri (talk)	Add sources
31	Windows NT booting process (talk)	Cleanup
134	Devil in the arts and popular culture (talk)	Cleanup
6,808	MS Dhoni (talk)	Cleanup
237	Rosario Murillo (talk)	Expand
5,669	SpongeBob SquarePants (talk)	Expand
90	Mulan (franchise) (talk)	Expand
927	Shades of blue (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
4,497	Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
113	Name of Austria (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
32	Sulfur metabolism (talk)	Merge
1,210	Cuphead (character) (talk)	Merge
47	Influence of the IBM PC on the personal computer market (talk)	Merge
263	Renaissance magic (talk)	Wikify
435	Griot (talk)	Wikify
1,414	Prodigy (rapper) (talk)	Wikify
3	Virtual reality website (talk)	Orphan
3	Nicaraguan Indigenous Organizations (talk)	Orphan
1	Anjarak-e Bala (talk)	Orphan
10	Angola Debt and Stock Exchange (talk)	Stub
12	Mehdi Mehdikhani (talk)	Stub
17	Tielieketi (talk)	Stub
10	Edouard Van Beneden (talk)	Stub
17	Ali Al-Daqbaashi (talk)	Stub
3	Hamed Amiri (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Masters Challenge

Just a note mate, hope you are well, had a look for something to source that Scottish Open title for John. Couldn't find a thing online, nor in BNA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL – wasn't expecting that!!

Hi, yes I'm well thanks. Just wanted to tag it because the citation as it stands makes no sense to me. Was there a book published in 1993 called "The Guardian"? Just seems a bit ambiguous and not too useful. Same cite used on 1993 Scottish Masters page!

Anyway, not long to go now... what's the betting that Mark gets knocked out in his first match!? Hope you're well?

Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are completely right - it's a poor citation, and doesn't meet WP:V. Seems likely that he did win the event, but if not a single contemporary newspaper is commenting on it, is it not notable enough for inclusion to me. I think someone either made it up, or did have a source which was just copied to his page.

I saw Mark live at the Masters, and he was not good. I'd actually be surprised if he won a match this year. Money is on Robertson and Williams. Vafaei and Walden to come through qualifying, and do well. I have both those guys down for a quarter-final or better performance. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what even IS the Regal Scottish Masters Challenge? – can't find any information on it whatsoever! Was it a side-event, a bit like the old plate competition at the Worlds? Or, as you say, maybe someone just made it (and the citation) up!? The information was added by this IP user who appears to be a legitimate contributor, but User:Betty Logan questioned it at the time (here) and then left it alone.

User:DooksFoley147 added the info to Higgins' page here in May 2021. Then User:Kentbobo added the phantom source here in November 2021. Both DooksFoley147 and Kentbobo have since been blocked so this might all be bunkum. What do you think? Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those users are one and the same. I think it was a plate competition played at the event, and it does seem like it did exist, but likely a qualification tournament, such as in 1995. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A look through NewsBank and the British Newspaper Archive gives a link from the Aberdeen Press and Journal, 22 September 1993 page 20: "Snooker Regal Challenge (Motherwell Civic Centre) R.O'Sullivan (Eng) beat J.Higgins (Sco) 6–5." The Guardian link to the event is https://www.newspapers.com/clip/77201715/the-guardian/ . This clearly gives the result in the sports results section. I would think that this was the source that the person who added it tried to use but obviously they failed or did not know how to add it or just quoted the link. 80.233.86.99 (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not DookFoley? This is a very similar IP to that. I don't see how a very minor mention means this is a notable event that he won, and that it wasn't a side event, which we wouldn't usually mention. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No i am not the person you mentioned. It was given as a result in the Guardian and other papers so obviously it was not that minor or insignificant. I just gave links that people asked for. As you know well minor invitational events are on every players page and some events don't have a source at all. This event is also sourced in Snooker Scene in the November 1993 edition, page 8 80.233.86.99 (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the link I was looking for in the first place, thanks. Looks like it was clipped by User:Nigej. The question of whether the Regal Challenge was a notable event is a separate issue and I will leave that to others to decide... Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that it was more than just this one "challenge" match. Clearly no significant coverage. Almost certainly not notable IMO. Nigej (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of over-pinging Rodney, I'd agree it's very unlikely it's a notable event. I don't have a copy of the snooker scene in question, but have asked about to see what it says. Regardless, snooker scene posts all sorts of non-notable tournaments each issue. If this is a single match, it's not going to be suitable to add as a final at the very least. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what personal opinions are on events. It does not matter even if it was a single match it can count if it was sanctioned. May i point out World finals were held as single challenge matches. The 1990 Centenary Challenge was played just between Stephen Hendry and Steve Davis should that be removed because only two players were involved ?. Should we base that on opinion or sources ?. The early Irish Masters were contested with just two players should they be removed no i don't think so?. There are dozens of events we could find like that 80.233.86.99 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did question this last year because there was no trace of it in the Hayton book. I did delete it at the time and then had second thoughts and requested an alternative source instead. Obviously we'd had long-running problems with Dooks but I had not encountered him adding fake results before so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. The event itself does not seem to be notable, but it does appear to be a match played at a notable event, and one that was significant enough for a mainstream newspaper to report the result. I had assumed it was an event akin to the Benson & Hedges Championship, but that said O'Sullivan doesn't seem to have earned a wildcard for the main event, unless he did and it just isn't recorded. Betty Logan (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems much more likely it was more of a showpiece match, than anything else. These two would have been newly on the tour, but already big prospects, so I can't see it being anything else. Can't imagine it's suitable to call a "final". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reckon it's a non-notable challenge match. Daily Telegraph for 22nd September 1993 has two short paragraphs on it. O'Sullivan won the last three frames in the "Regal Challenge at Motherwell Civic Centre ... [and] pocketed the £4,000 winner-takes all prize". Looks like it was possibly televised - Burton Mail for 21 Sep 1993 has "Snooker: Ronnie O'Sullivan v John Higgins" in its Sky Sports TV listings. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issue with the result of a televised match being added to the tournament page, but unless it is recognised as an actual title it probably should be expunged from the list of finals on each player's page. Betty Logan (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Daily Mirror for 21 Sep 1993 has: Young cue-masters Ronnie O'Sullivan and John Higgins clash in a one-off game at the Motherwell Civic Centre, Scotland. The winner plays world number one Stephen Hendry in a best-of-three match. Therocket1990 (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee you have no idea it was a showpiece match you say it can't be anything else how do you know that ?. There is no logic to that conclusion. We had two links yesterday from newspapers the Aberdeen Journal and the Guardian who both published the result. Newspapers do not print the results of exhibition matches or showpiece matches. Now we have a different link from the Daily Telegraph which also references the result, We know it was the Regal Scottish Challenge and now we find out that there was prize money for the event and it was shown live on Sky Sports and this is now referenced from a different source again. The newspapers would not print the result of an exhibition and the winner would not be getting any prize money if it was an exhibition. There would be no money involved in an exhibition event at all. As it was pointed it out yesterday it is no different to the 1990 centenary challenge between Hendry and Davis. To Betty Logan I would just like to point out this event is referenced by Snooker Scene from November 1993, page 8 it was called the Regal Scottish Challenge and it was sanctioned by the WPBSA so it should be included in the players finals sections. I am sure this can be tracked down 80.233.18.96 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's covered in snooker scene - what other matches took place? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Reardon

Hi Rodney, I hope all is well. I seem to remember you mentioning that you had an interest in improving the articles of snooker players who had topped the world rankings. I was hoping to nominate Ray Reardon as a featured article candidate at some point this year, and sent it to GOCE, but the prose still isn't good enough for me to feel comfortable nominating it. (One example: 12/16 paras in the Professional career section start "Reardon...") Do you have enough interest and time to work on the article, and, assuming you are interested, to co-nominate it for FA once it's in a fit state? Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benny, long time no speak! Thanks for the message. I'm quite tied up with work these days and have only really been dabbling in Wikipedia recently. I am still very much interested in working on articles of top snooker players to improve them to FA standard, it's just a question of how much time I have to do it! I can certainly make a start on improving Reardon's prose as I've had a quick look and it has a lot of room for improvement. Yes, I do have enough interest, maybe not so much time, but would be willing to have a go at FA co-nom later this year. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work - this one really does deserve an FA. I've been putting off doing up the Stephen Hendry article since *checks watch* 2018 but that one needs a good ol' bit of work. The main target is to get every winner of the world championship to WT:GT. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear this, Rodney. Can't believe I once turned down the chance to play Reardon in an exhibition at Butlins as I was too nervous. A couple of years later I had no such qualms about being steamrollered by Hendry at my local club. Lee, the one I keep putting off is John Spencer. It has loads of citations, so may not need all that much work, but I never get around to it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loving the edits so far. I wish I could write well. I'm planning to add references for the footnotes, and move the notes from directly below to performance and ranking timeline, to the end notes section. (Like I did for Cliff Thorburn). Is there anything else I should do? Happy to send relevant extracts from sources over via Wikimail if there are any that you would like to refer to. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: I wish I could write well – you don't do too bad you know! Can't believe I once turned down the chance to play Reardon in an exhibition at Butlins and being steamrollered by Hendry at my local club – what impressive claims to fame those are! Anyway, I'm glad you like the edits so far. You're doing a good job of working with the sources, bibliography, etc. I had noticed that all the ISBNs needed partitioning, but you went and did that with a clever hyphenator tool, thanks for doing that! I still have a couple of sections to look at before the first copyediting pass is done. I will probably want to take another closer look through after that. Do you want me to look at John Spencer too while I'm at it? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a start start on Spencer, and yes, that would be great. I've probably got nearly all the offline sources, so I'll add details like article titles in. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found one photo of Reardon which I belive is OK to use as it's PD, but the quality is pretty poor. (It's from a British Library microfilm.) I'm not sure if it would be worth including. What do you think? The Spencer article's a bigger job than I anticipated. I've done some edits for tone and will add a little from some additional sources as well as filling in missing refs, but it could do with some help from you for tone and style. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Spencer, there are a couple of sources I'll look at, but I think the only section really lacking content is the Playing style part. The article also seems a bit unbalanced between major and minor tournaments. There may be some material in other articles like 1977 World Snooker Championship that can be tweaked and reused. (There are very few sources for 1971 World Snooker Championship unfortunately.) I'll work through adding references but I think you can continue with the copy edit whenever you like, without fear of me adding more poorly-worded stuff all over the place. If you tag any issues or raise them on on the talk page there, I'll have a go at resolving them. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Spencer article is now ready to nominate as a Good Article . Are you happy to be a co-nominator? (I don;t mind dealing with the reviewer comments myself). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I really dropped the ball on this, sorry. I can check over the Spencer article this weekend if you want to go ahead with GA nom after that. Thanks for asking me to be co-nom, but not sure how that would benefit things if you'll be dealing with all the comments yourself. Please go ahead with or without my name attached, I don't mind. But let me have another quick check over first! Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fret. I feel that your improvements are worth waiting for, and worth a co-credit. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Davis

Hi Rodney, hope you have been well! I'm thinking of taking Joe Davis to FAC with Benny, but I think the prose is currently in need of work - do you have a few minutes to do a small copyedit for me? No issues if you don't. :). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, yes I can certainly have a look at Joe Davis for you, but I'm also part way through a copyedit of John Spencer for Benny at the moment. Which would you say is more important? My time is quite limited and it can tend to take longer than "a few minutes" once I get stuck in, as you know from experience! We have Ray Reardon as an FA candidate at the moment, but so far only one taker plus yourself. What happens if you don't attract more than one or two reviewers? Is it OK to contact people who might be interested? Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose might need to give you an answer on priority, wouldn't want to speak for him. You do need to be careful not to WP:CANVAS people, but yes, you can indeed leave neutrally worded notes about getting reviews on articles. It's often the only way to get eyes on a project. Your results may vary though! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Work on whatever is of interest, whenever suits you! We're all volunteers after all. One of the issues with the Davis article is that because of expansions to the early sections, it's inconsistent between the level of detail between the billiards and snooker sections. I'll probably prune the billiards part a bit more and expand the snooker bit slightly. For both articles, please tag, or let me know about, anything that needs attention. Thanks! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BST

Thanks for the courtesy ping. Totally support any inclusion if (as you've shown) it can be justified! :) MIDI (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Ray Reardon

Congratulations, Rodney Baggins! The article you nominated, Ray Reardon, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work!

Thanks and regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased! Maybe Joe Davis next? Has just risen to top of my to do list.

Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for that. Since the Joe Davis article became a GA, lot of detail for his early life was added, based mainly on his autobiography, and a lot of detailed billiards results were added, that I think unbalanced the article. I did remove some of what I felt was excessive detail, but I still doubt that the article has quite the right balance. We could add some more on his snooker career. See what you think. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Olympic Games

I have nominated Olympic Games for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia layout

Hello good morning. I would like to ask you about the new lay out on Wikipedia. I have to say I am not really a fan of the layout. I noticed that in some snooker players profiles there is no drop down menu open and it looks very tidy, but i noticed on Ray Reardon's and Terry Griffith's pages the drop down menu is always open and it looks untidy. Is there a way of closing these drop down menus so all profiles look neat and tidy please ?. 31.200.129.208 (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for New Zealand national rugby union team

I have nominated New Zealand national rugby union team for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Negrophobia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black culture.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Higgins non-ranking finals section

Hello Rodney, how are you ?. Can you add a runners-up finish to Higgins page please ?. Judd Trump beat Higgins 5-1 in the final of the Huangguoshu Open in china this morning. The event is included in the "other events" section on the 23/24 snooker season page. Can you add the result on Higgins page please ?. Thank you 92.251.146.50 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a source for that? Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can add it in, but someone might come and remove it because it's not part of the tour and not sourced. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at source 19. The tournament is listed on Snooker.org that is where it is sourced from. I got the final score on twitter and from live scoring from a chinese site. Snooker.org will have the result added soon I would say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.146.50 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you said you don't know if it should be added. Plenty of events that have not been organised by world snooker have been added throughout the years. It does not have to be a WST tour even to be added they gave the sanction for their players to play in an event organised by the CBSA in China, as I said Snooker.org have listed the event on their site and that is the source and why it was added. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.146.50 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added it earlier. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Spencer - ready for FAC?

Hi Rodney, I was thinking of nominating John Spencer (snooker player) as a featured article candidate, once one of my current nominations is either passed or archived. Would you like to be a co-nominiator, as you were for the GA nomination? Is the article in a fit state to go forward as a FAC? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Benny, good to hear from you! I'm currently in the middle of a house move but I'd love to co-nominate John Spencer for FAC. I remember doing quite a bit of work on it last year before the GA nom, but I'll give it another once-over next week and see what sort of state it's in. Watch this space. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodney, Terry Griffiths finally made it through the FAC process, so as soon as you're happy, we can nominate Spencer. I'm happy with all the changes you've made. Let me know if there's anything I need to work on. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Benny, thanks for giving me a metaphorical kick up the bum! I've been slowly working on this but really need to get it wrapped up soon, and then we can go for FAC. Give me a couple more days and I should have it sorted. I will put any outstanding queries on the Talk page. Congratulations on Terry Griffiths by the way! Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Phew, sorry it's taken me so long to check this, life has been crazy of late. I've also been treating it as a bit of a vanity project, and have literally copy-edited the entire thing. Anyway, I've just about finished and think it's ready for FAC now, if you can just clear up the two outstanding tags in 1977–1983 section, plus my World Doubles query on Talk page. The Castle Pro event needs a tiny bit extra (just a location would do) as it has no linked article to explain it. Happy to co-nominate. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you! I've addressed those points and will go ahead and nominate it, which of course is no barrier to further improvements being made or clarifications requested. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such a shame I didn't get this ready two days sooner, then it would have been exactly one year to the day since Reardon's promotion! Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benny, the FAC seems to have stalled and we got a coordinator note two days ago. What action would you normally take? Perhaps a message on the snooker project Talk page? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodney Baggins: yes, I think a message there inviting reviews should be fine. Would you mind doing this? (See WP:CANVASS). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High five Benny! Have a great day, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High five! I might ping you in a few months about Alex Higgins... All the best, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of John Spencer (snooker player)

Congratulations, Rodney Baggins! The article you nominated, John Spencer (snooker player), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines

Thank you for reaching out to me regarding your proposed format changes for broadcasting-related timelines and you will see my reply on my talkpage.

I take your point re 'no event' entries but I have reinstated them into the tennis timeline, again to maintain consistency, not only for timelines that I created but also on many others across Wikipedia. I think the issue of 'no events' entries is a conversation worth happening and please feel free to add any further comments on my talkpage. Rillington (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wishes

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Hey, thanks for that! Hope you have enjoyed your Christmas. How are things with you? Our paths haven't crossed too much recently, but I hope we can work together again in 2024. Benny is interested in taking Alex Higgins to FAC in a few months' time, so we'll be sure to let you know when that's ready. Keep up the good work, keep enjoying the snooker (and other cue sports), keep smiling.

Happy New Year!
Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've not edited much until a couple weeks ago. I'm currently working on the Liang Wenbo article. As they are lifelong banned there's not much more that's gonna change their career.

I recently saw some artistic billiards on YouTube. My word that is some funky stuff. [5] if you want to see some crazy masse shots and the like.

g Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Rodney Baggins: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustfreeworld: Thanks, that was really kind of you. Glad to see the list on your user page has reduced by one: Health impacts of sawdust. I was 'sawly' tempted to delete that, but guess it would be rude of me!? Happy New Year to you. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Spencer (snooker player) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 February 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 18, 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild, I've amended the draft blurb and am looking forward to 18th Feb! Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fix on my user page

Thanks, much appreciated. you are doing great work on the Shackleton page too cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Shackleton

Hi, great work on the article. There are currently a number of footnotes pointing to Riffenburgh 2005 (which are raisng errors) but only Riffenburgh 2004 and 2006 in the sources. I won't hazard a guess but leave it to you to fix. Thanks Andy02124 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy02124: Thanks for spotting that error – they should be pointing to Riffenburgh 2004, not 2005. I corrected the year in the citation and totally forgot to change the sfn links, whoops. Feel free to give the article a plug at FARC if you feel it should retain its star. I'm worried if it gets demoted before the 15th Feb, it will miss out on TFA on the 150th anniversary of Shackleton's birth. Only a couple of weeks to get it back up to standard, and I've somehow managed to land myself with it! Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Shackleton

Thank you for all of your help with the Ernest Shackleton FAR. I am sorry that I was not able to give comments at the end: I got super busy in real life and Wiki-life, and ended up dropping the ball. Let me know if you need help with any other articles or have any questions. I hope you will stay involved with the FAR process. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for rescuing Ernest Shackleton for today's Main page appearance on his birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 and Gerda Arendt: I'd like to say "no problem at all!" but I must admit it got a bit hectic at the end. I was really worried the review note would still appear at the top of the article on TFA day, and started to panic a bit, hence my inappropriate ping to the TFA admins, whoops. Anyway, we got there in the end. Funny thing is, I just stumbled across Ernie's page by pure chance a few weeks ago, and then I made it my "responsibility" to rescue his star! Coincidentally, I have another TFA coming up on Sunday...

I intend to stay involved with the FAR process, as I tend to think FAs are the best of the best on Wikipedia, never mind all the other trivia & dross that give the encyclopedia a bad name. I've taken to checking out upcoming TFAs and making a few minor edits, but got myself in trouble with this one per WP:FAOWN. Whoopsie. Sometimes I can be just a bit too bold for my own good.

I've actually been toying with the idea of becoming an admin, but I think that would probably turn out to be a bit of a headache. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the efforts, and for me, just let others do the dirty jobs admins have to do, and do this special thing where you are particularly able. I met the same owner, and have learned to respect ownership (the hard way via an arb case), resulting in these recommendations. She is a great editor with health problems, therefore I try to remain kind. Did you know that I nominated the Annunciation, for Annunciation Day (of courses, I thought), and was able to prevent an Advent appearance in 2022, but gave up now when I noticed that the responsible delegate would rather listen to a FA author "in control" (as she put it) than common sense ;) - The delegate listened for Pierre Boulez (right below), but in that case I agreed with the FA author. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for John Spencer (snooker player), introduced: "This article is about three-time world snooker champion John Spencer. Spencer was noted for his cue action, which featured an unusually long backswing that provided immense cue power, allowing him to develop long-distance shots with deep screw and maximum side spin. According to Clive Everton in Billiards and Snooker magazine, Spencer's play in the 1969 World Snooker Championship final "justifiably caused gasps of amazement" from the audience."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Krukenberg's Tumour deletion

Hii sir,

Myself Dharmarajsinh and I am friend of Jayesh gohel1111 I need to ask you why did you removed that edit from wikipage of breast cancer , I know there is other page for it but it is also mentioned in that beside GIT it may also arise due to breast cancer , citations were not wrong , then you cannot just delete it , he just added these information because he is a part of medical wikiproject where he need to edit some medical topic related pages and as there are already much of information available itself he urged to added about Krukenberg's Tumour in short in relation to Breast Cancer there is nothing wrong it.

So please restore it back....I kind request to you sir. Rathod Dharmarajsinh (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Unfortunately, the addition was placed in a very prominent position near the top of the breast cancer article in the 'Types of breast cancer' section. This first section specifies the distinction between in-situ vs. invasive breast cancers, and to introduce a loosely related topic at this stage is inconsistent and destroys the structural flow. Krukenberg tumor is one of several different metastases of breast cancer, and should be mentioned lower down the article, if at all, alongside the other more prominent examples of metastases (bone, liver, lung, brain). There, it should not be explained in detail, rather a link to the main Krukenberg tumor article, with the possibility of expanding there using your additional information with source material. Personally, I might consider just adding a link to Krukenberg tumor in the 'See also' section at the bottom of the article, as it seems to be a minor consequence of breast cancer and not directly related to any of the descriptions given in the main article. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But actually it is necessary to add atleast a paragraph,for the project, adding external link to Krukenberg's Tumour is good idea but it would be great if you grant us to re-add it and if possible tell under which subtopic we may write it..... Rathod Dharmarajsinh (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathod Dharmarajsinh But actually it is necessary to add atleast a paragraph,for the project Sorry, but Wikipedia is the project that takes precedence here, not your school assignment. Rodney Baggins has presented a very clear case for why adding Krukenberg tumor to the breast cancer article is not constructive. If that doesn't go along with the directions given by your instructor, then it's your instructor's fault for not being familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 August 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for your share in the article, introduced (in 2021): "The article goes into depths about the history, how it has become a worldwide game, the rules, tournaments and the stature of the sport." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

perfect timing ;) Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Rodney Baggins! Your work on Ernest Shackleton has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]