User talk:4TheWynne/Archive 6

DYK for Nina Morrison
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

My edits on ...And Justice for All
Hi, the edit I made on the ...And Justice For All page was removed, however I don't think it should have been removed. ...And Justice for Jason is an edited version of the album that provides actual audio of the bass track from the album. There are several existing parts of the article that already discuss the missing bass track, and this would provide readers the ability to hear the album with the audible bass track. Elasticat (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , unfortunately that isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be for, which is why the edit was unnecessary. I know all about the video – I refer to it all the time for my bass covers.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Small favour
I have Template:Did you know nominations/2019 AFL Women's Grand Final up for review at DYK. If you could review it, that would be great. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  10:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey . I appreciate you asking, but I don't think I have time at the moment – I think I've had enough of an involvement in contributing to the article anyway that I may not be the best person to ask. Maybe ask someone who wasn't involved at all, like Allied45 or Aspirex? Thanks, though.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Load talk page
Joshua, please explain to me what it was that I did wrong on the Talk page of Metallica's Load? I directly quoted a passage that quoted James Hetfield and was on the main article page. If the passage that I quoted was incorrect then perhaps you should look at taking that down, no? Also, please tell me what the Talk page is for if not to foster a constructive discussion? I don't view that as vandalism. I don't know if there is an equivalent in Australia, but in the United States we have the First Amendment. Feel free to look it up if you're unfamiliar with the concept. Only fascists threaten to shut down viewpoints that they don't agree with by using censorship, banning, and book burning. Cheers! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , in what way was taking a random quote and adding "pretending, yeah, right... Cheers!" at the end "fostering a constructive discussion" – what were you actually trying to do/achieve? It looked like vandalism to me, as it would have to countless others who might have seen it.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 14:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Joshua - you obviously took the brave and honorable course of action and removed it - instead of asking me to expound on what I was saying.

As I said, it was not a random quote but directly POSTED ON THE MAIN ARTICLE PAGE BY SOMEONE ELSE.

Since you ask NOW (what were you actually trying to do/achieve?) - I think that the quote by Hetfield is the first I've heard that and if anyone could expound upon it I would appreciate it. Now I'll never get that chance because you have taken it upon yourself to silence that discussion.

I'm so glad that there are people like you looking out for "countless others". Keep up the good work, you're the winner. Cheers! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , if you want to start a talk page discussion, do it properly – start a new section instead of just adding to a random section that has little/nothing to do with the topic you want to bring up. I highly doubt that anybody was ever going to look at what you put on the talk page and actually think that you were asking what the quote meant/for anyone to elaborate on it. I didn't silence any discussion, as there wasn't one in the first place, but that still doesn't mean that you can't go back and start a discussion properly, as it's not like you've been blocked or are being prevented from accessing the page – I don't know why you're saying "Now I'll never get that chance". Additionally, I don't see what you've got to gain from responding on different talk pages to comments which are several years old, as the users who posted those comments will likely not be here to see them.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 12:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your permission to proceed, you're a real mensch. Yes, you did silence the discussion by removing it within 12 hours of my posting it and threatening to block/ban me. But, that's all behind me now. Peace out. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , alright, sour grapes, enough with the sarcasm – there was no threat, just a caution (for what appeared to be vandalism), and that's all. You don't need to ping users on their own talk pages, as they are automatically notified when they get new messages.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

My edit on Megadeth
Recently I edited on Megadeth’s page and you deleted all of it, I replaced heavy metal with thrash, I specified and included the two songs that were banned.70.15.64.235 (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The song titles didn't need to specified, as they were already mentioned in the body of the article. You don't change genres to suit your point of view (and you didn't even do it properly), and there was already a consensus in place about which genre to use in the opening sentence. You also don't need to link Metallica a second time (per WP:OVERLINK), as it's linked only three words earlier in the paragraph. Lastly, stop mucking around on my talk page – next time you want to start a discussion on a talk/user talk page, click on "New section" at the top of the page, and finish your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). Don't just edit at the top of the page thinking that's where it belongs or that's the only way I'm going to be able to see it.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t “change genres to my suit my point of view” it says right in the beginning of the page that they are part of the big four *thrash* bands70.15.64.235 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that Megadeth is one of the big four, but there is a consensus in place to use "heavy metal" in the opening sentence for Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax, as those bands have explored different metal genres in their respective careers. Slayer was discussed, but it was agreed just to use "thrash metal" in both the opening sentence and the infobox, as they've been almost consistently thrash metal. Just because they're one of the big four, doesn't mean you should just change whatever's in the opening sentence to "thrash metal" – that can easily be misconstrued as you just changing the genre to suit your point of view, particularly if you don't explain why when you make the edit.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Undo Edit of Gary Ablett Jr Page
Hi 4The Wynne,

I made a couple of edits to SoG's page that were undone. I feel that they should have been left and perhaps applied to similar pages. The change of wording 'for' in place of 'after' for finals series background colours is the correct grammar. After the finals series, by definition, is after the finals and the Home & Away matches inclusive. Using the preposition 'for' limits the stats to the finals matches only. This is consistent with the use of 'for' in the first category 'Led the league for the season only'

In actual fact, the three categories for stats should be 'Home & Away Matches', 'Finals Matches' and 'Season Matches' (Both H&A and finals combined) since these are the matches which determine the AFL Premiership Season. The AFL season should not be construed to include pre-season matches, interstate matches or International Rules matches even though some of these appearances contribute to a players stats for the year as well.

As far as the background colour of the stats are concerned, Gary Ablett Jr led the league for Brownlow votes in the years when he won the Brownlow. Why wouldn't the background colour be used to reflect that achievement? Why delete the colour? I did make an observation about the possibility of winning the Brownlow with less votes than another player but this did not occur in either season when GA Jr won the medal.

Please consider re-instating the amendments that I applied.

Please consider if these amendments might be applied more generally.

Please consider changing to 'Home & Away' to describe matches for premiership points rather than the conflicted term 'Season' matches.

Appreciate your time, Malchemist (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , clearly you didn't understand what I said in my edit summary. The "after finals only" colour doesn't apply to the finals series only (hence why "for" isn't used) – it's only used if a player leads a statistic after the finals series, but didn't lead that statistic after the home-and-away season. For example, a player that plays for a bottom-four side might lead disposals during the home-and-away season (in which case the "after season only" colour is used), but then might be overtaken by a player playing in a finals team – the "after finals only" colour would then be used for that player, as they didn't lead the statistic after the home-and-away season but did after the finals series, hence why the wording "after finals only" is used. There is no colour that applies just to the finals series.


 * As for the Brownlow colour, as I alluded to, the votes were changed from a separate table and instead added to the same statistics table (though it hasn't been applied to all articles yet), and when this happened, it was never discussed whether we'd keep the two colours (winner and ineligible) that were used at the old table, and so they were just excluded. You also can't just add a random colour without adding something explaining what the colour's for – I know it used to be formatted that way in an older table, but you can't expect a new reader who isn't familiar with the old formatting to know this.


 * Anyway, if you disagree with any of these particular formats, please bring it up at the WikiProject talk page (WT:AFL) so that they can be discussed properly, rather than just ask me to change them.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding,

You are correct that I did not understand your thoughts re the original undo. If the stats were colour coded based on the terms you suggest, then why are there three categories;


 * Led the league for the season only,


 * Led the league after finals only,


 * Led the league after season and finals

Using your logic, the final two categories are the same, so one is redundant. The inclusion of "...finals only" conflicts with the explanation as well.

As regards the background colour in the Brownlow votes column, I just applied the colour stipulated in the legend at the top of the table. It was NOT a random colour.

Applying a stated, and presumably agreed, colour is not an issue for the WikiTalk page. Maybe the wording of a confused legend is, but to my mind it is a minor grammatical edit.

However, I agree that changing/clarifying whether use of 'Home and Away' for the preliminary rounds of the season may be best addressed there, so I won't pursue that further on this page.

Thank you for your thoughts, Malchemist (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , the second and third categories aren't the same... I'll repeat, "after finals only" is only used if a player leads a statistic after the finals series, but didn't lead that statistic after the home-and-away season (hence "finals only" – how exactly does that conflict with anything?); "after season and finals" is used when a player leads a statistic after the home-and-away season and still leads that statistic after the finals series. I think it's pretty straightforward, and don't see how it's a "confused legend". Regarding the Brownlow colour, I never said that you used a random colour – I was just explaining what you'd need to do to add the "winner" colour as part of the table (the colour that you used only applies to statistics, so you wouldn't use that colour for Brownlow votes). As I said, though, it wasn't agreed to use colours in the votes column as part of the amended table, so if you want to change that (or any of the issues that you've brought up – you can't otherwise just change what you think isn't important enough to be discussed), please discuss at WT:AFL. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 23:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Burn My Eyes
Hi 4TheWynne....

I made an edit on the article for the Machine Head album Burn My Eyes. I removed alternative metal from the infobox because it was in the AllMusic genre sidebar, then you reverted my edit and left a message on my talk page saying that my edit did not have a valid reason and "does not appear to be constructive". Then I made a couple attempts to add in some genres with sources I thought were usable, but those got turned down. So why do I keep removing alternative metal? Because 1. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ALBUM IS!! It's really groove/thrash metal, but of course those can't be added without sources, right?? If one of their albums was considered alternative metal, it would most likely be either Supercharger or Catharsis. 2. The rules about using sources clearly state in its exact words: "AllMusic's genre sidebar should be avoided. Previous discussions at WP:ALBUMS and RSN have evinced that they can be incongruous with the reviewer's prose, which should take precedent over the sidebar." I'm guessing you never read those rules clearly or you think the sidebar has some reliable potential. So rather than continuing the edit fight even further, I would suggest starting a new discussion at WP:ALBUMS and/or RSN talking about whether the AllMusic sidebar should actually be used for genres or not. If the admins agree with you and decide to use the sidebar, then you may keep the alternative metal. If the admins say no to the sidebar, then those genres are out. Please take your time to consider this. Thank you and good day....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , or, alternatively, you could just find some better sources (and by better sources, I mean reliable sources which clearly state that the album is, not the band or anything else). Yes, the guideline regarding AllMusic states that the review should take precedence over the sidebar, but the reviewer doesn't give the album a genre in his review, so the sidebar is the only thing that you can use in this particular case, and the guideline doesn't recommend what to do in this instance. In short, I don't have the time to bring that up in a discussion. If you think it's really groove and thrash metal, great, but so what? Just find some reliable sources, whether they be describing the album by those genres or different ones, and then they can replace the genres currently in the infobox (because at least there's a source of some reliability there). <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 07:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You can't ever use the sidebar in AllMusic. Period. Full stop. That's the consensus on WikiProject Albums. If AllMusic doesn't give a genre in its review, it is unusable outside of critical reception. AllMusic does give evidence for thrash metal: "Machine Head's full-length debut, Burn My Eyes, successfully bridges the gap between second-generation Bay Area thrash (Testament, Death Angel, etc.) and the modern-day Pantera school of hard knocks."  danny music editor  oops 13:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , that still isn't explicitly calling the album thrash metal, but that's fine – I'm fine with the state of things now. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 14:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Metallica timeline
Had no idea about that revert 22 hours ago A.R.M. 10:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Updating of the Queensland Rail fleet status
Hello Joshua, Thank you for editing the edits I made to the Queensland Rail page, this is some of my first edits to Wikipedia so it is greatly appreciated to see people refining and generally making my work better. One thing to note on your edits though, as of yesterday (Wednesday 4/09/19) EMU 01 now residies with QR heritage at Ipswich, effectively making it part of the heritage fleet, I added this to reflect the change.

Thanks again Reef — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reef Thomspon (talk • contribs) 04:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , no worries. I understand, but a better way to go about it would be to wait until the entire fleet is no longer in service (and moved to the "Former City Network fleet" section) and then mention in the notes that EMU01 is stored at Ipswich – there's no point having the same train listed twice. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  05:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

QR "vandalism".
I did not vandalize anything, lol. I added information based on media sources. Perhaps you should be the one banned from editing. Kerrylaw61 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , do you think I'm stupid or something? If you're not here to contribute constructively, either leave Wikipedia or continue down this path and be blocked. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  13:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to know why the editing was removed
Hi there! Can you please let me know why my editing is removed by you. I edited on the basis of some reliable sources. You removed it. I edited some text as well without reading you removed it why it is so?? TopBlogIndia (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , the source you included isn't considered a reliable source, and the rest of the changes you made weren't improvements – don't just assume that I didn't read them. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  04:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a reliable source I read it then I added and rest of the changes are important that's why I added it. Please read it first then edit it without read how you removed it. Pleas read it first.


 * Did you just completely ignore what I said? Your most recent change was equally as unnecessary. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  05:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it I accept the editing. But I just wanted to know as a learning purpose how you find out the source is not reliable because as I said I checked the source and I find out it's reliable and they have added all the required information about that person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopBlogIndia (talk • contribs) 05:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyone can edit at that site, and it's poorly written – a lot of the information there was literally taken from Wikipedia. You can't just think that anything's reliable just because it contains a heap of material. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  05:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also a heap of information. In Wikipedia any one can write and how that's poorly written can you please define in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samqx136 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * See this edit summary as to why it was also removed from Bianca Andreescu's page. Also, please stop creating new sections to continue this conversation – just edit this section at the bottom of the page; further, when you do make a comment, please sign it using four tildes ( ~ ). 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  07:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Why was my edit on Gary Ablett removed?
Hi, 4TheWynne! I am confused as to why my edit on Gary Ablett was removed? I understand you removing the minor edits because it is unnecessary to add Ablett's individual stats during all his finals games!!! But, I added the entire 2010 AFL Season that was missing! If we have every other season detailed that he played, why would we leave out the 2010 Season!? Also, I believe that First Premiership & Individual Accolades is a better sub-heading in comparison to First Premiership & Team Success!! Mainly because Geelong did have team success in 2008, but Ablett took home a truckload of individual accolades, everything except the Brownlow which was featured in the next sub-heading!

Thank you for your feedback!!! Please, expand more next time!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedomSilk34 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , please, for the love of God, stop pressing Shift-1; further, please stop capitalising every word in the sub-headings, as it isn't constructive in the slightest. I don't see why it's better to highlight "individual accolades" by putting it in the 2007–2008 section heading when he won more accolades in 2009, so I don't necessarily agree that that's an improvement. Regarding the 2010 season, you were mainly just adding Geelong's performance as a team (mainly in the finals series, too), which isn't what the article was about; I've just added back the information which was relevant to Ablett, but otherwise, the rest wasn't necessary (also note that you can't use Wikipedia as a source). 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  05:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

revert on metallica for mcgovney
thanks for catching that. I misread McGovney's wiki entry and was basing it on that misread. DBalling (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The Fate of the Furious
Excuse me, may I ask why you consider that imdb IS NOT a reliable source?????? Because I don't understand anything. Perhaps you can be of the opinion that this character is not relevant, and I don't agree, but I don't understand what I did wrong.--Habibicb (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , I'm not the one who decided it was an unreliable source – anyone can edit IMDb, just like Wikipedia, so it can't be used to source new developments like cast/character additions; you need to use a proper source, like a news article. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  22:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "Anyone can edit IMDb" ... that's not entirely true. Changes to IMDb are submitted to a team of editors who review and approve those changes. Ultimately the edits are made by IMDb employees rather than the public at-large. And I know from past experience that they do exercise some level of editorial filtering on what they do and do not allow through. DBalling (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , you don't need to ping me on my own talk page... I'm not going to miss your message. See WP:CITEIMDB and WP:RS/IMDB; again, anyone can edit IMDb – I'm not saying all edits are made by everyday people, but they can be, which is why it is often considered suspicious and unusable. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  00:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , thank you for you explanation, I'll take it into account in the future. And I'm not DBalling, I didn't "pinged" you, sorry :).--Habibicb (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . My apologies – you did just ping me then, though. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  23:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Scott Selwood
Untill he confirms his retirement he is a current AFL player without a club Gwsforlife (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , no, he isn't – you can't be a current/active AFL player if you're without a club. You don't need to wait for him to make an announcement on his intentions – what if he doesn't make one and just disappears quietly, like most delisted players do? His current situation is actually the opposite of what you've said – until he is recruited by a third club (if at all), he's a former player, as he's not currently playing for an AFL club. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  01:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Metallica
Yeah I don't appreciate being accused of disruptive editing. I was just cleaning up the first couple lines of the Metallica page. It's not like i was repeatedly trolling on the thing. Aia94 (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , it was just unnecessary – joining the two sentences together in that way actually made it worse, not better. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  07:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

RE: October 2019
Hello,

Regarding Ewan McGregor, all I did was add UK to his profile. He considered himself to be British ( see his views on Scottish independence 2014) which is another reason I added it. I really don't see why that got reverted. Scotland is part of the UK, so please explain to me why that is not valid? In documentaries and in the UN and EU, we are known as the UK. We may be seperate countries but as of now, we are not fully self-governing, so there's no reason why the word UK should be taken out, because currently this is the state that is still reported. You want citated facts on Wikipedia and that is a fact, but you've taken it out. That's kind of contradictory. I really don't agree that it is unconstructive, and I am very surprised you seem to think this is. We all have British citizenship. I don't mean to sound abrupt, but I'm taken aback that something so minor as this is considered to be factually wrong, when many citations say otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountainLaurel88 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , I never said/indicated that Scotland isn't part of the United Kingdom – we just don't put "UK" in infoboxes. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  07:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain why? I don't see why this is an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountainLaurel88 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you not add UK to the info box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountainLaurel88 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , the last thing that goes in that particular line of the infobox is the country (in this case, England, Scotland, etc., not United Kingdom); that's just how it works – I don't make the rules. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  00:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That's how it works? Sorry, but in the past, it really made no difference. Adding something like that shouldn't get removed. I don't know who came up with the rules but that is just crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountainLaurel88 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

IM SO SCARED IM AT THE LIABARY ILL JUST GO HOME AND USE MY REAL ACOUNT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.176.162 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Small tag
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linkin_Park&diff=prev&oldid=923199017 ? Why are you misusing the HTML small tag here? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , how am I "misusing" it, exactly? I understand that you don't like to use it in these sections, but is it even a rule? You're the only editor I ever see remove small tag, and nobody else seems to have a problem with it; it seems to be found in band member sections more often than it isn't. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  02:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What hidden note? The small tag is for side comments which this is not. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , nowhere does it say that it's for side comments only. The hidden note (at the top of the section) was for the order of the members, and was the main reason for the revert (separate issue to the small tag). 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  04:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting that this is legal text instead? How do you justify using the small HTML tag? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , the small tag gets used in the band member sections of nearly every band article that I've seen (the only ones where I haven't found it are the ones you've removed it from), and I've been using it for just about as long as I've been editing at this site. I've also seen it used in infoboxes, including at the very article this discussion originated from – it clearly isn't just used for side comments. Once again, you're the only editor I ever see remove small tag. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  08:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question. Are you seriously arguing with me about the semantic meaning of the small tag? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , I am simply arguing that it gets used for a lot more than what you've outlined, and isn't limited to a single purpose. I've already explained why I use it – are you trying to prove a point here, other than that you disagree with my reasoning? 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  08:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a lot of problems here. Unsourced claims are very common as well: that doesn't justify them. I thought you had something other than just "this happens a lot" to justify doing it but it seems like you don't. I'm open to whatever else you have in terms of reasoning. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

, this is not even comparable to unsourced claims. I would have thought it obvious, but my main reason for using it is to reduce size when necessary to prevent small sections/parts of the article (such as the infobox or small sections like band members sections) from being larger than they need to be; I don't just use it absent-mindedly or "because everyone else does" (though I've become very much used to it over the years). Have a look at the infoboxes of, say, tennis player articles (e.g. Rafael Nadal) – why do you think it's used there? 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  23:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it is comparable to unsourced claims because both are very common (which is not an argument in favor of doing something) and both are against our most fundamental rules and principles (WP:OR/WP:SOURCE, etc. and WP:ACCESSIBILITY). I think it is definitely used in a cosmetic way but that is incorrect and inaccessible. Since we are not a print encyclopedia (tho there are print editions of Wikipedia), we don't need to cram as much information into every single square centimeter: it's okay to have "Name – [instrument] (XXXX–YYYY)" in standard-sized text. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Change to NGR page
I don't have I citation because I don't actually have video or image proof, but NGR 715 is now in service as I rode it from Sandgate to Boondall Train stations recently (1st of November 2019, 4:45pm?) You can leave this info out if you want, but if you believe me you can add it back. If I ever see it again I will take a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.156.141.61 (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Your deletions at Talk:Chris Hemsworth
Sorry but I don't understand your rationale. What bit of WP:TALK supports them? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , I don't see how Arangojr's edits could be considered constructive or as anything more than offering an opinion – I know this person is a new user and hasn't edited an article before, but I didn't see why these edits were relevant or worth keeping. According to WP:TALK, under Stay on-topic: "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal." I understand that what this person said might have been based on what they read from the source they provided, but these edits weren't a suggestion on how to improve the article. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  12:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing is, this is a student on an assignment, and it's clear to me at least that they are trying to improve the article. I wouldn't have removed and I wouldn't have used templates, I probably would have responded on the article talk page asking what they wanted. Or contacted Shalor  and asked for help, she's always happy to help. It's up to you what to do, but it would be nice if you reverted your warnings and tried to help them. I revert talk page posts fairly often and have today. But as I said, this is a student.  Doug Weller  talk 13:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"Midway (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Midway (upcoming film). Since you had some involvement with the Midway (upcoming film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Davis Cups
You don't need to have played all the ties. Players who have played in earlier ties count as the winners. He played the QFs and SFs, that counts to be part of the winning team. Felician Lopez didn't play the final tie in 2019, he still is part of the winning team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitius (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , firstly, please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). As I said, one of the sources in the body ( – from the ATP, no less) says that he has only won four titles ("Nadal, who is now a four-time Davis Cup titlist..."). There is a difference between being part of the team that goes on to win and actually being part of the title win – yes, he has contributed to five Spain Davis Cup titles (at no point did I deny this), but has only played in four of those titles. No source that I found said specifically that he has won five titles, and at the end of the day, we go by what reliable sources tell us. I added a phrase to the lead section explaining his absence in 2008, but you've obviously gone and removed that as well. I'm going to let you decide the best course of action from here, but just remember that he didn't play in the 2008 title win and there's currently a source at the article stating that he has won four titles, not five. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  10:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an ITF tweet

https://twitter.com/ITF_Tennis/status/1196799309393604608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196799309393604608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mytennis.info%2Farticle%2F5dd48a2b6b7a1f27892bf1e2%2Fdavis-cup-finals-25-0-siege-die-mega-story-des-rafael-nadal%2F

2019: @RafaelNadal hopes to win his fifth Davis Cup with Spain 🏆

Five-time champions Spain were indebted to world number one Nadal for a virtuoso display as the 33-year-old continues his hunt for a fifth Davis Cup crown, having first lifted the title himself in 2004.

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/tennis-davis-cup-rafael-nadal-leads-spain-into-final-with-victory-over-britain-003826037.html

I think we can stick with 5. Hitius (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

See also: Widr (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.