User talk:4TheWynne/Archive 9

Ash Barty
G'day!

Thanks for your recent edit on the Ash Barty page.

I've read the Archived discussion from a few years ago about including 'Indigenous' in a somewhat prominent spot in the lead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashleigh_Barty/Archive_1

It seemed to have been agreed, at least implicitly, that having 'fellow Indigenous Australian' was fine (especially given that wording has remained for a couple of years without controversy). The final edit itself was a happy compromise from the original discussion. Indeed you were a part of that discussion and had the last relevant point:


 * For what it's worth, I think Sportsfan77777's most recent version ("...and is the second Australian WTA singles No. 1 after fellow Indigenous Australian player Evonne Goolagong Cawley.") would be the best compromise, as it moves it up the section and gives the fact greater emphasis, but not too much. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 06:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Re-visiting the edits from January 2020, it appears Fyunck(Click) seemed to accept this approach given they very soon after undertook subsequent edits to the page without changing the lead.

I'm hopeful this whole discussion isn't re-litigated but it seems Fyunck(Click) might persist, given they were involved in the discussion nearly two and a half years ago, then two years ago, and is again now editing the same word. I am not sure why it is causing so much angst, but wanted to say thanks for your consistency and balanced view on this, and hope it isn't removed again going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:ED10:B501:9CE6:E865:E108:DC81 (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ash Barty ranking
Hello, I was wondering as to why you reverted the change to the current ranking of Ash Barty. The date should be the 31st January 2022, as that's the most recent rankings list (not the 9th September 2019). Please reply, as I would like to know if I did anything wrong.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron8888 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , I don't understand the confusion – it's already been explained at least a couple of times (including in a note that I added to the page next to the ranking, which you've overlooked/ignored and changed the date again after messaging me) that the date in the infobox is supposed to be for when a player starts their current run at their current ranking, not the most recent date; we don't need to update it every week. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  09:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

re: disruptive editing
For the purpose of clarification in relation to changes I made to The Cranberries page. It was a failure on my part to take the time to learn the rules regarding editing, I can only apologize for any unintended "disruption" caused by my ignorance.

I take your notification of my mistake with humility and I'll be grateful for a likewise response on your part. Regards, M.09:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Mirarse (talk)


 * Hi Josh, with reference to my editing on The Cranberries page, you referred to it as "disruptive" and "unconstructive". I appreciate your clarification in accord with wikipedia editing rules. However,according to the definition of "unconstructive" via Google search,:not having a useful or beneficial purpose; negative, I fail to understand how my editing was considered to be "disruptive" let alone "negative"? The birth-dates of all the original members of The Cranberries are all (presumably)truthful and accurate. They are all accessible via Google search. I took the time to find them and added them because at the time I held the view that it helped to make the page more complete. I acknowledge the fact that I failed to cite my source of reference in each case and I apologize for that. However, I don't consider my editing as:not having a useful or beneficial purpose; negative because as mentioned, the addition of the birth-dates etc, (in my view) was "useful" because it added clarification to the "members"section of The Cranberries page. My first thought after viewing the said page was, "where are the birth-dates?" The section looked incomplete without them, and so I decided to conduct a search, found them, and added them. Further to that,on the matter of "disruption" If the birth-dates of the surviving ex members of The Cranberries, weren't "accurate" and "truthful" then by all means,it would be just to view my editing as "disruptive and unconstructive", after-all, the addition of the birth-dates wouldn't be based upon facts. However,I believe that there is reason to believe that they were correct. I therefore added them on a point of principle and in order to make the page appear more complete. I now know that you don't share my view and though that seems illogical in my view, I nevertheless accept your correction with humility and respect, and I'll try to bear that in mind if I ever see the need to edit a page in the future. Thanks, regards, M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirarse (talk • contribs) 10:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , while you might find the page to look more "complete" and adding clarification by including the birth dates, others (including myself) might see it as overkill. Birth dates just don't go in band member sections, unfortunately. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  02:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

re: Hanna Hopko
Hi Josh, I hope that you're well. I'm just writing to check with you about a minor change I made to the Hanna Hopko page. I changed 'participating' to ' participate' and I would like to know that is OK? If it isn't, please except my sincere apology for any problems caused by the change I made. Thanks for your understanding. Regards, Mirarse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirarse (talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Not my edit that you restored on Foo Fighters
No big deal — in fact a really tiny deal — but I can see your expertise & commitment to quality, and my personal goal (as a newbie) is to learn to be that kind of editor. Be well !! Left Central (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the club
Thanks so much – really means a lot. Definitely one of my proudest achievements to date. 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  01:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Well done! Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice. Congratulations on being the first person to bring an Australian rules football article to featured status since July 2020. I'm glad it got there in the end. Steelkamp (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

TFA?
Hi. Would you have any objections to Daisy Pearce being run on the main page as TFA on 7 May? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't 27 May be a more appropriate date? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but unfortunately that is already taken with another anniversary. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I wouldn't object to that at all – that would be awesome. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  00:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Scheduled. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Daisy Pearce scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 7 May 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/May 7, 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, about "one of women's Australian rules football's leading pioneers and a prominent current player/media personality (and future coach, if the recent news is anything to go by)"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2739 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , thank you so much – really means a lot. (Can't believe I used to say things like "Hope you enjoy what I edit", too; ah well – at least people got the idea of what I was trying to achieve.) I tell you what, though, the Kim Clijsters involvement is turning into a bit of a myth – haven't edited the page once. Not sure why that first came about, but nevertheless, appreciate the recognition – definitely feel awesome. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  03:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome and so modest! Should we add that instead of Cliisters? Or what else. I had had a long day, and copied from Editor of the Week ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Coldplay's band members
Chris and Jonny came together in late 1996 but started to write in early 1997. Guy joined in the middle of the year and Will was already around by the end of it, 1998 is just when the line-up was made official. In fact, their debut live performance at The Laurel Tree was in January. I see where you're coming from but these are little specifics that can be adressed on the Early Years section instead of leaving the Band Members section a little bloated. Harvey warrants his years solely because he switched roles after leaving the band for a while. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it makes the section anything close to "bloated", but whatever you say... 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  13:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Untitled eleventh Metallica studio album


Hello, 4TheWynne. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Untitled eleventh Metallica studio album".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , because this has now happened twice and there really hasn't been anything new to contribute to the draft for a while, I might hold off until there's more to add before requesting undeletion. It will pick up eventually – as, well, it's Metallica – but happy to wait for now. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  13:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Coaching changes on AFLW pages
Hey mate, I saw you updated all the coaching changes to be represented as after the season (like in AFL season articles), not before. Wanted to ask you what is the logic of this? (I don't see the logic on AFL pages either). The coaching changes affect the season after the change much more than the season before the changes, and makes more sense imo to list the coaching changes ahead of the upcoming season. --SuperJew (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , one reason why I made the changes was obviously so that the formatting was consistent with AFL season articles, but the other was that I looked at the coaching changes as more of an event that happened as part of that year (given it's normally situated among the post-season events in the article) rather than something to help set up the next season. I know this hasn't happened in the AFLW yet, but what if a coach steps down or is sacked mid-season? Would seem kind of weird to me to have that listed somewhere in the following season's article. The other thing to consider is that even if this was to change, it's listed out of order chronologically and it would make more sense to have the section towards the top of the article (given it happened the previous year) rather than the bottom, but I still think that that side of things is better off how it is for the aforementioned reasons I gave. As a somewhat related point, I think that if teams' inaugural coaches should be listed at all (they aren't "coaching changes", per se, and are they as important?), they should be listed separately from the coaching changes and towards the top of the article, and then if we have coaches like Tom Hunter who only coach the club's first season, they can be listed as a coaching change further down the article. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  13:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * (given it's normally situated among the post-season events in the article) sounds like you're saying that due to it's placement at the end of the season, you feel it should be at the end of the season ;) what if a coach steps down or is sacked mid-season? Then I believe we should have it in the coaching changes of that season. Namely X season should have the coaching changes from the end of the previous season (pre-season) until the end of the X season. it's listed out of order chronologically and it would make more sense to have the section towards the top of the article I agree. if teams' inaugural coaches should be listed at all (they aren't "coaching changes", per se, and are they as important?), they should be listed separately from the coaching changes and towards the top of the article Of course they are coaching changes - from no coach to the coach that signs the contract. Given all this I still believe we should restore the AFLW seasons to how they were, with the change of moving the section to the top. --SuperJew (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , if you feel strongly enough about it to want to change it back, I'd make the change at the AFL season articles as well so that the change is uniform (no use just doing it for AFLW just because it's easier to only do it for a handful of articles than make it more widespread), and if that's the case, I don't see any harm in bringing it up at WT:AFL first in case anyone else wants to weigh in. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  14:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we should bring it up at WT:AFL too :) Cheers!, -- SuperJew (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

AFLW Redirects
Hello, 4TheWynne,

I declined to delete these CSD tagged redirects because there was no link to a discussion where you said a consensus was reached to delete these redirects, which was the basis of your deletion rationale. I think a more effective route would be to tag these pages as CSD R3, recently created inplausible redirects or tag them for deletion for Redirects for Discussion. But the deletion of these pages didn't seem like obvious, uncontroversial deletions to me and they had sat around all day without an admin reviewing and taking actions on them so I don't think it was obvious to other admins either. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , thanks for reaching out, and sorry for the delay. Apologies, I should have linked to this discussion, where a couple of editors and I agreed on article titles for the sixth and seventh AFL Women's seasons and the latter's short forms. I tagged the redirects under G6 because, based on how the discussion panned out and the fact that the only editors meaningfully contributing to WT:AFL in the last two months are perhaps the most active editors at AFLW-related articles, I thought that deleting the redirects would be uncontroversial, but I'd be happy to tag them again under R3 and link to the discussion properly if you think that would be a better course of action. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  17:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , I've emptied the categories and tagged all of the redirects again under R3 but didn't realise that you couldn't provide a description – at least you have the relevant discussion linked here. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  03:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

False claim of "disrupting" Kill Em' All
It is a FACT Cliff is uncredited for (Anesthesia)-Pulling Teeth because it's a solo not an instrumental. Read the liner notes yourself. He is NOT CREDITED. Why am I being threatened with being blocked for stating a FACT? Why am I being falsely accused of "disrupting" the article? 209.93.94.108 (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

AFLW Rising Star
Are there pages for the Rising Star this season? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  08:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , yep, they're under the name AFL Women's season seven Rising Star (template). 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  08:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Portman
Hello, why did you revert my message on Talk:Natalie Portman? I didn't see anything of offense. Thanks, — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 14:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If it was because it was directed at Kj Cheetham, that was because they were the GA nom and so I thought they probably knew the most about the article content. However, the comment itself was specific to the article and could be answered by anybody. — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 14:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , I honestly have no idea (and didn't see/realise until an hour after it happened), but that was a complete accident – sorry about that one. I've restored and responded to your comment at the talk page. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  15:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2017/19 Richmond dual premiership players
Template:2017/19 Richmond dual premiership players has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2017/19/20 Richmond triple premiership players
Template:2017/19/20 Richmond triple premiership players has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)