User talk:Rlendog/Archive 5

possible FL
Have you thought about trying to make List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting pitchers a FL? BUC (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Not only that one, but similar lists on the Reds, Pirates, Tigers, Indians and White Sox.  The challenge with these (as opposed to the similar lists that are already FL) are that Baseball-Reference has a list of Opening Day starters going back to 1954, but there is no similar comprehensive listing prior to that.  So it is more difficult to source general statements to a single source.  An ugly example is the comment that Mordecai Brown was never the Cubs' Opening Day starter - odd for a Hall of Famer who pitched for the team for a decade - but to source it (when I proposed it for DYK) I needed to cite about 10 years worth or Retrosheerr opening day box scores.  Still, List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers made FL, despite similar constraints, so this should be doable.
 * I assume by your note that you want to help with this, which would be great - I would have no issue if you wanted to co-nom, if that is your intention.  Other then the specific sourcing difficulties I think it is in pretty good shape.  I'm sure I used the wrong kind of dash a few times and there now seem to be additional requirements since my last FLC (e.g., alts for images), but I think we have a good starting point. Rlendog (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me so long to responed. I have now set a PR for this article to see what may be holding it back. Personally I think the refs look fine. BUC (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Rock hyrax
I see you've made several contributions in the past to the page Rock hyrax. I've pretty much rewritten the page, putting things on a much more encyclopedic basis, and rationalising a lot of stuff that was scattered around the article. I'll leave it in my sandbox User:Arikk/Sandbox/Rock_Hyrax for a couple of days before replacing the existing page (although I think it's already much better), but if anyone wants to comment, please do so here or on my talk page. Arikk (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Mr. Tambourine Man
Hi, I'll be GA reviewing Mr. Tambourine Man. Nice to see you again. I'll draft comments first and then let you know when I'm ready. All the best, --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've posted comments about coverage and structure. I think we should discuss these before I start the section walk-throughs, as the comments about coverage and structure may lead to changes. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you again as well! I took a look at your comments, some of which I agree with, some of which I need to digest.  I posted some questions/suggestions in response to the comment about the structure. I have some ideas on how the structure could be changed a little bit, but I am not sure that would address all your concerns. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on the "Mr. Tambourine Man" GA review Rlendog. I'll take a look at and keep an eye on any discussion and chip in my twopence worth if I feel it's needed. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did know about the GAN for Sweetheart. I told User:Cbben about it actually but I think his work on that particular Byrds article is finished now. I think I might add a media sample and I still need a couple of page references for two of the inline references but other than that, my work on it is pretty near done too. I've been working pretty closely with Cbben since I finally established contact with him and got him to register (you know that he was the annoying IP user who kept changing stuff, right?). Anyway, he seems a pretty cool guy and we seem to be on the same page regarding Wikipedia articles. I take it as a big compliment that a total stranger nominated the Sweetheart article for GA though and it certainly boosts my confidence that it's a GA worthy article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting of Mr. Tambourine Man
Hi Rlendog! I've recently run into a really good copyeditor in Epeefleche. He's done some good work for me on the Sweetheart of the Rodeo article which is also currently under GA review. What I like about him is that he's very thorough but has a "hands off" approach in that he only alters punctuation, Wiki specific formatting and doesn't actually alter text unless it absolutely needs it and even then, he only alters it to a minimum. I just wondered if you thought that it might be worth me asking him to take a look at the "Mr. Tambourine Man" article? Myself, I think it's pretty good as it is but it's often good to get another pair of eyes involved in these things. What do you think? No worries if you don't want to. By the way, I’ve now joined the WikiProject Bob Dylan at your suggestion. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means. Rlendog (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've put in a request to Epeefleche. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Whiz Kids
Since you expressed an opinion that the Whiz Kids should be in the Phillies navbox, would you mind looking at the new article? Here it is. Thanks. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Byrds' folk rock legacy
Hi Rlendog! You may have already seen this but I just wanted to let you know that I've added a couple of paragraphs to the legacy section of the "Mr. Tambourine Man" page about the influence of The Byrds and in particular their version of "Mr. Tambourine Man" on the folk rock boom of the mid-60s. I've also added copious references to support the info just in case anyone feels like challenging it! I've only mentioned Dylan's influence on the sub-genre in passing because as previously discussed; his recording of the song wasn't overly influential on the genre, although his electric albums were. If you can or want to add a bit more about Dylan's influence then feel free. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good. We obviously don't want to turn this into an article on the history of folk rock, but given the song's importance to the genre, some background seems appropriate.  And your addition seems to strike a good balance.  Hopefully, User:Philcha agrees. Rlendog (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tambourine Man comments
I've had a go at addressing some of Philcha's concerns as outlined on the "Mr. Tambourine Man" GA talk page. There's a few points that I've left for you to answer though, so you might wanna take a look at what he's suggesting or querying. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. I think you did an excellent job.  I tried to respond to the items you left. Rlendog (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I took it to mean that I should leave it out. :-/ I think it could be taken both ways but on second thoughts, you might be right. I'll add it to the article in a moment then and see if Philcha objects. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Rlendog! I've left a message about this on the GA talk page but I just wanted to send you a private message too. Unfortunately, my internet conection has gone down at home - which is where I do most of my Wiki editing stuff from. It should be up and running again by Tuesday or Wednesday next week at the latest, I would've thought. I will be checking in between now and then as often as I can but just be aware that I might not be able to respond to any comments that you or Philcha leave on the GA talk page as quickly as I normally would. I see from your comments that you're gonna be away for a few days yourself, so it looks like the GA review's gonna be on hold until after the weekend. As I say, I should be back to full functionality by early next week (hopefully) but I just wanted to give you the heads up. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Oakland Athletics managers DYK
I suggested a slightly different hook there, one that more reflects what the source and article says. What do you think? MuZemike 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, the hook needs a tweak. See T:TDYK. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches
Hey man, thanks for reviewing List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks. Without your help, we wouldn't have yet another featured list here! As a follow-up to that list, you may have noticed that I have now nominated List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches for featured list status. I would therefore like to ask you to make a couple of comments about that list, provided that you have enough spare time on your hands. Many thanks. – PeeJay 10:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Next Project?
I'm glad that you've asked me what we're gonna be working on next because I was thinking about that as well.:-D I guess it makes sense for us to work together on these songs done by Dylan and The Byrds, although I'm a pretty big fan of Dylan as well - not just some crazed Byrds nut. I honestly don't mind whether we do "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" or "Chimes of Freedom" next. I think that like you, I'm definitely leaning towards "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" though...yes, it's probably a less influential song and consequently a less complex article than "Mr. Tambourine Man" but I feel that there's still plenty for us to get our teeth stuck into. Obviously you've got Dylan and The Byrds' version but there's also the recording by Them, which in this instance is the most influential cover of the song. So yes, please feel free to nominate "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" for GA review and I’ll gladly help you get it up to scratch. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've nominated "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue". We'll see how long it takes to get reviewed.  I think that one is in very good shape, although obviously going through it a couple more times for additional copyedits couldn't hurt.  I think "Chimes of Freedom" still needs some work in expanding the lead and tightening up the "covers" section. Rlendog (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, nice one. I'll take a look at it over the next day or two and see what I can improve - I'll need to look up specific page numbers for Timeless Flight Revisited for a start. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a piece of info I managed to find about Van Morrison & Dylan performing a duet of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" in 1984. While I was looking through my copy of the book All Across The Telegraph: A Bob Dylan Handbook last night, I noticed that there was a picture of Dylan and Morrison on stage together at Slane, Ireland on the last date of Dylan's 1984 European tour (July 8). I'm wondering whether they also performed the song together at this concert? I don't suppose you would be able to confirm or deny this?


 * While we're on the subject of Dylan references, I've recently added some info about the perceived misogyny in the lyrics of "Just Like a Woman" to that particular article (which is proving controversial with some editors but c’est le vie). There was a statement originally in the article that said "Some women's groups criticized this because of its disparaging lyrics." I know that this is true because only a few years ago, a friend of mine who was doing feminist studies at university came to me to discuss Dylan's "Just Like a Woman" since the song and it's alleged misogyny was being discussed on her course. I just wondered if you would happen to have a reliable 3rd party source that corroborates this info about women's groups? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll bet Dylan and Morrison did duet on Baby Blue on July 8, 1984, since the song right after that is Tupelo Honey. But unfortunately, the set list info from Dylan's site doesn't comment on this.  As for Just Like a Woman, there should be plenty of sources for feminist objections.  I'm sure I can lay my hands on one (or two or three...) Rlendog (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like there is an RS for Morrison duetting on Baby Blue (and Bono on Blowin in the Wind) at the 7/8/84 concert. This website may not be an RS, but the original source for this interview should be.Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this would count - it is a Mick Taylor chronology, and apparently Taylor played at that concert. It seems to be self-published, but by an author who has non-self published books on the Rolling Stones. Rlendog (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The Jan. 12 1985 issue of Billboard states that Morrison duetted with Dylan on Baby Blue at Slade on July 8.  That should do it. Rlendog (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, nice one! I knew I could rely on you to dig up a good reference. I thought that there was probably a good chance of Dylan and Morrison doing "Baby Blue" at Slane, since they'd played it earlier in London. Thanks for your help on the "Just Like a Woman" article too...your re-wording and extra input (as well as references) has really made that paragraph a lot better.


 * I'm currently trying to dig up a bit more discographical info on Them's version of "Baby Blue" since currently that section launches into critical commentary on their version almost straight away. I feel that we need release info, the band's motivation for covering the song and any other relevant details (recording, country of release, chart positions, contemporary live performances by the band etc, etc). I've checked my books and I know that the single didn’t chart in the UK or make the Billboard Hot 100. It’s possible that it wasn’t even released as a single in the UK and U.S. because an awful lot of discographies I’ve seen online seem to have that single missing. I've asked a fellow Wiki editor who is a big Van Morrison fan and also the Wiki editor who uploaded the Them picture sleeve about this but as yet, I’ve not heard back from them. Hopefully I will do soon and I can flesh this section out a bit more.  --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, both Agadant and Kitchen roll (the two Van Morrison experts I've recently contacted) will probably be fleshing out the beginning of the "Them's version" section of the article with some more info over the next day or two. After liaising with them both, it's beginning to look as if the single was only released in Holland and not in the UK or U.S., although this is not totally confirmed as yet. I'm hoping we will get some good biographical info on the group’s motivation for covering the song etc, etc from them. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you've been doing some good work on the "Chimes of Freedom" article today. I was looking at this article last night and I got to wondering whether The Byrds' cover should have its own section. The only reason I say that is because currently about half the "Cover versions" section is dedicated to The Byrds' recording, which creates a slight imbalance I feel. Perhaps we should separate this section into "The Byrds' version" and "Other covers", like in the "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" article? I wouldn't say that The Byrds' version was that famous but it's probably fair to say that it's the most famous version of the song after Dylan's own. I dunno, I'll be guided by what you think on this matter really. It was just something I thought I should bring up.


 * Oh, as an aside, I was doing some work on the "My Back Pages" article last night as well and that's an article that is crying out for our combined help I think. It's in a right old state currently - particularly the bits related to Dylan's original recording. The background info is sketchy, there’s hardly any inline refs, and half the article is taken up with an extract from an interview, which seems totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Anyway, just a suggestion for a possible new project that we could work on together. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't have a problem with separating out a Byrds section for "Chimes", although it would then be good (if possible) to have another paragraph on the importance of the song to The Byrds.  I will take a look at "My Back Pages" too.  At first glance, the Dylan section does seem to be a bit of a mess. Rlendog (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Appreciate your support too. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam


Removal of reviews from album infoboxes
Hi Rlendog! I don't know if you're aware of the discussion that's been taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums regarding the scrapping of reviews in infoboxes on album articles? I only heard about it today when a message was posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music page. The discussion seems to have reached a consensus to remove the reviews, although it is still accepting further input on the matter. At the moment, there's discussion on how best to proceed and what steps should be taken next. As far as I can see, the proposal at the moment is to move the reviews in the infoboxes to an "External links" type section at the foot of the article. Myself, I wouldn't be sorry to see the reviews go completely because this is an encyclopedia, not Rotten Tomatoes or some such. Besides, articles about singles, songs, and films don't have reviews in the infobox...but that's only my humble opinion on the matter. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know incase, like me, you were unaware of this development. Obviously this will mean that a lot of Bob Dylan articles will need fixing to conform to the new standard (not to mention all The Byrds albums) but I'm not 100% clear about whether it's now OK to go ahead and implement these changes or not. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I don't really have an opinion on this, although I would wait for the dust to settle before I start doing a lot of work implementing this. Rlendog (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that you're right. I'm gonna refrain from doing anything just yet. I believe there is a Bot being developed that will carry out this task anyway, so I'll probably just wait until I actually see an article get edited like this by a Bot first, before I start to do anything on other articles manually. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Rlendog! Looks like it's started in earnest. I've just come across a bot moving infobox review ratings to a newly created "Professional reviews" box. Relevant places that you might like to check out concerning Wiki policy on these moves are probably Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums, ALBUM, and the new album ratings template here. In short, the bot is supposed to move the reviews to a pre-existing Reception section or if the article doesn’t have one, create a new Reception section. Trouble is, not all reception sections are titled that, they could just as easily be named "Release and reception", "Reviews", "Release and aftermath", "Release and legacy", etc, etc. Unfortunately, this already seems to be causing problems.


 * Dylan's Blood on the Tracks album didn't already have a Reception section but it does now and this new section will need filling with the relevant info. Same thing happened with Simon and Garfunkel's Greatest Hits which I've dealt with now by transplanting the relevant info into the new created section. Not that this is a lot of work for one article but I can see this creating an awful lot of work for Wikipedians in the long run. Also, I've noticed that when the bot creates a new "Reception" section and adds the "Professional ratings" box, if the article has no inline refs (and therefore no references tag), you get a red warning message at the bottom of the page - again, see the Simon and Garfunkel's Greatest Hits article, although I’ve now fixed it. It also looks as if the bot is hardly fool-proof even when there is an existing Reception section, as in the  Led Zeppelin article, where the "Professional ratings" box has been stuck arbitrarily in the "Recording and production" section.


 * I've left some comments about my concerns on that particular bot's talk page, so it'll be interesting to see what feedback I get. Anyway, I just wanted to give you the heads up that this change in location for professional reviews has now begun and to keep your eyes open for this kind of thing. Really, any of these bot moves can be rectified with a few quick edits and a little bit of common sense on the editor's part. But it does rather smack of some ill thought out bot programming at present. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm back!
Just stopping by to let you know that I'm back in the States and ready to start resuming my work on the lemur pages. Thanks for helping to keep an eye on things while I was gone! BTW, did you ever end up going through the RfA process? I tried looking for it but couldn't find anything. You seemed to accept the offer, but then... nothing. Just curious...

Also, I was wanting you opinion on using user subpage sandboxes. I'm thinking about creating one to store my re-writes while I work on them. My concern is that even if I don't link to it, someone may find it in a search, steal the content, and update the pages with it (taking credit for the work). Sorry if I sound paranoid, but the amount of plagiarism I've seen in my life and the frequency of dishonest behavior I have seen online gives me reason to hesitate. Remember: I use my work on Wiki on my resume and CV to further my career offline. What are your thoughts? Honestly, I'd love to create the sandbox so that I could share it with people I trust (like you) so I can get feedback throughout the creation process. –Visionholder (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! It sounds like you had a great trip.  I never ended up going through RfA.  I never got nominated - maybe the person who offered didn't see my acceptance.  My primate work here since you left  has consisted of getting Geoffroy's Spider Monkey to GA, and a somewhat disappointing experience when I tried to nominate Costa Rican monkey species for a Good Topic.


 * As for sanboxes, I've never had a problem, or seen a plagarism problem with others, but if you put your work here on your resume I can see why you would want to be extra cautious. That said, even if someone did plagarize your work in a sandbox, the history is preserved, so there would be evidence of what you did and when, even if it was not yet in mainspace. Rlendog (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You made a good point about the history, so I've posted the work I've done so far to my SB. I provided the link in a message to you on Facebook.  Feel free to peep in from time to time, as well as offer suggestions or comments.


 * As far as the other stuff, would you want me to bring up the RfA nomination? You'd make a great admin.  Otherwise, congrats on the GA for Geoffroy's Spider Monkey, and sorry about your Good Topic.  If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. – Visionholder (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think I would make a good admin, I would be honored to accept the nomination. Ironincally, I first thought that becoming an admin might be worthwhile when we were dealing with that toilet-claw incident, and neither of us had access to the deleted content to demonstrate that it should be restored.  By the way, what kinds of wild lemurs did you see in Madagascar? Rlendog (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The motherboard on my PC just died yesterday, and being both flat broke and stuck waiting for a new credit card to arrive, I may be dead in the water for about 2 weeks... just to let you know. (I may do some editing using my girlfriend's new laptop, but I don't want to monopoloize her new toy.)  Consequently, both the Lemur re-write is going to be delayed a couple of weeks more and, for the admin nomination, I think I'm going to track down the first person who offered and see if they would mind following up on it.  If they don't, I'll nominate you when my PC is up and running again... probably near the end of January.  As for lemur species seen, in the wild I saw Ring-tailed Lemurs, Collared Brown Lemurs, White-footed Sportive Lemurs, Verreaux's Sifakas, Eastern Woolly Lemurs, Greater Dwarf Lemurs, and at least 2 species of Mouse lemur (Gray Mouse Lemur and Brown Mouse Lemur, if not also Reddish-gray Mouse Lemur). At the zoo, I saw White-fronted Brown Lemurs and Common Brown Lemurs, in addition to many of the lemur species commonly seen in U.S. zoos.  Unfortunately, pictures at the zoo were poor, but I may try posting one of them.  I was also hoping to see the Indri and a Fork-marked lemur, but money ran out before I could go see them. &nash;Visionholder (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Adminship
Rlendog, I'm really sorry, a few days after I asked you about the bit I lost regular access to the net for several months, when I finally got it back I'd completely forgotten about you. However, the fact that you haven't pestered me about it or anything makes me believe even more that you would make a good admin, if you're still interested i'd happy to nominate you-- Jac 16888 Talk 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am still interested, and I am not traveling anytime soon (which was the issue last time you offered). Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, i'll get started on your nom, and get back to you in a day or two-- Jac 16888 Talk 02:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Rlendog (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
 Jac16888 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then [ contact Jac16888] to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Rlendog. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. I've wrote out a nomination passage, although I will probably add to it/edit it. Take a crack at the questions in your own time, and let me know when you want to make it live-- Jac 16888 Talk 03:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded to the questions. I think they are ready to go live.  Thanks for the very nice comments in the nomination, by the way. Rlendog (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Good luck-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking good so far mate, great job with the questions - you come across as very calm, collected and competent. -- Jac 16888 Talk 21:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of It's All Over Now, Baby Blue
The article It's All Over Now, Baby Blue you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:It's All Over Now, Baby Blue for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! So, the "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" article began its GA review and passed on the same day?!! That was fast and pretty painless, I must say. In fact, that was the easiest GA assessment I've been involved in!! I suppose that means is that the article was pretty good already and didn't need any further work to reach GA standard. Hmmmm...maybe.


 * Anyway Rlendog, I take it that we're gonna have a go at "Chimes of Freedom" next, right? Although, I'm not sure that there's too much work left to do on that article...I know you've been working on it yourself a fair bit already. As I mentioned the other day, "My Back Pages" could certainly do with our attention. Has "Chimes of Freedom" been GA nominated yet? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I missed that. That is the first time that has ever happened to an article I nominated.  I guess that means I should start feeling comfortable enough to start reviewing articles.  As for the next nomination, I was intending "Chimes", but hadn't gotten around to nominating it yet (I hadn't expected "Baby Blue" to get reviewed this quickly).  I suppose the next step for "Chimes" would be for each of us to take another shot at reviewing it for additional edits and then nominate it.  And "My Back Pages" is definitly on my to do list. Rlendog (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean…I was tentatively thinking that I might have a go at reviewing a GA article myself but I don't know, I'm not sure I feel confident enough to do it. You've got a lot more experience than me though. Although I've certainly got a pretty good idea now of what constitutes a GA album article, having worked on three in just the last two months. Anyway, yes, I'll take a look at "Chimes" over the next few days. I'm gonna split The Byrds' cover into its own section for a start, as previously discussed. Then, when we’ve both given it another once over, we can nominate it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Question for future administrator
A number of AFDs are about events.

Question 1. If you close AFDs, would you follow the notability guidelines in WP:EVENT?

ANSWER (I assume yes as you are not a troublemaker who declares your own opinion as the law):___________

- - - - -

There is currently a contradiction in the guidelines. One part says all 5 criteria must be followed. However, if you read each criteria, following only 1 results in notability. These criteria are things like wide coverage, persistent coverage, etc.

Question 2: What would you follow, 1 criteria or must meet all 5?

ANSWER:___________

- - - - -

There is a discussion to clear up the contradiction. Some editors seem to say that all 5 must be met. Some seem to say that all 5 should be met but if one criteria is not met but the others are solidly met, the article should be considered notable. Some seem to say that widespread coverage is enough and that widespread coverage is the actual standard that is used day-to-day (and that the guidelines are out of touch with reality).

Question 3: What do you think?

ANSWER:______

Question 4: How can this dilemma be resolved? (I am trying to help solve this dilemma). Do you just give in to the "consensus" on that namespace talk page? Or is the consensus what the community seems to do in general? More people on that talk page seem to support a strict requirement that all 5 criteria must be met. ANSWER:___________

Thank you for your wisdom. I ask this not to ask a hard question but I seek guidance and consultation on what to do. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you asking for advice or is this a hypothetical question? If its the latter you should ask these questions on Rlendog's RFA, its its the former then do you have specific reason for asking Rlendog?-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am asking the questions because I seek genuine guidance on how the problem can be solved. I presume that Rlendog has prepared to become an administrator so he may know some possible answers.  I did not ask at the RFA because some people purposely ask hard questions there.  Other people look at the answers and oppose the RFA if they don't like the answer.  I am not trying to sink the RFA but just would like answers. Others, besides Rlendog, may also help out with the answers.  There is an administrator which I've asked before, Abra-cadabra, or something like that, whom I might ask.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For (1), I of course would follow the guideline to the best of my ability. I will point out that even if my RfA is successful, I do not intend to close AfDs anytime soon.  I also have not been involved in AfDs for events (other than sports events, which usually don't seem to have issues in this regard) so I am giving my opinions based on limited experience on the specific subject. On (2) I think the 1st and 4th criteria are clearly necessary, and are essentially clarifications of aspects of the general notability standard.  The other criteria allow for exceptions, even within the criteria descriptions themselves, so I think that if those criteria are not met it would need to be for reasons consistent with the criteria.  For example, it may not be able to prove that an event will have the duration of coverage or the lasting effect as soon as it happens, but we can often tell that it is likely.  For example, when Ronald Reagan was shot it was pretty obvious that it would meet the criteria, even though it had just occurred. WP:BREAKING also provides for guidance on the duration-related criteria. On geographical scope, the criterion itself provides for an appropriate exception - i.e., "Events that have a demonstrable impact on the region, such as city-wide elections, are presumed to be notable enough for an article".  But the criterion as written does not preclude other exceptions though I can't think of any, and I would expect they would be of a similar type to the exception specifically provided.  On (3), I think that all 5 must be met in some way, but as I discussed in the prior question, I think there is latitude within the guideline itself to meet some of the criteria in ways other than literally having had a long duration of coverage or a demonstrably lasting impact or a wide geographical scope.  As for (4), I think that consensus is the appropriate way to resolve this as AfDs come up, although the consensus should be based on the written guideline or in some cases an appropriate application of IAR.  The consensus on the project talk page should be reflected a workable guideline on the project page.  And I agree with you that the wording of the guideline, stating that all 5 criteria must be met but providing exceptions within 3 of them, ought to be improved.  But if may be difficult to achieve a consensus on any particular rewording.  I hope this helps. Rlendog (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You are now an administrator
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, WP:100 too. and good luck with it. Hopefully you won't come to hate me-- Jac 16888 Talk 17:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WOOOOOOT! Congrats!!! Best of luck. Buggie111 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Congrats! Keep up the good work! –Visionholder (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Feel free to ping me if you ever need any help. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Belated congratulations! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rlendog (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Chimes of Freedom
Hi Rlendog! Thanks for the heads up about the GAN for "Chimes of Freedom". However, I wouldn't worry about having "to see how long it takes to move up the queue" because the GA review has already started! You can find the relevant page here - Talk:Chimes of Freedom/GA1. I've made some edits as specified in the first lot of suggestions from our reviewer but I've also questioned a few of his suggestions. In addition, I've warned him that I'm gonna split the Byrds info off into it's own section - which is what I'm off to do now! Anyway, no doubt you'll be dropping by the GA review talk page and adding your two cents worth, so I’ll see you there!

Oh, and congratulations on you new status as an administrator, by the way. I'll be sure to tell you if it starts going to your head and you turn into some power crazed maniac! ;-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I linked Toronto and Atlanta, because I don't think there is any harm.  I originally also removed that "see 1964 in music", but you're right that that is the preferred way to handle it so I self reverted.  How were you going to split out the Byrds section?  Will there be 2 main sections: "The Byrds version" and "Other covers", or will those just be subsections with in the existing "Cover versions" section?  The latter may be the way to go if there isn't much additional Byrds material to add, since otherwise we'll have 2 pretty short main sections. Rlendog (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a pretty good suggestion about sub-dividing the "Cover versions" section, so that's what I've done. It also gets around my slight concern regarding The Byrds' having their own section, now they're still sharing a section but it's better laid out. I don't mind the geographical linking really, I don't usually do it myself but I could go either way in this case. Glad you reverted the piped link to "1964 in music"...this is one of my personal Wikipedia bugbears!:-P By the way, I've sent you an e-mail. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So then, what do we think is happening with the Chimes of Freedom GA review? It's all gone a bit quiet. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the reviewer decided to review a different article that was nominated earlier (since, as of a couple of days ago, he was listed as the reviewer of an article further up the list) and dropped Chimes as a result. It's still in the queue though, so I assume that he will come back to it or, if not, someone else will eventually pick it up.  I still haven't done much with the My Back Pages article.  RL has been pretty hectic lately, but hopefully things will calm down in a week or so and I will have more time to look at it. Rlendog (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Killer Whale
You recently provided an opinion at Talk:Killer Whale. For further information on this requested move, you may wish to read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cetaceans, a discussion at the relevant Wikiproject. DigitalC (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember that debate...
I don't know if you remember that debate that we had over the Humane Society of the United States article before I left for Madagascar. Well, while I was gone someone inserted a statement along the same lines as I had been trying to add and cited a valid source (news article from an Oregon newspaper). Today, someone deleted this sourced statement and the citation. I would jump in and revert because of the deletion of sourced material, but I don't have time to deal with this. (I'm very busy with the Lemur re-write at the moment.) I also don't feel like splashing mud on my reputation by arguing with a bunch of animal rights supporters, some of whom are admins.

Sorry to ask you to look at this. But I figure that your lack of bias is more needed than my input. –Visionholder (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Rlendog! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Terry Blocker -

Userfication favour
Hi Rlendog,

I have a favour to ask since you have that nice new mop: This article was deleted and recreated: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=LON-CAPA. Could you please userfy the deleted revisions for me? The reason I'm asking is that some friends of a friend were unhappy that it was deleted, and I'd like to be able to explain to them what happened. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The deleted content can now be found at User:Clayoquot/LON-CAPA. WJBscribe (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like a bad call on the part of the admin who speedied it. Would either of you mind doing a history merge to put the deleted revisions into the article history? I would like to copy and paste some of the useful content back in there. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 10:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've merged the histories. WJBscribe (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Up for a collaborative effort?
Due to an influx of support (photos, journal articles, etc.) from researchers in the field, I'm seriously considering branching off temporarily from my Lemur re-write and writing an article on the environmental degradation in Madagascar that's accelerating due to political instability. As with the other upcoming re-writes, I plan to take the article to GA or FA immediately. I'm just worried that such an article could have NPOV issues. I'm willing to do most of the writing, if you want, but would you at least be willing to help me keep the article within the guidelines of NPOV? If so, send me an email and we'll discuss it further. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I can review for NPOV issues.  It sounds like a good idea for an article. Rlendog (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I'll keep you posted on my progress.  Unfortunately, I'm still on the note-taking phase atm. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I hope to get the page written today. I have all my notes, references, and pictures, so I'll be working on it the rest of the day.  If you have time, you can check out my #9 sandbox (if you need the link again, email me) and review the quotes that I'm going to be working off of.  That should give you a good feel as to the contents of the upcoming article.  Besides NPOV, my next biggest concern is an appropriate title for the article.  So far, I'm thinking either "Rosewood logging in Madagascar" or "Illegal logging in Madagascar".  If you can, look over the notes/quotes and tell me what you think.  And if you'd prefer, we can have this discussion on the sandbox discussion page. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like a really good article once the sections that are now just quotes are prosified. think the name of the article should be Deforestation in Madagascar. Currently, that title redirects to the 1 paragraph Madagascar section of Deforestation by region, but "Deforestation in..." seems to be a common title for these types of articles, and it avoids NPOV issues.  "Rosewood logging" isn't quite accurate, since the article covers other woods (although rosewood is the primary one) and "Illegal logging" seems a bit limiting when legal logging and cyclone impacts are relevant to the issue.  Cyclone impacts (admittedly intertwined with illegal logging) do get some mention in the article as you have it.  Then again, your focus is the illegal logging aspect, but I am not sure it would take much to incorporate legal logging, since there apparently were times and locations where legal logging occurred.  If you stick to illegal logging then the "Illegal logging" title may be best.  The quote about "legalizing illegality" in the "Cyclical exports and cyclone damage" section also seem to point to a gray area in which the logging is technically illegal but the government allows it anyway.  The photo of the dead bamboo lemurs, though effective, may be a bit problematic since, while the caption relates them to the article topic via the statement "The meat is often consumed by loggers...", I'm not sure the article itself supports that statement - the quote from Conservation International is ambiguous on the point.  The one other place that I think was a bit problematic was the section listing 5 wealthy people orchestrating the logging and transporting.  When I read that section it hit me as sort of an expose from 60 Minutes rather than an encyclopedia article.  The names seem to be sourced, so may be okay, but is there a reason for naming these 5 people out of the several dozen Timber Barons?  If not, I wonder if skipping the list of names may be best.  The last few sections I probably need to look at later when the prosification is complete. Hope this helps.  Rlendog (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the initial feedback. It sounds like we're on the same page in regards to the things that concern us about the article as it stands now.  As you point out, since the article is focused on illegal logging, I'll probably just switch the title to "Illegal logging in Madagascar."  Honestly, "Deforestation in Madagascar" would ultimately be a topic, not an article... probably on par with what the lemur topic will be when finished.  This page would definitely make a good summary page for one section of it, if it were ever to be written.  As for the gray area between legality and illegality, you also have to factor in government corruption, which is very high.  It's a tough one, and that's why I'm shaky on the title.  But again, "deforestation" is far too broad, and "illegal logging" is probably the closest fit, since logging is for valuable timber, whereas most other deforestation in Madagascar is for slash-and-burn, fuel wood, or mining.  In regards to the photo of the dead lemurs, let's wait and make that call when I'm done.  The threat to lemurs (and other wildlife protected under these umbrella species) is what is driving all the attention that this topic gets.  The last section in the article will talk at length about the threats to lemurs, and that *may* merit the picture.  If not, I have lots of pictures to pull from... and probably even more can be obtained if I ask.  Lastly, listing some of the major timber barons was done for two reasons: 1) multiple sources talk about them, sometimes at length, and 2) it illustrates their government connections (ability to corrupt legal processes), wealth (business ownership), and connections to other legal enterprises (vanilla, up-scale hotels, etc.).  Basically it highlights the complexity of the problem.  Should I list every name given in the papers for fairness?  Should I just omit them?  I don't know.  If you can give me a strong opinion, based on Wiki rules and guidelines, I will honor that.  If you're uncertain, then I may leave it and see how it fairs in a GA and FA review.  Ultimately, it has encyclopedic value... the question is how much, and is it NPOV?  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't list all the names - that would just detract from the article, which is not a list. The question with naming these names I guess is whether there is any dispute about their role.  The source is written pretty definitively, but would a source from a different point of view make the same statement?  If so, if this is really undisputed, then maybe naming these 5 is appropriate.  But it still may be better to state their roles - i.e., a former member of parliament, the heads of particular trade organizations - to stay clear of possible BLP issues. Rlendog (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Herein lies a problem: there are no conflicting reports. I think the international community pretty much agrees that all of these activities are illegal and harmful to the country.  No one has disputed the names given, and, if anything, I get the impression that the timber traders see their work as perfectly legal, and therefore don't deny it.  If anyone is denying anything, it's not in English or French, and it's probably only done by bribed Malagasy officials and Chinese buyers.  Everyone else seems to hide behind the "we didn't know" excuse, pointing at the lack of documentation associated with the exported products.  I have been looking for published pieces from the other side of the aisle, and honestly, I can't find any.  If you have time to try and have better luck, please let me know. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the page has been coming along and I'm down to 3 relatively small, simple section to write. In fact, it will be the only thing I work on today, so I plan to publish it later this evening at the latest. If you have a chance to look it over this afternoon or evening, please do. Thanks again for the input so far! –  VisionHolder  « talk »  14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Up she goes! >> Illegal logging in Madagascar << Please check it out, leave comments/corrections, and give a quick assessment if you have time.  Once it's been assessed at B-class, I'll submit for GAC. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  06:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured that the article is probably already GA-class (at least) anyway, so I submitted it at WP:GAN anyway. You can still give it a quick assessment if you want.  However, I would still value your feedback on the article when you get the time. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  06:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Capitalization_debate
You are invited to join the discussion at. Mike moral  ♪♫  05:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Dwarves noms
Maybe you don't know it, but I offered to withdraw the noms if Michig wanted to redirect them. He refused the offer. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think some of those articles should be redirected (and I suspect that the AfD process will end up with that result for some of the albums), but others seem notable enough to remain as articles. Rlendog (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that we disagree and have been able to do it civilly thus far. I really do question the significant label being placed on the allmusic reviews. They do a review for many albums that never do even marginally successful, even from groups we've deleted. And I have difficulty calling a one paragraph pro-forma review anything but trivial. A number of these albums really have nothing more than a couple of single paragraph blurbs. If they were truly notable albums, we should certainly be able to find more than that. I've also noted that the same ref has been used on 7 of these noms. The ref is one page in a book that lists discographies. How substantial can the coverage be when 7 albums (or more) are all on the same page? It's nothing more than an entry on a list. If I were seeing actual articles from more than the same one or two sources, I'd gladly withdraw the noms. But I can't bring myself to do that when it's a couple of one paragraph reviews. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria for albums is much less stringent than for songs, i.e., per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." So when Allmusic takes the trouble to provide a review, as opposed to just a track listing (as it does on many albums), I take that as a large step in the direction of significance.  Most allmusic reviews are just a paragraph but still can significantly cover a subject - I counted the words on one of the reviews and it was almost 300 words long - hardly the coverage you'll find of any Beatles album, but that is hardly the Wikipedia standard.  On the other hand, one of the early Dwarves albums (whose AfD I have not commented on, at least not yet, as I am unsure of my position; ironically, I am partially concerned that my revoltion at their material may be coloring my opinion) has a 2 paragraph allmusic review, but only a sentence or two discussing the album itself, so probably not significant there.  For at least one or two of the albums I commented on, there was at least one other article I was able to access that was longer than the allmusic review.  You may be right about the book reference, though.  I don't have any books that cover this group so I can't tell how significant the coverage there is.  I assumed it was significant, but I could be wrong. Rlendog (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have that book either, but it is a discography book. The book is viewable on Google Books and the page is viewable.. Does that look like significant coverage for each album to you? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a rename
I think it's time to rename Fork-crowned lemur to Fork-marked lemur, as well as rename all the species within the genus. The common name "Fork-marked X" is used in both the Lemurs of Madagascar and the most recent lemur classification paper by Mittermeier, Groves, et al. Should I post the request on WP:RM, where it is likely to sit for days or weeks while people who really don't care (or know any better) glance over it, or should I post it to WT:PRIMATE and discuss it there instead? Alternatively, could you just make the move if you feel that it's not likely to be contested? In the latter case, I would move it myself, but redirects already exist for these names. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  17:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd post it at WT:PRIMATE. That will give it most attention from the editors who are likely to be interested.  It probably wouldn't hurt to wait a week to see if there are any objections before moving. Rlendog (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The rename request has sat for 15 days without comment at WT:PRIMATE. Do you think it's safe to make the moves?  If so, the moves are outlined in the post. Thanks! –   VisionHolder  « talk »  22:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. At worst, someone will revert, and then a discussion can settle the issue.  But I doubt it will even come to that. Rlendog (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was able to change 3 of the 4 names, but one will require admin action due to there being too many edits to the redirect that I need to over-write. Can you please change Mount d'Ambre Fork-crowned Lemur to Amber Mountain Fork-marked Lemur?  Everything else, including name changes on the pages and extra redirects have been taken care of. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  06:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. Rlendog (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Another quick assessment
If you get a moment, could you please make another quick assessment of the new article Hadropithecus that I wrote tonight? I'll probably submit for GA review soon. I'll may go for FAC after I comb the academic literature and significantly expand it. But for now, it covers all the secondary sources and a few of the newer primary sources. Anyway, thanks! –  VisionHolder  « talk »  08:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind... looks like Ucucha got it. ;-)  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  16:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Rlendog's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats, man! You deserve it!  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing WP Palaeontology banner
Out of curiosity, is there a reason why you removed the WP Palaeontology banner from the Hadropithecus talk page when you updated the status to GA? I'm curious because I was going to go around and standardize all the subfossil lemur pages to have those 3 banners. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  19:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I removed that intentionally. I put it back (with its shiny new GA-class. Sorry about that.  Rlendog (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Bob Dylan Newsletter
Greetings! This message has been sent courtesy of WikiProject Bob Dylan, which you are a member of. Our project now has two Featured Articles: Bob Dylan and Like a Rolling Stone, and three Good Articles: Mr. Tambourine Man, It's All Over Now, Baby Blue and Madhouse on Castle Street. Suggestions are now being canvassed for the next article to work on, as part of the WP Dylan collaboration team. Please voice your opinion here. Regards, --Richhoncho (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial‎‎
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 23:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

year-in-baseball
"baseball articles lend themselves much more readily than film or music to year by year tables". Will you kindly justify this assertion? Tony  (talk)  23:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An individual film is released in one particular year. A baseball player (usually) plays for multiple years.  Hence a baseball player article is much more likely to need a table covering multiple years than a film article. Rlendog (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title
You are invited to join the discussion at. DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Hey dude. Wanted to let you know that I replied to your comment here. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chimes of Freedom
The article Chimes of Freedom you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chimes of Freedom for eventual comments about the article. Well done! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! Well, it took a while to get there but at least this article passed GA review in the end. Was all pretty painless too. Good work! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You too! I guess My Back Pages is next.  I finally did some work on the Dylan section a couple of weeks ago, but it probably needs some wordsmithing, and I didn't get around to expanding the lead and making it summarize the main text. Rlendog (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to have a little look at "My Back Pages" over the next week or so. See what more I can add and see if I can improve the quality of the prose at all. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your user subpage
Hello . Just to let you know, but did you mean to spell the word 'favourites' as 'favorties' in User:Rlendog/favorties? Regards, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was an old version with a typo. The real page is spelled correctly.  I forgot it was still there; it no longer is.  Thanks for letting me know. Rlendog (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A medal

 * Thank you very much! Rlendog (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Bells of Rhymney
Hi Rlendog! I just wanted to ask your advice (as an administrator) on something...I'm wondering if the Pete Seeger/Idris Davies song "The Bells of Rhymney" should have its own article? As far as notability goes, the song has been recorded by Pete Seeger & Sonny Terry, Judy Collins, Cher, The Alarm, John Denver, and most famously by The Byrds. In addition there's a reasonable amount of coverage of the song on the internet.

Currently "The Bells of Rhymney" is a redirect page to the article on the town of Rhymney itself. While that article does feature a section dedicated to the song (which I've had a hand in expanding), I can't help thinking that folks searching for the song don't necessarily want to read about the history of the town. It just seems like a slightly spurious redirect to me, especially when the song is almost certainly notable enough to warrant its own article. Just to be clear, I'm proposing leaving a brief section about the song in the existing Rhymney article but relocating most of the information about the song's history and cover versions to "The Bells of Rhymney" page. I just wanted to get your thoughts on this. What do you think? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it should have a separate article. I think the section on Bells of Rymney within the Rymney article should be split out (properly, to be consistent with licenses), since the song (and poem) is notable in its own right, the section in the article is solely about the song, not about any specific place or attraction within Rymney, and the song is not actually about the Rymney, but indeed refers to other places. Rlendog (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for basically confirming what I already thought. I'll split this at some point over the coming days, although I'm thinking that "The Bells of Rhymney" should really just be about the song, with the poem (which doesn't feature the word "The" in its title) located at "Bells of Rhymney", if somebody wants to create that page one day. I'm only planning to touch upon the poem so far as its relevant to the song in the new article located at "The Bells of Rhymney". I'll also be sure to follow the guidelines for splitting articles as per WP:SPLIT. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the song versus the poem. By the way, do you think "My Back Pages" is ready for GA nomination? Rlendog (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion
You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Cubs FT?
Any thoughts on pursuing a WP:GT or WP:FT with Chicago Cubs. I see all the work you did at List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting pitchers and notice that List of Chicago Cubs managers is also a WP:FL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I woudn't mind participating in such an effort, but I think a lot more good/featured items would be needed to get this topic to GT or FT. Off the top of my head, the Cubs main article, Wrigley Field, a list of draft picks, a list of players.  I think a couple of basketball teams are GT or FT, but I don't think any baseball teams are there yet. Rlendog (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Message for you
Hi Riendog. I have a message for both you and Kohoutek1138 on Kohoutek1138's (talk page). Thank you! Moisejp (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Susanne Mentzer
BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Connecticut Sun
Hello, Rlendog. I could use your help. You see, there is a major issue with the Connecticut Sun page, and this IP user, 71.235.140.89, has been making this mess a whole lot worse than it needs to be. I told him several times to stop, but he continues to do it anyway. Now that you are an administrator, can you try to block him indefinitely so that his vandalism will come to an end?

Thanks, Xavier (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)MR.Texan281


 * Rlendog, I honestly don't think 24 hours of being blocked is good enough. He is at it again, apparently not learning his lesson. What are we supposed to do now? Xavier (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)MR.Texan281

My Back Pages
Hi Rlendog! Yes, I was thinking the other day that we should nominate this but I'm not sure it's quite as comprehensive in its coverage as the "Mr. Tambourine Man" or "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" articles were when you nominated them. It's difficult because there doesn't seem to have been as much written about "My Back Pages" as some other Dylan songs, which is surprising considering it's essentially his farewell to topical protest songwriting. Anyway, I guess we'll just have to see what the GA reviewer makes of it and whether they deem it to be complete enough. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My Back Pages
Hi, I am reviewing your GA nomination and have left a few comments for you to address at Talk:My Back Pages/GA1. Many thanks, Xtzou ( Talk ) 16:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Meiacanthus.
Hello, Rlendog; CorenSearchBot thinks that Meiacanthus is copied from this link However, I had never seen that site before; all that is on that page is derived from the genus page at Fishbase. I've done exactly what I've done with this page, with other pages, and no one ever found anything wrong with it. What do I do? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to do anything. You noted on the talk page that the bot was in error.  I added a comment agreeing with you and noting some evidence that your list was not copied from the link that CorenSearchBot provided.  Remember, a bot can't think for itself so it will make mistakes.  In this case, any list of the species within Meiacanthus is going to look similar, and that apparently fooled the bot. Rlendog (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, very much!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)