User talk:Bodney/Archive 1

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Bodney. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Misha B[edit]

Hello,

I did try and explain this in the edit summary but I'll expand here further. That particular part of the article drew extensive discussion on whether it should be included and in what form; in fact, every sentence and word was agreed upon as a result of the DRN. Changing the wording (especially in this way) nullifies our consensus and will resort to the content warring we had about the issue previously. So, if you do want it changed, I would suggest putting up a discussion on the talk page so we can hear your thoughts and go from there. Thanks! —JennKR | ☎ 09:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when I said it was contentious, I wasn't referring to your edit (although it may be seen like that), I was talking about the specific wording in the article. —JennKR | ☎ 09:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I do see a few edit disputes in the past. I dont think they should stop present or future editors updating and hopefully improving any article:)

I did not think (as it was fact) that it would be overly contenious ;). The 'majority' simply sounded to me as a reader clearer than vague 'several' and a more accurate record of the unfair event.Bodney (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misha B[edit]

Hello,

A tour or live performance is conducted in front of people, every time Misha B picks up a microphone for a YouTube video is neither of these. If you think it's important, consider putting it in the biography. Also, please don't revert my edits when I've made several changes in one, it takes a lot of time to scan paragraphs for mistakes and grammatical errors and even more to put them back in. (PS: Can you cite the Redbrick source fully if you want to include it; my only problem with performance reviews is that there are no mixed/negative ones included. Every time she does a performance you can't include a sentence or two to say it was good as this contravenes Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.) Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 23:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also although it may seem the article is bland because I'm removing "interesting stuff", it's not my intention. At the moment, parts of the article go into too much detail with too much description, reminiscent of a magazine article. It's necessary to weed out the bloat to make the paragraphs much concise, encyclopaedic and easier to read so the article is of the best quality; it may even be ready for GA status some time. Thanks! —JennKR | ☎ 00:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Was just moving the Ride and Die to a better place, but you edit fast = edit conflict. I cant even reply here without another Edit conflict page lol.

Same goes the other way round, when you remove whole chunks, many which I disagree with, plus i was correcting grammar errors. Will re-find rebrick, someone else edited it down. Cant help if only good reviews can be found ...but I dont think the Telegraph praised her NBA show.Bodney (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be readable, a good mix between brevity and interesting detail is a reasonable goal. Bodney (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misha B[edit]

I asked you politely not to blank revert my edits before and it's disheartening, especially when you've put a lot of effort into trying to improve the article, to see you do it again. As it stands, and as people have pointed out on the talk page, parts of the article read like a magazine. Long quotes from Misha, precisely-taken short quotes about how amazing her voice is and other reviews that support this create an article that read something like a fan site.

You are not wikipedia. If you make unnecessary changes I will change them back. I dont accept the criticism other non qualified editors have made re magazine style. Bodney (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring your damaging edits is very time consuming Bodney (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that we are all "non qualified" to edit, but the fact it's been raised by many people on the talk page indicates it's a problem. Every positive remark, every song uploaded to YouTube and every magazine quote seems to be included on the page and although you see my edits as damaging, I'm weeding out the considerably redundancy in the article so it's easier to read. The page has been packed out with laborious details; long quotes of text are especially boring and I've demonstrated how they can be summarised in a sentence. Trying to reduce this makes a much more interesting encyclopaedia article, however, still problems exist in the fact that the Musical style and influences section still violates WP:NPOV. The information on her voice is a good example -- yes, we should note that she has been commended for her voice, but it should be expanded on beyond this: her vocal range, technique, abilities, etc. Short quotes that Misha sang X with "soulful urgency" and "amazing vocals" just puff out the text; no one cares that she sang X song and X person thought it was brilliant -- we are building an encyclopedia article, not a review or a fansite. (Re your edit summaries: Just to note that per WP:TWITTER, as long as the account is verified (which @IamMishaB is), we can use it for noteworthy information, and as for your comment on pictures, well they're a requirement of FAs and expected in GAs, they break up the text nicely and I don't see them as problematic.) —JennKR | ☎ 17:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC

NPOV violation ... were the is no negative comments, do we invent it? do we not include genuine comments...just to make an article seem 'balanced' ...surely that conlicts with NPOV itself, by being biased.Bodney (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with that -- we shouldn't invent negative comments or even look hard for them, if none or few exist. However, overly doing the positive comments leads to breaking NPOV. For example, if Misha B agrees to perform "Home Run" for SBTV and they say it's great -- it's sort an expected thing, to promote themselves and Misha positively. An encyclopedia is supposed to be informative; for example, it's much better to say in January 2013 Misha B performed at an NBA Half Time Show, than to expand on this and include the fact that the Daily Telegraph said it was shrill. Sometimes, with high-profile events, a consensus among critics exists, e.g. a certain song or performance was amazing or awful, and this should be included. However, picking one magazine/review/person's comments on something is POV-pushing, and generally, including a review of anything on a biography of a living person (BLP) is not the best in creating a biography that conforms to Wiki's standards. —JennKR | ☎ 17:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put :) (I did include the shrill bit originally because it was one of the few negative comments from a good source, yes I have hunted for counter views)Bodney (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was drummed into me that Twitter & other social media sites are not reliable sources.Bodney (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who drummed this into you and when? They're definitely not the best source, but can be used sparingly. Facebook has never been a good option as until this month they never used a verified account feature. Twitter always has, and as long as the account is verified and the material is noteworthy and worth inclusion (perhaps confirmation of a single/album release date) then it's fine. Twitter never takes the place of a secondary source, however, which is always preferred (e.g. a news source).

Thanks, I was told by various editors that such sources were self serving. I am grateful for the update.Bodney (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over reduced text is very hard to read...sometimes the reader needs a context.Bodney (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The is no physical limit on web space for an article, the only limit is readability.[reply]

What you've just said (Over reduced text is very hard to read) is probably an oxymoron, i.e. it doesn't make sense, how can be simplicity be too difficult? Context is one thing, extreme detail is another. (The only limit is readability.) —JennKR | ☎ 17:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you take too much out, removing relevant detail, it becomes bland, disjointed and disconnected ...so it makes an article hard to read and pointless. Shorter is not always better if it fails to get a point across:) Bodney (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disjointed? Disconnected? What?? I'm sorry, but your trying to defend the indefensible. Puffery and padding does not aid in making things easier to read. —JennKR | ☎ 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it is not indefensible if it is a valid comment.

Relevant detail about artistry using actual examples to support is not puffery and padding, a phrase like 'with instrumental rapture' is confusing without its context "hidden depths are revealed as her exceptional vocals connect with instrumental rapture."...but maybe adding unnecessary pics of other pop stars, or over mentioning an album (which has no title, date, track list or any firm details) or whether she was a veggie for a short while ...might be considered a tad fluffy. LOL Bodney (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Instrumental rapture" makes perfect sense, consider it may be only you who has difficulty with that. You may sneer at the addition of pictures or the fact someone is vegetarian (when Wikipedia maintains a list of such people and categories for it), but at least I'm helping to build an article and not a Misha B fan site. —JennKR | ☎ 19:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I am a daft veggy. i just dont think it is noteworthy. And I am not building a fansite, simply a detailed unbiased record of relevant information, supported by evidence.Bodney (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worked for a veggy company for 13 years ...it was more that you were removing stuff about a singers artistry, influences, style, genre etc but adding not so noteworthy info about a temporary diet phase :) Bodney (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I want you to consider the reverse about ... "Instrumental rapture" makes perfect sense, consider it may be only you who has difficulty with that ... not everyone has your insight and knowledge, a fresh reader might not understand. (I have worked in child education)Bodney (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a good reason to steer clear of excessively quoting magazine articles; part of a journalists job is to sensationalise, reviews - especially of music - are often written in a way that interests the reader; flowery language (like "instrumental rapture") is used to describe songs, voices etc. What I've been trying to do is cut this down, and whereas you might see it as removing context, it's my attempt at compromise for what I see as something that should not be in the article at all. The Musical style and influences section was the largest of all before my edits, which is strange in comparison to other articles -- why should someone's influences be bigger than the artist themselves? Whereas that lengthy quote about the influence of Moss Side interests you because you are obviously a fan and like to read such things, for casual readers, that rather huge quote can be turned into "Misha B was greatly influenced by Moss Side and the work of Michael Jackson". It's much easier to read and the source can be accessed if they want confirmation of such. Simply, the level of detail has to be consistent and balanced; the fact that someone was a vegetarian for some time is a perfectly fine amount of detail for a rather tiny personal life section, however, five or six magazine reviews of her voice or genres is a little overboard in the growing Musical style and influences section, plus the fact that it is all positive doesn't read well. I'm glad you read over the summary style guide and that piece from Tony1, they both helped me when improving prose, which in turn improves the readability of any article you choose to edit -- the article reads a lot better than it did and perhaps could be peer reviewed/assessed soon. —JennKR | ☎ 21:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess only a minority of Wikipedia readers check through an articles sources, and many read music bio articles on a mirroring site like the BBC where the citations are no longer visible. Your constant belittling of me as some kind of besotted fan is cheap, irrelevant & a tad personal. Misha B is notable precisely because she is a music artist, that is why the is an an attempt to examine her vocals etc from more than one isolated source. To remove relevant stuff about her craft and replace it with unnecessary stuff about a short term diet is odd.Bodney (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence has completely baffled me. People don't read music bio articles on Wikipedia? People don't use references? What? I'm completely dumbfounded. The whole point of Wikipedia and an encyclopaedia is to reference work and people definitely read music bios and use references.

No I did not say people don't read wikipedia bios... People do read Wikipedia bios ...I am saying most readers (apart from wikipedia editors) simply dont read the references, they don't have time (apart from maybe briefly checking the articles quality). Plus many more read them on mirroring sites like the BBC Music and various other sites where the citations are not visible Bodney (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your second comment is very strange, since I don't ever remember stating you we're a fan until now; which it's obvious you are - and as am I, I also never said it in a way that was remotely negative, and you should not at all see it that way. I was pointing out that people interested in a certain topic will obviously enjoy the details about it; for example, I have been a large contributor to J.K. Rowling's article and today there was consensus to remove something I had added about her living in Edinburgh, I enjoy this detail, but other editors saw it as too much. It's a similar point here, you obviously enjoy reading magazine articles, interviews and performances of Misha B (since you're rather good at finding them), but as much as you're interested, they're not always relative to building an encyclopedia article. To address your last point in a nutshell, there has to be balance in an article so it appears to be neutral. I removed the comments about her voice because two or three satisfy the job that she has a good one (as opposed to the several already there), however, I also added the fact she was a vegetarian (or rather, now pescetarian) to begin a Personal life section that would hopefully expand. The article, therefore, provides a variety of factual details on Misha B and not deviates into paragraphs of praise. —JennKR | ☎ 23:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should concentrate on the aspects of her life for which she is actually notable for ...her music, her vocals and public image. One report looks like an opinion, a selection of reviews builds up into a unified picture. Irrelevant stuff about her personal life is surely much more magazine fan site filler. Bodney (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balance is very important, but surely accuracy ought not be sacrificed for the sake of balance...(extreme examples: for instance an articles on Idi Amin, Pol Pot or Hitler or other bad person should include all the bad stuff even though it paints them bad) genuine sources come across as positive or negative then the accurate thing is to report them, to not include them for the sake of balance surely weakens the article??? Bodney (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking balance as in neutrality (positive/negative) here, I'm talking about a range of information. If Wikipedia articles concentrated on the things that only a person was notable before, they would be extremely bland. Not to mention, some of the most important sections would not exist, such as Early life and Personal life, as generally (and in Misha B's case) they would not be notable for either. To answer your second point, in a nutshell, yes, we should report things accurately, and the general consensus is that her voice is well-received. However, I've demonstrated that this can be said in a sentence; it doesn't need padding out, re-affirming and saying in more ways than one. The accusations that the page may read like a magazine article is because the description has been dragged out: "powerful", "versatile", "brimming with a raw power", "stupendous", "with soulful urgency"; the reader has already got the idea that Misha has good vocals from one or two of these phrases. Where the article becomes non-neutral is here; there is conscious effort to seek information that Misha has good vocals and this information doesn't even need a paragraph, especially not the largest paragraph of the entire article. All I'm saying is that it's always best to be concise in your prose and allow the reader to make their own decision about certain aspects of the person - opinion should always be presented neutrally, and whole paragraphs of reviews of her voice which use the elaborate language of journalists, which are especially positive, are unnecessary when the idea can be obtained shortly and push a POV. —JennKR | ☎ 15:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understand your valid approach. I am offline or on a very bad 256K internet for 2 days.Bodney (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree Some background is important..as to where she is from, her musical influences, how she became a singer, plus her more notable activities on the public stage ...but not all (like I have not included anything about her busking with Boris Johnson even though that was covered by the nationals). Bodney (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Except every bio on Wikipedia does start with a short background early life section.) The only reason that this singer has a Wikipedia page is that she became notable in public life. A Wikipedia page on her should primarily concentrate on those aspects that make her worthy of a Wikipedia Article (her music artistry and its roots) and minimize inconsequential chaff and fluff. (Vegetarianism was a very temporary aspect of her young life it was not worth mentioning, if she was publicly championing or campaigning for a vegetarian diet I would def think it should be included). Surely the chaff and fluff of someone's life is best left in the realm of gossip mags.Bodney (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I try not to use my own words in case I get accused of original research. The whole idea of giving a selection of examples is so the reader can make their own mind up, based on a range of evidence. Many singers have powerful and versatile voices, fewer have vocals that can be said to be 'brimming with raw power' or 'soulful urgency'. Sometimes I use more than one example where the sources are not the best quality` to give a more rounded/accurate picture (Grammy.com is good, but I is still waiting for the 3 page Rolling Stone article ;) )Bodney (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size of a paragraph surely if good quality info and analysis is there -> present it in the clearest way possible. If the paragraph is too long, divide it up. Some sections are longer than others, it does nor matter (maybe someone edited the others lol;) ). Surely don't delete real info just because that section might have some actual detail. My starting point is that I simply looked at the wide variety of other artists artistry pages. As long as Misha's notable career is moving, all sections of her Wikipedia article will rise and fall. duty callsBodney (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to explain this again and again, and I'm unsure if you're confused about my points or disagreeing with what I'm saying? To put it bluntly, when accessing a biography, people don't want to read reviews, they want to read information.

Info & Details about her vocals is information. They are not reading the whole review but a highlighted, very brief summary.

The collection of quotes before generally say the say thing: she has a brilliant voice. A few quotes suffice in saying this from music publications (which should build a consensus that reflects the sources, in this case, a good voice) and that's all that needs to be discussed.

That is precisely what I am trying to do, one source is mere opinion, the 3-4 I used start to build a consensus description.

If people want to read reviews, they would access them from a music publication.

many online sources like BBC music & MTV are entirely based on wikipedia

The problem was, there was an entire paragraph that said, X said X, X said X, X said X, again and again; descriptions like "brimming with raw power" and "with soulful urgency" are nice, emotive phrases, but at best opinions and journalistic puffery. If we look at the featured article Mariah Carey, specifically the Voice and timbre section, we see how these things are done well. We're told mostly about her voice (not reception) and what it can do, as well as why it's so poignant, what follows is a paragraph with music journalist comments that are actually telling us something: "rich, husky alto", "a florid blend of breathy riffing and resonant belting".

It is hard to compare Misha with such a well established artist, who has has far more analysis of her vocals, but to me it seemed that the comments on Misha's vocals are very much in tune with Mariah Carey's Voice and timbre section, but are less developed because we are dealing with a new artist. They do describe her voice.

This comes onto my next point, and to answer your points, paragraph size is actually very important and "[dividing] it up" is certainly not the answer. The best thing is to reduce things down, keep it concise and avoid long quotes and short quotes that say the same thing. And this is the crux of what I've been saying all along: it's difficult and unnecessary for the reader to sift through a bunch of long quotes and short quotes that are saying the same thing, or something that can be summarised quite quickly. The only limit is readability (as your quote said) is so relevant to how things should be written; articles need to be written to interest the reader and in a way that is both and neutral and concise. Yes, the article should always focus on what the person is notable for, but that's the very thing that was lost: focus. The Musical style and influences section was by far the largest and was really becoming a hotchpotch of positive criticism -- examine some other music bios, no ones influences/style section is longer than a career subsection. I also in no way "sacrificed" the quotes you added for the information on her vegetarianism (I hope you didn't feel that way at least), I removed the information because it was bad prose and added the former because it's pretty standard of Wikipedia to include these details (see the likes of Gandhi or Ellen DeGeneres). If you think it's not worthy of inclusion then bring it up on my talk page, but it has nothing to do with the reduction of the Musical style and influences section. (To add "the chaff and fluff" of someone's life is always important to Wikipedia; does it matter on the Carol Ann Duffy article that she's bisexual? Or that Fearne Cotton and Rihanna have tattoos? It seems so.) —JennKR | ☎ 18:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your explanation, but dont fully agree with your argument. Being concise is good, but too concise and we dont tell the reader anything interesting or notable about the singer. It is a balance. To me it is better to give slightly too much info and let the reader digest it, rather than too little info ...where the reader simply does not know, so cant make their mind up.

[Briefly: Misha's career section is short because she is new struggling artist and someone :) had already edited that section down...But though she is very new...her vocals & music artistry has been noted]

[Aside comment: Misha does praise her influences alot ...i think she does not want to upset anyone by not mentioning them]

Gandhi's life cant really be compared to Misha B, the dietry aspects one of them is internationally and historically a bit more influential/significant. Misha has tattoos, but she is not currently famous enough to make that fact interesting enough for an encyclopedia. ***i better go ... this computer is crashing.

But we do tell the reader something interesting and notable, and we can do it in the simplest form possible. Look at that quote (you may have added? Perhaps it was someone else?) about the influence of Moss Side on Misha. It's 6-7 sentences long, and can be summarised into one. It's the exact same thing with her voice and performances; every time she sings, the fact she has does not need a Wikipedia mention unless it's at a notable event or music release, nor does the reception need to be added. Her voice definitely needs describing, and I know Mariah Carey is a difficult example (as Mariah is considerably more famous and possesses a voice that has attracted a lot of criticism), but the way that section manages to tell us lots of different things, other than just positive reviews, is something that should be aimed for across Wikipedia music bios (as its FA status) and in this one - even if its quite a short article in comparison. As it stands, I think the article is quite good (even this section in question), I just hope that you understand why people have said this article sometimes appears magazine-like, and that every single review/performance etc. need not be reported. And thank you also for creating this section, I'm pretty sure it didn't exist until a short while ago and it is definitely relevant to somebody who can rap and sing as well as she can. I'm sure some other articles will come along if and when her album is released that will aid in the description of her artistry. —JennKR | ☎ 00:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am back late from travelling across the country. Firstly I want to say I am grateful for your patient explanations. The Moss side quote is interesting, just saying Moss Side does not tell the reader much...but the quote told the reader more ...it spoke of the carnival culture and the mishmash of musical influences. Additionally sometimes I have used the whole quote, because I believed it to be more authentic ...who am I to say which influence should be included and which should be edited out.Bodney (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems that most times you have used the term WP:SUMMARYSTYLE that what you are referring to has nothing to do with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE which is more to do with splitting more extensive articles into separate manageable pages.

I dont need your permission to make edits, maybe you should discuss things before removing chunksBodney (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just it, Bodney. Chunks! The article was full of unnecessary details, padding and paragraphs of magazine-like prose. It's much better now, although has some to go. —JennKR | ☎ 17:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Detail" section (WP:DETAIL) on that page is the section you're looking for, the three bullet points address how much information and where. The section links you to Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Be concise which might be useful. —JennKR | ☎ 17:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK :) " Wikipedia is not divided into a macropædia, micropædia, and concise version, as is the Encyclopædia Britannica—we must serve all three user types in the same encyclopedia"..... Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs .... Some readers need just a quick info of the topic's most important points (lead section), others need more detail... But any wiki article on Misha is a very long way off from having separate child articles, so those relevant details need to be in the current only/main article.

PS: It may be you (correct me if I'm wrong) but some editors and some in the past use the "quote=" function when citing a source, don't unless it's indirect or a long piece of text. When you're directly quoting, e.g. "Misha B said...", don't fill it in as it's redundant and makes editing the source page difficult.

sorry, not fully understoodBodney (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it may be you who does this, or a past editor, but when you quote from an online source, don't fill in the quote box when citing the source unless it's an indirect quote or the article is really long. If you're using the direct quote from the article, don't bother to fill it in. (It's unnecessary and when you come to edit the page, it's hard to read). —JennKR | ☎ 17:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PSS: Also, when using the "date=" parameter, can you use "August 9, 2013" and not "09-08-2013", this becomes a problem later if the page is ever promoted to GA or even FA status. Regardless, the page should use a consistent formatting.

noted & agreedBodney (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this discussion has got a bit messy/disjointed at times/places but I am grateful for most of the info you have givenBodney (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —JennKR | ☎ 18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misha B[edit]

I think there are two types of ways a person is signed:

to a subsidiary, e.g. Misha B to Relentless and RCA (Sony), Britney Spears to Zomba (Sony)
to the parent company, e.g. Michael Jackson to Sony Music, Beyonce to Columbia Records

and if a person is listed as signed to various subsidiaries, according to the infobox guidelines, they should be listed with commas. I think this chart history from the Official Charts Company confirms that it's RCA/Relentless, so that should be fine. —JennKR | ☎ 20:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bodney (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From experience you should list the infoboxes as Relentless, RCA. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Home Run (song)[edit]

Upgraded to C-class. Didn't have time to thoroughly review for B class but its not far off. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10[edit]

fixed

Misha B[edit]

Hello,

I'm sorry to revert you're rather substantial edit to the Misha B page but the track listings of mixtapes should not be on an artist's biography page. I would create the pages (as long as you have reliable sources) and add them there, they don't need to be particularly long articles either. If she uploaded them to a mixtape site like DatPiff, link the track list to that, or perhaps check out Discogs and see if it's listed there. —JennKR | ☎ 19:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox album is useful, if you write "Mixtape" in the "type=" line, it will give you a mixtape infobox. Also, if you don't want to do both or any, I'd be happy establish one; I'd be equally happy to see you create both if you wanted to. Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 19:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create a discography page? I was not feeling confident about starting a whole new page lol :) I appreciate the apology as it did take a little time gathering and combining info. (from ok sources)

Ty for Template too. Bodney (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very unlikely the album is coming out this year (she has announced an EP for Xmas eve, and I would not be surprised if that gets delayed). We could leave the headings as they are or maybe give the headings 2012 and 2013 more descriptive titles or combine them? Bodney (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the Misha B discography page is a good idea. Opening a talk page discussion concerning the headings on Misha B is also. Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 20:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

``fighting my computer and loosing tonight ...I should say I would def any appreciate help setting the page/pages up ...i have not actually started a wikipedia page up and have much less confidence than some might imagine.

Maybe my sources were not top notch, closed many pages but they included

for knock knock musicbrainz.org/release/f046722d-52d7-4e50-a869-542a11442f & https://soundcloud.com/iammishab/knock-knock-the-mix-tape-1

for why hello world http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=misha+b+why+hello+world&oq=misha+b+whygs_l=youtube.1.0.0.176.176.0.3343.1.1.0.0.0.0.890.890.6-1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.B5EQ76-wEe8 & http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a378935/misha-b-releases-why-hello-world-mixtape-listen.html & https://soundcloud.com/iammishab/why-hello-world-mixtape

I will contine to look for more Bodney (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misha B is not listed yet on many major american music sites, inc the 2 you suggested i check.Bodney (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask the question sometime...relating to the discography...how best to treat covers ...Misha's Drake cover is a proper video with a director, but something like her Rhianna - Diamonds cover, can we record that somehow in a discography ?Bodney (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't include them—unless they've been released on a physical or digital format, such as on a mixtape. If the release is just a music video, then it's not notable. Just to add: Soundcloud/YouTube are not good sources, but the DigitalSpy one is very useful (as it contains the track listing). —JennKR | ☎ 22:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, for the guidance re the covers. Regards sources, somewhere amongst the trillion wikipedia pages I read recently was the fact that the was no blanket ban on youtube pages, especially if they are official like Vevo...(lesser pages- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links ) but I cant find the original page I saw (the are currently 116,473 links to youtube.com on Wikipedia = making it the 4th most linked resource)...but admittedly the youtube video I used for the track list may not have been official.

The main way to access both mixtapes was via the singers Facebook page, the Why hello World does not seem to be there anymore. Pity about Soundcloud. (I have been wondering separately about Instagram which is one of this artists favourite mediums.) Bodney (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A link giving time slots for "Why Hello World" http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/Entertainment/Music/Misha-B-Why-Hello-World-Mixtape not sure yet on its reliability. Needs checking.Bodney (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

Concerning your revert of The X Factor (UK) discography. Your blanket revert undid some broken bracket corrections. Never do a blind revert. Also for the dates, your format of dd-mm-yyyy is not on the WP:DATEFORMAT list of acceptable formats. In fact, it is on the never to use list of WP:BADDATEFORMAT. The reason being is what does this date mean: 05-11-2013? Is it May or November? On dates, either spell it out or use the ISO format of yyyy-mm-dd. Bgwhite (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise now I should have spelt the month out, as in dd - month name - YYYY format...I was trying to get an auto-cite tool to work on a naughty computer. The rest of the article was unified based on it being a UK subject, dd-mmmm-yyyy therefore the US-oriented mdy conventions which you applied made the date format inconsistent, so needed to be fixed. I could not see any broken bracket issues. On another article you converted REFs to ref...I am not sure if capital REFs are bad ...the idea was to make them stick out in editing as on my computer wiki code rarely comes up highlighted -- BOD -- 18:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the broken bracket just before posting the above message. It should be ref and not REF. Remember, it is not your page, so try to use standards. For highlighting wiki syntax, use User:Remember the dot/Syntax highlighter. You can install it by going up to the top of the page and Preferences -> Gadgets tab -> Editing section. Bgwhite (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is standard then I will use it. I just edit it a lot, I would def never claim to own it, wikipedia is best when many editors contribute. Many thanks for the tip. -- BOD -- 19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berkhamsted[edit]

Hi Bod, I've hesitated until now to call on by and make a suggestion regarding the editing of the Berkhamsted article. First though I would like to congratulate you on an excellent job in improving the article by bringing out all the research you have clearly done on the many aspects of the town which I know quite well but have learnt much more still as a result of all your endeavours. From my experience of doing such fine-tuning work there comes a time when you need to take a break and take time out from editing the article. Wikipedia articles are never going to be a finished job but are merely work in progress. It's just the case that some have been progressed much further than others. There is a point where in attempting to improve one's own work for a second third fourth etc .... time, your efforts go backwards and then it's difficult to exit even for a short time from the project. Having called in 'the Guild' it good to let them have some space to do their work. I have noticed some of their copy edits whilst improving readability etc have resulted in errors creeping in. These are minor and easy to fix but it would be best to let them finish and find a collaborator to discuss the tidying up. Then leave it to cook and for other editors to come along and do a bit. Meanwhile find some new projects. If any of what I say offends I apologise but thought your edit summaries were acknowledging this already and that a jolt might help. Tmol42 (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does not offend and very respectfully worded. I very much agree with all you say above. I had to make a couple of corrections this morning, but hopefully they might be my final interferences. I used to be an Anglo-Saxon buff before my brain jumped out of my ear and ran away, so I should soon have less internal pressure. -- BOD -- 09:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Very much failing to abide by your wisdom. I am obsessed and equally don't feel able to contribute elsewhere. -- BOD -- 13:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Hello, Bodney,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you have switched out of VisualEditor several times. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work for you, so that you didn't need to switch to the wikitext editor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quixotic plea[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Peter's Church Bexhill[edit]

Hi! Instead of us reverting back and forth, I wanted to clarify the issue of St Peter's Bexhill and the 772 date here. The list includes St Peter's Monkwearmouth at AD 674, but most of that building is also newer. At Monkwearmouth, it's the porch and western wall surviving, at St. Peter's, it's the arches, pillars, and the base of the tower walls. I fail to see, if Bexhill doesn't qualify for inclusion at 772, why Monkwearmouth should qualify for inclusion at 674.--78.144.239.163 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is this wrong ...List of places of worship in Rother ... King Offa's charter records the founding of a 40-by-20-foot (12.2 m × 6.1 m) church on this site on 15 August 772. The only remaining 8th-century feature is a preserved **reliquary lid**; the low, stocky tower of the late 11th century is the oldest part. Victorian restoration replaced the 13th-century chancel and added two bays to the nave. based on 5 references ... see url ... ist.historicengland.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1352817 ... hope that answers ok -- BOD -- 22:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's wrong. I'll try consulting the documentation at the church as soon as possible. I'm pretty sure the arches are original, because the diagram quite explicitly labels them as part of the "original church". The reliquary lid is indeed there and on display, but I'm pretty sure it's not the only bit left. I'll try and find something authoritative.--92.16.230.96 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited River Bulbourne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dudswell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

River Bulbourne

added links pointing to River Colne, Dudswell, Bourne and Apsley

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeremy Corbyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Union of Mineworkers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 6 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Jeremy Corbyn page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Bodney. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High Street, Berkhamsted[edit]

Thanks for your additions to the article about the building. I hope you don't mind my moving some of the sentences. There seems to be a problem with the reference for the Simon Thurley quote. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I am very grateful you started this page, I was wanting someone to do it, but I have partly withdrawn from wikipedia. I very happy for you to re-organise the artlcle as you see fit. I replaced the reference with a pre-existing one that contains the quote. Very wierd how the previous one to a UK gov page went to U.S department.-- BOD -- 21:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

enclosure , enclosure (legal)[edit]

surely there's no problem using a redirect enclosure (legal) which does rule out other meanings, and can be unambiguously linked to whateve the new name is. the fact it's a new redirect associated with this process marks it out for search MfortyoneA (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When i checked yesterday the premature link change did not work (though just now i see the link now works). When I looked again today at the enclosure talk page again i see no actual decision has been made to move or even agree on the name. So I simply reverted the edit until an actual decision is made.-- BOD -- 11:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Bodney. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheddar Man[edit]

Hello. I was going to change "black skin" to "brown skin" based on this article and video on bbc.com, which shows the "official" reconstruction of Cheddar Man, based on the DNA analysis, and clearly shows that his skin was brown, not black. An IP beat me to it, though, but I thought I'd tell you why it was changed, and also provide a link to bbc.com as proof... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, Bodney/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Just to summarise: Stop trying to rename List of people from Berkhamsted. Just create a redirect to it instead, as this is the standard format we use here, and you were also told that 4 years ago. I will be moving the page (again) back to its original naming style. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand and appreciate, big apologies for being slow, I was tired and my dinosaur brain was stuck on what seemed logical and couldn't see this was a case of following accepted practice. -- BOD -- 08:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page[edit]

I edited your user page to remove numerous lint errors. I did my best to preserve the appearance, and I believe I was successful. In the end, I left behind lint errors including Table tag that should be deleted, but I got rid of most of the others. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WoW! :) I did not think anyone would look at my talk page. I am very grateful for your help. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the 1RR restriction on Jeremy Corbyn.Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ... i wonder if you are involved in that discussion and maybe have opposing views ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol meetup[edit]

I'm sorry that you couldn't find us - what time did you arrive, how long did you stay? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived 45 minutes late, I walked around the venue which was very full, looking, but i felt very shy and disappeared after 5-10 minutes. My fault. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed my intended train, they're once an hour from Didcot; I arrived at about 13:55 BST (12:55 UTC) and there were four there already (MartinPoulter, RexxS, Rodw, Yodin) at a table in the middle, closer to the doors than to the bar. Straight away, I put up my banner on the table at which point RedSquirrel and Rwendland came over and joined us. Most stayed for some hours: the last three left at about 17:45. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awe sounds great, I am sad I did not stay. I have only contributed to a dozen or so articles. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Corbyn page[edit]

Please do not remove relevant and properly sourced information as you did by removing my recent edits on the Jeremy Corbyn page. Also, might I suggest you actually read the sources cited before making false allegations of wp:unsourced material. Particularly where multiple sources are given, e.g the Sun and the Times, AND, as I will now add to the information, the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Winchester2313 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies regards the Independent, i missed the passage when reading the article. However the Sun and the Daily Mail are definitely not acceptable RS sources for Wikipedia. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware (but am now) that the Daily Mail is not acceptable as a RS, as it flagged my edit when I included it. This was not the case with the Sun - are you sure it's not a RS?Winchester2313 (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the table on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit. When there is an RFC, we don't make changes until the RFC is concluded. Once the RFC concludes, then we can do what consensus in the RFC established. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is not the change, the removal. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of England[edit]

If we are agreed that "not every English reader knows" that the Queen of England is a titular head of state and not part of the government, what is the point of of perverting the purposes of Wikipedia to sustain the illusion that she is part of the government and therefore relevant to the opposition to the government? My politics lecturing mate who teaches visiting US students at the Drew University site in central London routinely starts his courses by disabusing his students of the notion that the Queen is part of the government. I removed the entry because it is irrelevant. You have conspicuously failed to demonstrate the relevance. Optymystic (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edit comment was mostly about the relevance of the PM. Regards the monarch, i just simply looked at previous leaders of the opposition in the UK articles and saw that it seemed to be a common style that Liz is listed in the Info Box. I made no comment about her constitutional position. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Bodney. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sex reassignment surgery into Transgender rights. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never knew that. I mistakenly thought that Wikipedia was non copyright under Creative Commons License and GNU Free Documentation License. Seems a bit heavy, but I now should know better in future. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berkhamsted[edit]

Thank you for your message. I lived in Berkhamsted as a teenager and still remember all the place names but I've only driven through the town a few times in the last 50 years. I admire all your good work on the wiki article. I don't own any sources on the town so my contributions are limited. In the past I've attempted to expand wiki articles on French villages and found it tricky to source the recent history (without original research). Archives of the print copies of local newspapers would be a possibility. Is there still a street market in Berkhamsted? I think at one time there were two cinemas. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind words. I also lived in Berko as a teenager, but my 91 year old mum still lives there and I go back frequently to support her. I have been a tad obsessed by my home town in past, but most of my haphazard research was via the internet (with the exception of accessing Scott Hastie's 2 coffee table sized books on the town and valley at my mum's retirement village library). The ancient weekly street market is still held on Saturday, with a farmers market held on the 3rd Sunday of every month. Regards the town's cinema cinemas ... I just found this page 'A picture perfect history of town’s cinemas' http://www.dacorumheritage.org.uk/article/a-picture-perfect-history-of-towns-cinemas/ which you might find useful. I do not get a lot of free time in Berkhamsted, but if you need any help, let me know. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Berkhamsted[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Berkhamsted you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :)) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William of Lindholme, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hermitage and Lindholme (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Berkhamsted[edit]

The article Berkhamsted you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Berkhamsted for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maisie Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Socialism[edit]

Hello! I've noticed you have the WikiProject Socialism userbox in your user page, but you didn't sign up in the project. You can do so in the WikiProject Socialism page, clicking the Join WikiProject button. If you have any doubt, feel free to ask it in the WikiProject talk page. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rowspans[edit]

Hi Bodney, According to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Rowspan_and_screen_readers screenreaders can actually read the information regardless of rowspans which is why I reverted myself, I spent a good chunk of my time this year removing these only to now find out it was all for nothing lol, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OH lol, SORRY ....I am half zzz and only just remembered it was you who kindly recommended before.... and then continued on as a dope. I will revert myself. N=o worries. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bodney, Haha no worries :), I'm not fussed which is used to be honest but I figured I should start reverting myself on these If I can :), Anyway thanks for reverting, Happy editing Bodney and stay safe :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dave I do think the separate rows do look neat (unless the are many repeats, like here with Games of Thrones on nearly every line), I happy not to change things, because I do find such tasks difficult. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting expansion and update edit support[edit]

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles, if possible. Even if you feel your focus area bit different still contribution of few line may help bring in some different perspective and also help Wikipedia goal of neutrality. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

Islamic advice literature

This has been posted on your talk page since, one of article review suggested to have more diverse editor participation to have more inclusive, neutral and balanced worldview (Including that of Gender issues)

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green.

Thanks, warm regards and greetings

Bookku (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Maisie Williams[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maisie Williams you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Many thanks, I appreciate any recommendations, even if the article does not make it. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will only fail an article if WP:GAFAIL applies. The only concern I have at this early stage is the potential copvvio issue. If that's resolved then it looks like with some tweaks this should be a GA soon, but I'll go through it carefully as I will with any BLP. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to take another look after the copyvio issue is resolved. I'm keeping an eye on the article and your improvements, but I'm conscious that I hadn't responded for a while, so just letting you know I haven't forgotten about it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks, I have not felt abandoned, in fact I was concerned that I was being too active on the page, both adding little bits of detail and links as well as trying to peck away and over rewrite stuff to try distance the article from that commercial website, that I was maybe interfering in your review. The Earwig copyvio detector now says 55.4% possible violation, at what stage do you think it might be passable. I am not sure how much more I can do atm. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

now 49.2% ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Maisie Williams[edit]

The article Maisie Williams you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maisie Williams for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on J.K. Rowling[edit]

Hi, Bodney. Re your alternative proposal on the Rowling RfC - excellent work. I'll definitely support it. I've never created an RfC myself, that I can remember, and I think this one might only be the first or second I've participated in where I've proposed an alternative, but I think yours is far superior to my own, which, with the best will in the world, is really nothing more than an attempt to say "wait, what? We're really going to pick one bad wording out of a choice of two bad wordings, what the hell is happening here?!".

Can I suggest you add a subheading above your proposal, perhaps number it (1D? 1E?) and out-dent it?

Ideally the quoted text would have a reference - is this from the NBC article?

I have taken the liberty of slightly amending the text from that on the BLP Noticeboard page - what do you think?

Amended proposal "Following adverse reaction to her Tweets on gender and transsexual people, Rowling published a 3,600 word essay on the 10 June 2020, titled "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues", in which she details five reasons why she is "worried about the new trans activism regarding transgender people in relation to natal women and girls." Concerns covered included the increased number of young trans men and the use of public washrooms and changing rooms by trans women. Rowling claimed that equality laws relating to letting trans women into women's toilets, even those with gender confirmation certificates, would be "opening the door to all men who wish to come inside". Mermaids replied that "We consider it abusive and damaging when people conflate trans women with male sexual predators.""

Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun Thank you, I too have never created a RfC or an alternative proposal myself on any Wikipedia Board. I agree totally with your "wait, what? We're really going to pick one bad wording out of a choice of two bad wordings, what the hell is happening here?!" Editors are proceeding without a genuine alternative. I have no real clue how to proceed myself and I have slept badly for weeks, so I am struggling to get things right, but I know the current proposals miss the point. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could not see your changes. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're mostly minor grammatical changes - a couple of commas, I took out a couple of words and added 'confirmation' to 'gender certificates'. (I've also just changed "transsexuals", above, to "transsexual people". I get you on the sleep deprivation - same here. Not fun. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks improvements appreciated. I wait to see if the are any comments and maybe tomorrow or sunday look how to proceed. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daisie Logo.png listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Daisie Logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you[edit]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Great job with bringing Maisie Williams up to good article status! Your hard work does not go unnoticed. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:LuK3 Thank you, much appreciated :) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Cultural depictions of Alfred the Great[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Cultural depictions of Alfred the Great, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.historytoday.com/archive/alfred-great-most-perfect-man-history, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Cultural depictions of Alfred the Great and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Cultural depictions of Alfred the Great, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Cultural depictions of Alfred the Great. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Cultural depictions of Alfred the Great with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Cultural depictions of Alfred the Great saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 16:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: I just started slowly improving the article again to meet a template request for more background and context, trying to keep the detail very brief as this essentially a list article but also keeping it informative, but I had not yet got beyond my first main source (years ago I studied Alfred and his period in detail, so I have got some background knowledge about the subject). I was hoping to do more gradually. I can see at this stage I have used too much content and failed to thoroughly rephrase from the source which was my main source so far, much of the historical detail would be the same from other sources. Maybe I should have worked upon it in my sandbox. Oh yikes too late, It would have been nice to have been given more time develop this article and thoroughly remove any copy-write concerns. Most of the brief historical detail on this page would be same who ever wrote it. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though I certainly do wish to add more depth and variety, I also wish that at this stage that your userbox {{User:UBX/20 year copyright}} was a reality. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, stuff happens; you're clearly a good faith contributor, and the chances of the article being deleted are non-existent; I should have the time to remove the problematic content soon. Copyright is overly complicated and unnecessarily restrictive, it'd be a lot easier if everything went into public domain within a few years. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 21:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated I will be able to really get my teeth into correcting things by the end of the week/weekend. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation[edit]

Hi there, I noticed your edit summary regarding Julie Bindel's label. I appreciate that you undid your edit, but I just wondered what you meant by a false accusation? From what I can gather, someone accused you of sock puppetry? I was confused by the fact it was seemingly directed at me -- I don't think I've ever made that accusation. Was it aimed at someone else? Thanks, just thought I'd clear this up. — Czello 07:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit summary, I'm thinking it's because it says "Reverted to revision 968197676 by Bodney". I wonder if you misread this as "Undid revision by Bodney"? As in, I was suggesting Abbyjjjj96 was actually you? If so I should let you know that line is automated by Twinkle: it's just saying I reverted back to your version of the page :) — Czello 07:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Czello Oh I am a exceedingly stupid editor with a tired brain, i read it over and over wrong. I am really sorry I accused you of the false accusation about me. Bod must learn to read. Bod must learn to read. Huge apologies. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodney: Haha, no worries! Have a great day :) — Czello 09:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for UOGB video players ID[edit]

Thanks for fixing the new UOGB video players I misidentified.

I saw the videos and was able to identify Laura Currie right away. I spent several hours over several days trying to identify those whom I now know to be Doug and Jodi, but, in the end, I wasn't sure, and I decided to go with what I had. I perhaps should have been more patient.

I contacted UOGB via their website to ask for clarification, but got no answer after several days, so I was left with Google. I found an online photo of Doug Beveridge and Tom Hoy that identified the two of them in reverse order. I came up with Grace after Googling blond female ukulele players; I was obviously way off. The least any fan can do is get the names right; I really appreciate the corrections.

I've never seen the Ukes in person; I was trying to purchase tickets for this summer's USA tour, when CoViD-19 struck.

JohnGHissong (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I not seen them live either (sad face), and feel I really missed something both fun and awesome, they have really helped my sanity these last few months :) I simply used the YouTube line up notes under the song. I have been hoping to find a reliable independent report on the lockdown videos, but at least they mentioned the lockdown series on their own website. I know Laura is a regular stand in, she has a video of her touring with the orchestra in China shows that, but YouTube is not usually accepted. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Maisie Williams[edit]

On 28 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maisie Williams, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Maisie Williams almost missed her Game of Thrones audition because it coincided with a school field trip to a pig farm? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maisie Williams. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Maisie Williams), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some WikiLove[edit]

Cookies!

HeartGlow30797 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Hey, I see you have been discouraged and would love to thank you for all your hard work! Keep going and if you need any help, contact me on my talk page! HeartGlow ^(talk) 02:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion[edit]

Courtesy FYI, I mentioned an incident involving you at the administrators incident noticeboard.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on one of the Top Hooks of 2020[edit]

Out of several thousand DYK hooks featured on the Main Page during 2020, your hook for Maisie Williams and her ill-timed field trip to a pig farm ranked as the No. 25 hook of the year with 1,516 DYK views per hour. A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of the year can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16[edit]

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

moved comment[edit]

Hey, Bodney, I can't figure out which comment was moved and where from, but the thing to do is leave a polite request on the user's talk to not move your comments in future. It may have been moved inadvertently, for one thing. It's generally not okay to move anyone's comment in a way that changes to whom it seems to be a reply unless it's exceptionally clear that's what you're doing, such as in the case of a clearly incorrect indent. —valereee (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks, I shall do as you recommend. It was moved by Modulus, who is not an admin, at 00:15, 1 May 2021‎ under the description 'Fixed threading'. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't require an admin to do that kind of well-intentioned clerking, but it's best if the person doing the moving is very sure that it's what the original poster meant. In the case of someone with 7500 edits who is generally posting correctly-ish, it's best to assume they 1. put it where they intended and 2. will notice and are capable of moving if they made a mistake. —valereee (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is a bit late now, thanks for checking up and for your useful advice. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Bodney, just a friendly notice that I mentioned you in a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard but your conduct is not at issue (mine is). Feel free to comment or clarify anything there if you want to. Modulus12 (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A toast sandwich for you![edit]

I really enjoy your page - it's very impressive! SpiralSource (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maisie Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October reviews[edit]

It seems like your GAN for Ukele Orchestra of Great Britain is listed for nearly as long as my GAN nomination for the music group BTS. If you could do the review for the BTS article then I could offer to do the review for your nomination to try to move the articles forward. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ErnestKrause Thank you very much for your smart suggestion, I am afraid I feel extremely unqualified as a reviewer in many ways. I do think your BTS article looks very good. Apologies for replying with a negative. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 6[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maisie Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green Planet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amitchell125 much appreciation. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain[edit]

The article Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rowling FAR Talk[edit]

Re: the struck through portion at the bottom of the page: since nobody has yet replied, you can simply remove the text you you struck through (and your explanation). :)

I am thinking of offering another title suggestion, but will give you the chance to make that change before I do so. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]