User talk:ChrisTheDude/Archive 25

Thanks for uploading File:SotonLeague.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of heists in the United Kingdom/archive1, I fixed the error and I was wondering if you had the time to make any more comments. All the best, Mujinga (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga: funnily enough I was literally just thinking that I needed to revisit that - I'll try and get to it later today or tomorrow -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PompeyLeague.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SpenValley.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thank you for your feedback and support for featured list candidacy for the List of accolades received by 1917 (2019 film). Could you kindly, if possible, wrap the comments in a Template:Resolved comments bar so that the comments don't create a mess? Thanks.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check this section 2020–21 Indian Super League season#Regular season. I don't understand the error and failed to recover it. The format is same as EPL or La Liga. Please can you check and remove the error. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drat8sub: sorry, I've had a good look and I can't figure it out either...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an issue with the module generally. Take a look at Template:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round group tables.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, ChrisTheDude, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 04:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Margate F.C.! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I was wondering if you don't mind if I copy one of the articles you use the Country #1's songs for similar lists I want to make FLs as well (namely the Billboard Latin Pop Airplay and Tropical Airplay charts). Erick (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: - not at all, go for it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas ChrisTheDude
	Hi ChrisTheDude, just wishing you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year. Here's to 2021 being a bit brighter for all!    Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And when I say "brighter for all", I certain hope trolling from the person/people who wants page moves to nonsense titles won't take place especially on your own talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iggy the Swan: and to you and yours as well! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ChrisTheDude: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, HAL333 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

@HAL333: - season's greetings to you and your family. And thanks for all your support at FLC! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ChrisTheDude. This is in regard to this RfC: [1]. It may be best for an uninvolved editor to close it. If you believe consensus has been reached (nine "Yes" votes, three "No" votes" + all arguments and sources provided by both sides), you may opt to informally close it. (That may be better than requesting a formal close.) Israell (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you spare some time and review my nomination of this article? isento (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 7, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 7, 2021. Congratulations on your work! On behalf of Ealdgyth,—Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the note at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#February 2021 Pending TFAs from "very old" or "old" Unreviewed_FAs; Margate F.C. doesn't appear to have been updated since 2016, and it runs on the mainpage in just a few more hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty up-to-date. The squad list, staff list, etc are current. The history section doesn't mention anything since 2016 because nothing of note has happened..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article North & Mid-Herts Football League is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North & Mid-Herts Football League until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris, I hope you're well. I've been working on List of monuments to Ludwig van Beethoven for sometime now—the goal was to get it to FL in time for Beethoven's 250th on 17 December, which failed spectacularly :) I'm still planning to get it to FLC but have a query I thought you may have some insight on. Antoine Bourdelle made like 40 busts of Beethoven and I'm hesitant in including all of them (especially because they're not at all well documented) as I think they may overwhelm the list. At the moment my solution is having a separate "Selected Bourdelle works" section with 6–7 busts... any ideas over if this is the best way to handle the situation? Best - Aza24 (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: - that sounds like a reasonable solution to me. If they aren't well documented then that suggests they aren't notable. Presumably you would mention/summarise the rest in the "section lead".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's the idea... good to hear you agree, because that also makes things a lot easier. I will leave you with the funniest Beethoven statue I've come across... File:Beethoven monument, Vienna 06, by Markus Lüpertz.jpg. Best - Aza24 (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: - genius - looks like something I made when I was in about year 3 at school :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nmhfl.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Could you kindly strike out or place inside a resolved template the comments you left regarding the featured list candidacy for the 51st Academy Awards? It would make for a more organized space and help with the administrators to see that the comments were resolved.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Could you proofread 2012 Summer Olympics medal table for featured list consideration? I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, great to see your nomination there. Just might be worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Football League First Division play-off Final/archive1 which, despite nine supports, suffered from "I don't get what that word means" problems, including basic dictionary terms like "aggregate score". The standards at FAC are wildly polarised at the moment, and it might be that you'll get no interest from the "explain every technical term" team (and I really hope so!) but there are probably quite a few things in that failed FAC you might like to think about applying to your FAC. There are other problems at FAC too right now, too many to go into, but I thought I'd start with something directly relevant to your nom. Good luck, I'll take a look at it myself in due course. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the tip! I'll take a look at that failed nom later today -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that ... here are the missing rows, I just added them in alpha order. Hopefully there's nothing to do. Btw, I've got your FLC watchlisted ... as soon as someone does a prose review, I'll jump on it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Thanks! I don't think I need to revisit the plant FLC at all based on the new rows..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2000DivTwoPlayOffFinal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude. Thanks for your recent edits to the Crewe article, which I have been working to improve. I think it is currently B-class, but I would like to eventually at least get it to Good, so I've requested a peer review (link) (first time I've ever instigated a PR, though I have responded to other football PRs - so I'm still learning about the process). I hope you might be able to help on this. Many thanks again. Paul W (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I was wondering if the subject article was anywhere on your radar? My mini-project is ticking over nicely and I've discovered a few articles which are in a brilliant condition already, but as this one is a Gills game, I hoped I could rely on you to lend a hand on getting it up to scratch? The same would be true, of course, of 1999 Football League Second Division play-off Final.... No major rush of course... Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - yikes, it's a toss-up which of those brings up the worst memories :-) Despite that, I'm happy to pitch in - I've got most of the home programmes from 1986-87, which will probably be useful. Just a shame I no longer have my teenage scrapbook of Gills press cuttings...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, that is a pity. Talking of failed play-off campaigns, not just finals, I think I probably got the t-shirt on that one, but let's not get into comparing misery... Let me know which one you'd prefer to work on and I'll do some of the groundwork if that meets with your approval? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: 1987 would probably be my first preference. That's an awesome project you've got there BTW, I didn't realise you'd got quite so many of them to FA/GA. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great. And cheers, it's certainly not all my own work, but it's getting tantalisingly close now. Getting a Guardian/Gale/BNA subscription has made it possible, and a lot of edits over the last year! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done, used up all my available sources, and I think it's good to go to GAN almost right away. The only issue for me is the couple of unreferenced sentences about team selections which may well be synthesised from the respective team lists, but it'll raise questions. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I'll take a look later and see what I can do. I seem to remember spotting an unreferenced sentence or two elsewhere, so I'll give it a sweep. BTW, are you planning on nominating all these play-off final articles as a colossal Featured Topic....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I think we're there now, would you like to do the GAN honours? And yes, in the first instance a "good" topic because of the foul treatment one of the articles got at FAC (I'm waiting for yours to sail through to reset the absurd thinking that went on in some of my FAC, so far so good...) So I think we're a couple of dozen GAs away from the good topic. I had intended to get each to FA too, but as I said, that will depend....! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - now at GAN. Couldn't figure out how to make it a joint nom and give you your fair share of credit.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I just put co-nom in the "Note" section. I won't get Legobot notifying me if someone picks it up so let me know if any remedial work needs to be done in due course. Cheersr! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude. Why is it not necessary to enter the results of matches that have ended in penalties? Dr Salvus 13:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: - indicating that the team won on penalties is sufficient -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: - I have thought about it some more and changed my mind.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2009LeagueTwoPlayoffFinal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I found this article, which you created a very long time ago. It's been tagged for notability for a long time, too, and I can't find any significant, independent coverage of this duo (but maybe that's just me). Would you like to take a look at it and see if it can be saved? Lennart97 (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lennart97: - gosh, I genuinely have no recollection of creating that :-) I would have thought the duo was notable for being made up of members of two notable groups and having produced for many notable artists, but if you don't think so then feel free to nominate it for deletion. I'm not invested in it enough to miss it if it goes :-D :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I would have been surprised if you did remember creating this one :) I do think there's a lack of notability here, so I've nominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavemen (songwriters). Lennart97 (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. How did you find attendance information for the oldest FA Cup Finals when you created the List of FA Cup Finals article in 2008? Dr Salvus 13:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: See the ref at the top of the attendance column. That book contains a complete list of all the finals, including the attendances -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source you used for attendance is valid until 2008. What is the source you used for the post-2008 finals? Dr Salvus 19:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: - good spot! Refs now added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, to make the wikitable more readable, a column should be inserted in which the sources of the finals from 2008 to today are inserted. I did the same thing on the List of Coppa Italia finals page Dr Salvus 19:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: I disagree. A column with either no ref at all for the first 127 finals or the same ref repeated 127 times would look terrible. It is perfectly fine how it is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I also removed the table of sources from List of Coppa Italia finals. I'd like to ask you an off-topic question. How is the life of a Wikipedia administrator? Dr Salvus 20:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the second source on this page should be replaced by this one as the current source is limited to the 2015 final. Dr Salvus 17:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In February you analyzed the article List of Coppa Italia finals. I have made some changes to improve the article. Could you do a second review? I don't care that the article is an FL, but I just want to improve an article I care about. Thank you in advance for taking the time to analyze this article. Dr Salvus 15:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, Happy Easter etc. Just checking, do you have access to Gale for those match report refs I added? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I don't believe I do. How does one go about getting access? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just applied through Wikipedia:Gale I think, a couple of days and Bob (sorry. Robert) is your uncle! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - cheers, I'll give it a whirl! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, just wondered how close you thought we were to getting 1999 Football League Second Division play-off Final to GAN? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - I've not really had time to do much on it this week for one reason and another. I'm off next week, though, so I might be able to have a blitz on it then...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No stress, just checking in really. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I don't know about you but I think we're just about done and in good shape for GAN, any thoughts? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Instinct tells me there must be something to say about what took place between the 1st and 81st minutes. This article has quite a bit - let me see if I can find sources which are actually citable which cover any of it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm going through the BNA but it's all about the "major events" (which, incidentally, is all that's required for GAN). Trying... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - well, it'll be ages before anyone looks at it at GAN, so feel free to nominate it and if I find anything else I can add it in, probably well before it gets reviewed....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. I didn't see much more in that scrapbook link either... The Daily Mirror has some stats which could be added if it was RS enough... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies (but not really my fault, just bad luck) ... I've finished my rough draft for the 3rd list and started on the 4th, and it now appears that the 2nd list will need to be D-J ... I'll know for sure in a few hours. I can't remember the name of the last list at FLC that had a name change while it was at FLC, and I've forgotten how to do this ... do you know? - Dank (push to talk) 11:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: - the current one re: Beethoven has been moved, I think...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the J's ... 60 rows. They should match all the other rows in format ... if you could glance at them at let me know if anything looks off, I'd appreciate it. No need to say anything at the review, but you can if you want to. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bros2017.JPG, 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. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the supporters section from Croydon FC. We are trying to raise the profile for the club. Croydon FC has gained an increase in supporters and are now well known as the Trams Barmy Army. Hazza Duberry (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hazza Duberry: - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not here to help "raise the profile of the club". Per WP:V, content needs to be supported by coverage in reliable third-party sources. If there are such sources out there discussing the club's supporters, feel free to add the relevant content with appropriate citations -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source. Hazza Duberry (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude, I would like to invite you to do a peer review of Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women. It recently failed at FAC. There were 2 reviewers who gave support and one who opposed, TheRamblingMan. It seems he is opposing because, quoting him from his FAC review of Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women: "You need to imagine you're explaining to a 7-year-old child and if they don't understand the entire article without having to click away, that's a fail. It's not what I consider an FA should be but sadly the FA co-ords and others have set their stall out that way (within the last two months) so we all should comply with that." I agree with him that setting that specific standard is wrong. He wrote that 2 months ago. Fortunately it seems that recent football FAs are not held anymore to this extraordinary standard, with promotions such as 1987 FA Cup Final and 2019 FA Cup Final, and it also looks good for your 2000 Football League Second Division play-off Final. I have invited contributors TRM and Z1720 to do a peer review. Z1720 has already responded to my request. I would like to bring it back to FAC and believe having your Peer Review as welll as the others' will be important for a successful nomination. The Peer Review lives here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women/archive2. I hope you can find the time, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude, I just wanted to let you know that I am grateful for your peer review of the women's football match you did, and that I have just brought it back at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women/archive3. Thanks, Edwininlondon (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Thanks for leaving comments and notifying issues in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium/archive1. I have fixed the issue of players' name sorting. Please check if it is right now or not. And please give a Support if you find no other issues from your point of view. And I am sorry for misunderstanding you. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 13:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usually these days when I click the bell with a red number included, I get nothing but the tiresome troll, latest one this one where 'me' is linked to my user page. And as usual, fake signatures which actually looks like mine, until now while I was changing it this evening. As usual, you and a couple of others spend the morning reverting vandalism including today's editing so I am grateful some people watch pages in the mornings where I usually do so in evenings.

I'm also keeping my eyes on Matt Lawton and Jack Sock from different sports where the vandal targets regularly as advised by you a week ago. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Surely this vandalism is predictable enough that an edit filter could be used? A combination of several words used would produce as close to zero false positives as possible. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gricehead: - never done that before, how does one go about setting it up? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a cleverer person than me (or one with more access rights, at least). Worth asking on AN(I) without being too WP:BEANSy about it. Gricehead (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at WP:Edit filter/Requested to see if anything can be done. Gricehead (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that filter would be successful in dealing with this long term trolling. I see from the filter requested page the troll picked up this page which I'd never seen before. If they disallow any editing with addition of text 'Harry Kirby' from non-auto confirmed users, that should stop things like that from happening again. Harry Kirby seems to be one of the most popular occurrences in the troll's habitual behaviour. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for putting up with these long lists. I can't guarantee there will never be another long one after the Q-Z list and maybe one to handle tweaks to the Stearn lists, but I don't have plans for any more long lists and it would take a lot to talk me into doing one :) I owe you. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the review for List of plant genera named for people (D–J), a reviewer has requested that I removed all the "site links". I knew all along that someone might object ... and it wouldn't bother me a bit to remove them, as long as there's a link on the talk page to the version of the page that has them, for the benefit of article writers. So: I just need to know the preferences of the reviewers ... would you rather I leave the site links in, remove them with a footnote that says "Additional information on the red links can be found on Wikidata", or remove them and say nothing in the footnotes? (Feel free to reply here or there. Or not :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: - personally I don't have an issue with them being in there, but I think if they are removed, it would be best not to say "Additional information on the red links can be found on Wikidata" - that seems a bit too meta to me (for want of a better term) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to say no, you've done so much already, but I need one or two people to look at yesterday's changes in my current nom ... it's all minor changes to the second column. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: - looks good to me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the name of the original account? I'll tag the accounts so we have a record. I think these are the recent ones, based on disruption at WT:FOOTBALL and the Harry Toffolo article:

• Ron Carlsen12 (talk · contribs)
• 87.74.55.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 90.244.133.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 90.244.134.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.18.223.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks, GiantSnowman 09:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - pretty sure it was User:Mike2Matthews17 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks. GiantSnowman 10:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd noticed both of you were discussing this. I'd noticed back in February 2020 that by date of creation and what Edgar181 said in the reason about blocking the earliest accounts, Mike Matthews17 seems to be the original account used in this group and JJMC89 therefore moved it to this title.

Also I have spotted a couple of edits on my talk page from Commons by the same vandal as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, ChrisTheDude! The article you nominated, 2000 Football League Second Division play-off Final, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:HalifaxLeague.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walsall Wood F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First team.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently noticed that you have an interest in folk music and I thought to ask if you might also enjoy the folk-rock genre. There are number of Simon and Garfunkel songs like The Sound of Silence and The Boxer among others and none of them have made it to peer review other than the Simon and Garfunkel article itself. Would you have any interest in co-editing some of them with an eye for a co-nomination to get one or two of them to peer review status. I've made a handful of edits on The Sound of Silence though the other songs are pretty good as well. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: - hi there, I have a couple of projects on the go at the moment which I am working on getting to FA/FL status, but I will try to have a look after that! For info, I am indeed a fan of folk-rock and I have in fact stood on the spot where Paul Simon wrote "Homeward Bound" :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last month I asked about Paul Simon and you mentioned being busy at that time so I put it aside temporarily and switched to editing for the group BTS currently getting about 30K daily page views. After some preparations, I nominated it for GAN however the reviews in the "Music" category at GAN are currently at a standstill with zero reviews presently taking place in the "Music" category. Is there any chance you might consider a review for the article at this time? The article currently has over 600 formatted cites and seems ready for review. Could you try it? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of presidents of the Indian National Congress/archive1. Hi, please take a look now. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 14:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about people not saying just "Bristol", I guess this applies to almost any city with two clubs. The reason I'd ended up going with it in the article is because many of the sources used seemed to go down that route, simply calling them Bristol after the first mention. Maybe it was more common to do that back in the 1970s. I guess we'd normally say "City", but that doesn't work because both clubs in the match were City. Seems a wise plan to just expand to the full name in all cases though. Incidentally, I've discovered that sometimes you can have a "United" and a "Sheffield United" in the same game sometimes. I have a good friend who is a Blades fan, and this sort of thing used to irritate him a lot. I guess we Coventry fans think the same thing when people use "City" with no qualifier, to refer to Manchester City.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - it's a great read BTW, and I definitely learnt something new because somehow (despite having been a football fan for over 30 years) I didn't know the story about this particular match..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: yes, it's certainly a strange one! And one of the reasons (along with the so-called "Disgrace of Gijón") why they always try to play final fixtures simultaneously these days. I'm in a Coventry supporters group on Facebook, and the 1977 thing seems to have spawned a weird rivalry with Sunderland for quite a few people in that group that persists to this day. Some of the people there seem to reserve more vitriol for the Mackems than for local teams such as Villa or Leicester! And obviously the feeling is mutual, given that Sunderland fans still hated Jimmy Hill up until his death, and are still banging on about Coventry now...[2]  — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: I know exactly the sort of thing you mean - many Gillingham fans of my age or older still regard Swindon Town as our most hated rivals because of one particularly bad-tempered match in the 1970s ([3])...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We interacted a few times. I know that a user can't leave an ongoing FL nomination and nominate another article for featured list without substantial support. But I have one substantial support in one of my article I nominated for FL. So now, can I nominate another article for FL? Thank you and hope to get response from you. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 05:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A.A Prinon: - unfortunately not, one support is not considered to be "substantial support". Two would probably be OK, but not one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]