User talk:Rodney Baggins

Archives

Discussion you may be interested in

There is currently a WP:RM discussion at Talk:2019 World Open (snooker), which may interest you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nadolig Llawen

Martinevans123 ^{(Santa's Oven-Ready Brexit Centre)} ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and a Cuban groove... and wishing that you may find a little traditional fun ...

Adverb

Hi Rodney, I'm interested in this word "digitally". It seems to be a standard -ly adverb in this disputed case, but I'm very happy to be shown otherwise. I see the same pattern between a new watch (adj/noun) and a newly bought watch (adv/adj/noun) on the one hand, and a digital watch (adj/noun) and a digitally configured watch (adv/adj/noun) on the other. Where am I going wrong? Regards, Ericoides (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ericoides, it's great to make your acquaintance and I appreciate that you're trying to get to the bottom of this in such an amicable manner, as I'm always fascinated in the intricacies of the English language! I'm in no way suggesting that you are "going wrong", on the contrary it's probably me that's wrong. Personally, I always think it's best to include a hyphen in compound attributive modifiers simply to improve clarity, and I'd even go so far as to argue against the MOS in this case that even "standard" -ly adverbs should use the hyphen.

For TPS benefit, we're talking about MOS:HYPHEN where it states "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy). In rare cases, a hyphen can improve clarity if a rewritten alternative is awkward..."

The real question is: what does the MOS actually mean when it refers to a "standard" -ly adverb? Is it implying that all -ly adverbs are considered to be standard by the very fact that they end in -ly, or does it mean that we are only dealing with "standard" -ly adverbs here (as in derived from common/generic adjectives like "new" or "whole"), while some -ly adverbs are "non-standard" (like our "digitally" which is a relative neologism)? That's the way I interpreted it but I may be reading too much into it... however, I do think the MOS itself is unclear. I can't find anything definitive on the internet, but you're right that "digitally configured" does tend to pop up more often than "digitally-configured". Like I said, please feel free to remove the hyphen in the MH370 article!

Kind regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Hope you don't mind I tweaked a dab link on your user page.

Thanks for your reply. I have a feeling that despite being a relatively new word, "digitally" must count as a standard -ly adverb. I see no good reason why it shoudn't . . . so I might remove that hyphen at some stage, but there's no hurry. And thanks, incidentally, for the dab tw on Besso, an article that does really stand in need of expansion. Again, maybe at some stage. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link on 2020 Summer Olympics

Did you actually look at the link you said was not dead? The page says "The article you have been looking for has expired and is not longer available on our system. This is due to newswire licensing terms." —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 12:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Naddruf: Hi and thanks for contacting me. The original link is working fine for me and the BBC Sport article is coming up on my screen in glorious technicolour. That's because I live in the UK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're trying to view the article from the USA via a newswire and their copy of the article has expired. The only way you can get access to it is to use a UK-based VPN because BBC is usually region locked to the UK. Presumably you'll eventually get the same problem with other BBC Sport refs once they've expired. I assure you I never revert someone else's edits unless I'm absolutely sure! Hope this helps. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA

Hi Rodney, hope you are well. I realise you've done a bit of copyediting on the article recently, but there is an FAC open for 2019 Champion of Champions, feel free to leave comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I'm working towards the FA. I thought I'd do a bit of copyediting first if that's ok with you, and I'm gathering my more general comments along the way which I'll put on the FA review page later. Once I've done that, I'll go back to the 2017 WSC article for you. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, no sweat. Thanks for the copyedits. You are of course encouraged to do so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CoC looks like it'll pass with a little more input. Looking to startup again the 2017 World Championship article, as well as 2020 Master for FAC next up (after the GA review). Thanks for your help with this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selby

Hi Rodney! I see you've been doing a bit of work on Mark Selby over the last couple days. I've marked some items as ^{[citation needed]}. I've also moved some refs from the lede. Hopefully that's of some use towards pushing it to GA in the future one day. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, yes I thought it was about time I looked at Selby's article seeing as he's one of my favourite players. I can do a bit more source searching tomorrow. I would really like to get this article to GA if possible, but is it more difficult to do that with living breathing BLPs than with inorganic events? Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well - it is - but if you look through my promotions I do have quite a few BLPs. The biggest issue is the sheer size of the career. There's a lot of WP:PROSELINE and WP:WEIGHT issues on these sort of items. Best bet is to fully cite what's there, then go through and cull non-important information. Get a copyedit and do a sweep and make sure there's nothing big missing. I'd suggest expanding his pool career a bit (I can do this), as a couple sentences describing a world champion (even if it was only blackball) isn't sufficient. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi Rodney,

I never did reply to you from [1]. Thanks! I appreciate it. If you ever think of an RfA, it's quite the stressful week! I now have all the tools - it's quite the clutter. I don't think my ping of BennyOnTheLoose worked at the 2002 World Snooker Championship article worked, but he'd definately be the right guy to question about offline sources for snooker articles.

I do hope you are getting through this time ok! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simulcasting

Hi, in 2020 Masters (snooker) it says "NowTV simulcasted the event in Hong Kong with additional commentary." Should it be "simulcast" rather than "simulcasted"? Also, do you think it's worth linking to simulcast? I'm unsure on both points. Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benny, I don't think "simulcasted" is a word, similar to the past tense of "cast", e.g. "I cast my net and caught some fish" not "I casted my net..." And yes it would be useful to link to the Simulcast article. I would change the text to: "The event was simulcast in Hong Kong by Now TV with additional commentary" and BTW I think NowTV should be Now TV with space and linked to new page name Now TV (Sky). Hope this helps. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes, thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It should link to Now TV (Hong Kong).Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Suggestion

Hi! Just to let you know that there is an FAC outstanding that you might be interested in. I appreciate any comments you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lee, I've not been ignoring you, just a bit slow to respond sorry. Of course I can take a look through 2017 WSC for you, might not be until the weekend though. You may have noticed I've been chipping away at Mark Selby every so often, as I'd like to do a GA nom for that one at some point. Did you say you might be able to do some digging into his pool career? It could definitely do with a bit of expanding. I've also noticed that Shaun Murphy has had an update template at top for several months which doesn't look good as it's one of our GAs, so I'll get onto that soon too. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaun Murphy article is in major need of expansion with current seasons (and a general cleanup). I fear if it were GARed, it wouldn't be renewed. there's a lot of press about Mark, specifically his runner-up spot at the Chinese 8-ball world championship. He also won the 2005 WEPF World Eight-ball championship [2], which is blackball; which you've probably seen. Blackball isn't really considered the height of pool disciplines. There's also this guardian article about him playing county pool and about his wife being an international (which could be expanded a bit).

Other than "being a former pool player", there's not much to say about Mark other than his two notable results mentioned above. In terms of WP:WEIGHT, no more than a paragraph or two is particularly suitable for his pool results, as his world title in 2005 won him £10,000 (which he regularly earns on bad results on the snooker scene), and his best result was his Chinese 8-ball runner up won him $49,000 (which would be the thing to expand). I am planning on quickly adding the Chinese 8-ball world championships articles to enwiki at some point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Chinese eight-ball is very interesting. It's basically eight-ball played on a snooker table with tweaked rules.[3] It's the closest pool gets to snooker prizes (outside of buy-in challenge matches). Imagine snooker with bigger balls and a match timer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the Selby pool info, I'll take a look through it and see what I can do. I started going through the 2017 WSC for you and my first thought was: "this seems to be quite well worded, clearly written..." and then realised I did a full copyedit back in Dec/Jan (see edit history), ha ha!! But I'll do another pass through and put my comments on the FAC page as I expect a few things have changed since then. Will I still be able to support the article, given that I did quite a lot of work on it myself? Must admit I'm feeling increasingly depressed as we'd be knee deep in the 2020 champs from this weekend. Stay safe & keep smiling, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you should be fine. If you had a big ol' authorship of the article - probably not, but just copyediting should be fine. Did you see about the BBC coverage, btw? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My God that passed me by!! Thanks for the link — Brilliant!! That has really cheered me up no end. I never did get a reply to that email I sent them but I'd like to think it helped their decision... Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft guidelines

say[4]- A civilian airliner, commuter, airtaxi or charter aircraft while carrying paying passengers, with minimum passenger seating capacity of 10 seats (8 passenger seats minimum prior to 1940'. The seating capacity for a Cessna 402 is eight. If you edit the list, you should know this info....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's sometimes difficult to make the call with these small aircraft. I had assumed the Cessna 402 had 10 passenger seats, but made an honest mistake. It was late at night, I was about to go to bed. I was addressing the fact that your previous edit said "Doesn't have an article" which isn't true and seemed unfair on the originator that you reverted. If you want me to stop editing the list, just say and I'll toddle off somewhere else. I have plenty other stuff to do! Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Doesn't have an article" isn't an unfair statement statement at all. The edit didn't link to an article when it is big red letters above the edit box that a WP article is provided. No article was linked to. This is a regular happening on this article, that I've made over 600 edits to, and at least 100 have to be the removal of entries without a link to a WP article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be pedantic William, but the fact is it DID have an article, that's the whole point. The editor had just got the link wrong, hence I provided a pipe. Not worth arguing over anyway, I shall toddle off somewhere else as you clearly don't appreciate the work I've done so far. Better things to do, and all that! Like watching the snooker... (again many thanks for the heads up Lee!) Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pulman

Hi i do not know how to add a source tbh. I usually ask other editors to help me when i give them the source. Neal Foulds tweeted a picture of this result from the crucible almanac it is clear to see. he is going through the book daily with different facts and stats. it is in the almanac. Regards 92.251.166.2 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually History of Billiards through its Champions Third part also goes into this. I personally don't think we should be including this, it isn't it's own competition; basically a losers competition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

>Very low pending changes backlog: 2 pages according to DatBot as of 19:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My girl clock location

Just curious as to why you removed my edit for the location of the clock tower in the movie?

It is located in magnolia square in Sanford Florida, I work in the adjacent building and can confirm this is correct EnglishDave83 (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) - what you know to be correct is irrelevant EnglishDave83. Wikipedia cares about what reliable sources say. Also, words such as "iconic" have no place on an encyclopedia Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EnglishDave83: "The iconic clock" has absolutely no context because it is mentioned nowhere else in the article, but the main reason (as stated in my edit summary) is that you have not provided a source, per WP:OR. Just because you know it to be true does not mean that it can be included in Wikipedia, otherwise anyone could write anything and there would be no way of verifying any of it. Your previous edit, however, was backed up by the existing reference. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why is me knowing it to be correct less relevant than you saying it’s not from a reliable source? I agree that “iconic” may be unsuitable but I do not agree that the location should not be added. How do I become a “reliable source”? EnglishDave83 (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not, and cannot "become" a reliable source. We only care about what publications and such talk about. See our policies WP:V and WP:RS Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Lee said, you can't "become" a reliable source, you can only "find" a reliable source, so that's basically what you need to do if it is important enough for further investigation. Is there a local newspaper or news site that's ever done a feature on the My Girl filming in your local area? I'm curious as to why this clock is iconic and what it has to do with the film. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is featured in the film and has become something of a tourist attraction in the city of Sanford, it is very recognizable as the clock from my girl EnglishDave83 (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits without an edit summary

Hi there, thanks very much for helping out with pending changes :)

I noticed your revert of this revision of Dubai Creek Tower was done without an edit summary explaining the reversion. Whilst I was also about to revert it, I think it would have been helpful here to leave an edit summary. The revision in question wasn't undoubtedly vandalism - it might have been, but it also might have been in good faith, and WP:AGF of course applies. There was no reliable indication that the added website was the official site, and the website was empty, but that doesn't mean that the edit was necessarily vandalism.

Just wanted to leave that as a note for future reverts - hope it's useful feedback!

All the best, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Naypta: Yeah, sorry about that, I very rarely make an edit without leaving an edit summary (see my user page: "Leave an edit summary"), but in this case I was pontificating over it for ages and basically didn't know what to put so I left it blank. I ended up reverting it via my Twinkle rollback facility, but I agree it probably wasn't vandalism. I tried the link and it just took me to a big picture of the tower, didn't appear to be an official website, but maybe it is? The URL would indicate that it is official, maybe they just haven't developed the site yet. Perhaps we could add it back in as a gesture of good faith (but it would need to be correctly linked in)? Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's probably necessary, as there is no indication that it's the official website - it might well be a domain squatter hoping that whoever is actually in charge of the tower pays up to buy the domain. WHOIS data wasn't helpful when I checked it either. For what it's worth, the revert summary I had written out (before I got a message saying it'd been reverted already - look who's speedy!

) was "Website contains no content, WHOIS gives no helpful information, no reliable indication that this is the actual website", which I thought roughly summarised the problem. No biggie, though :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's interesting. I hadn't heard of domain squatting before, although it makes sense if you're a malicious money-grabbing cyber nerd who's out to rip the whole world off (just playing devil's advocate here of course). I've learnt something new (and useful), so thanks for that. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O'sullivan depression and addiction

Please only discuss in one location - see Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

i never said they were in the bbc article, are you saying you never heard of his struggles ?. this is vital in his career needs to be added 80.233.102.21 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peter Pan 1953 reverted

Why have you reverted my edit on Peter Pan 1953 page? There was nothing wrong in it, just facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.52.42 (talk)

Dear IP user, why do you keep asking people to explain things they've already explained? When Rodney Baggins reverted you, they left the following edit summary: WP:OR and unsourced. This is a succinct and accurate explanation of the problem with your edit. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is the edit unsourced?