User talk:Wjemather/Q1 Q2 2010

Windows Neptune

Do you feel like tackling that one too? There's even more speculation there: the supposedly released build 5000, for which I can't find any source (beyond screenshots) and contradicts Thurrott's article, which covers leaked versions as well, so 5000 probably wasn't even a leaked version. Previously Collectonian removed some of that, but was reverted multiple times. Since admins don't want to block people that add stuff failing WP:V, it looks like we need a counter-tag-team and play 3RR. Pcap ping 14:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Odyssey was much easier to tackle as there were no release builds and less freely available information (sounds contradictory, I know), but I'll look into it when I get chance. I do not go in for gang warfare or trying to push people into breaking policy as that would be uncivil. I find it best to deal with individuals as and when issues arise on merit and as patiently as possible. If they are indeed disruptive, then there are procedures to follow before any action, including blocks, will be taken. _wjemather^bigissue 16:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now rewritten it adding more RSes. Other editors have since deleted swathes of the builds section, which I don't necessarily agree with, but am not inclined to revisit at this time. As an aside, I was just wondering if you still feel that the Neptune article should still be deleted/merged. I notice you changed your opinion on the Odyssey AfD, and personally think that Neptune has much stronger credentials as it more clearly passes WP:GNG. _wjemather^bigissue 10:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry letting the ball drop on that (for now). The article will almost certainly be kept. I was a little busy with other stuff, Wikipedia talk:Essay on the notability of software, some spam, etc. Pcap ping 11:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Dope Stars Inc. TFD

Hey there. I just wanted to let you know I replied to your TFD for Template:Dope Stars Inc.. Basically, I agree that if the template was to stay like that it should be deleted. However, there are at least 6 more articles that will be created and host that template. I could not create these pages until the AFD for the band themselves, Dope Stars Inc., is ended. I know it will not be deleted because of the 6-0 vote to keep as they are notable. Just thought I'd explain my thoughts. Cheers, GroundZ3R0 002 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that most of those redlinks would pass notability guidelines and foresee a great deal of wasted time at AfD if you were to proceed with their creation. _wjemather^bigissue 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand the notability guidelines per WP:BAND, if a band is considered notable, the albums and EPs they have released under a label are considered notable by extension. Is this not the case? And because the current AFD for Dope Stars Inc. is really all about deciding if it is notable or not, this should not be a problem. Or am I missing a notability guideline somewhere that makes these unnotable? GroundZ3R0 002 22:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First line of WP:NALBUMS: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines (i.e. refer to WP:N), with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The same applies to bands, hence my delete in the AfD of the band. _wjemather^bigissue 22:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they are notable from many reliable sources. I have explained my reply better at the AFD for the band. GroundZ3R0 002 23:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied there also. _wjemather^bigissue 23:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realize saying that they are major is POV, but saying they are not is as well. I'm still searching European chart sites for them but I have found THIS. I know this is not reliable, which is why it won't be used, but this is the official myspace for their US label and so I am going to find which charts they mean and will add them to the article. This really is a grey area for notability, but I do think it should err on the side of notable, especially given the quality of the article. GroundZ3R0 002 23:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, blogs do not make for good sources especially when they have an interest in the subject. It could be some obscure genre specific chart, which would not really help solidify their notability. Quality of an article should have no bearing. Very well written and well-sourced articles have been deleted in the past. _wjemather^bigissue 23:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the Dope Stars Inc. article has been deemed notable and is not deleted. Therefore, with the appropriate sources, articles for their albums are allowed. I just wanted to let you know I am starting their pages in my user subpages and will launch them soon. I will send you a link to each of them before publishing them to see if you would consider them allowable by the WP:N standards so we can avoid another AFD. As for their charting, it really doesn't matter because they meet almost all of the other criterion but I googled "Neuromance Gigahearts chart european" and have found the same text from tons of sources saying that both of those albums held chart positions in many european countries. Whether or not these are underground charts or something, I don't know but I'll keep searching for what they mean. As for the template, I really think that it should be kept and I implore you to see that because I am about to write 6 new articles of good quality that will host it and that will meet the WP:N criterion. Let me know your thoughts. I'm glad to have debated with you these past days as it surely makes Wikipedia better as a result. Cheers, GroundZ3R0 002 21:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, each subject must be notable in itself, and notability is not inherited. I still view the bands notability as borderline given the lack of RS coverage, but that is passed now. I can only think that at least most of their albums and EPs will not meet the minimum requirements and short subsections in the band article may be a more appropriate way to go. As such, I think the navbox has to go I'm afraid. Also, a lot of the results from your search seem to be the same distributor blurb._wjemather^bigissue 22:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey again. I just wanted to ask your thoughts on my 21st Century Slave article here: User:GroundZ3R0 002/Dope Stars album. Do you think that this is launchable? Obviously it not perfect, but no article is. I just wanted to know if you would allow it to survive in the mainspace without an AFD. Thanks and let me know, GroundZ3R0 002 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Since I haven't received a response from you about the Dope Stars Inc. article, I am going to go ahead and put it in the mainspace. My reasoning is that because the Band is notable, the album is as well. Since there are plenty of reliable sources from third party sites, this also helps notability and verification. I am not going to recreate the Dope stars template for some time but I do wish to in the near future. Let me know if you have any oppositions. Cheers, GroundZ3R0 002 23:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, been side-tracked by other issues. I really don't think the article is ready and would urge you to hang on. I'll try list specific concerns in the next day or so, but in general notability issues still exist (highlighted by "the album has not reached any notable music charts in any country"), there are too many WP:PEACOCK terms and redlinks of very doubtful notability. Regards. _wjemather^bigissue 23:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine. Okay, I will keep improving in my userspace. If you have time, would you leave a list of issues on my talk page to which I may fix? Also, I am going to copy this discussion and post it on my talk page as well for reference if you don't mind. GroundZ3R0 002 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Sure, feel free to copy it wherever. _wjemather^bigissue 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your tone

Just a short note that has nothing to do with any substantive matters. Your tone, IMHO, is notably condescending in a number of your communications. At least with me. I could of course be over-sensitive to it, and it's possible that I'm the only one with whom you communicate who feels that way, but I thought I would pass my thoughts along. Best wishes for a nice day, and on your new job, and I offer you a cup of tea.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I simply try to be direct and to the point. That's all. Cheers, _wjemather^bigissue 23:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Direct and to the point

You are an Edit Warrior. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. The reason for reverting given in your edit summary is not acceptable. Please review Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Mr. Saturn.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Time for the next step

I think it's time we take the POV terrorism edits to the next level. At least dispute resolution since it clear they will just continue to edit against consensus and have made some very disturbing and telling statements [1] he pretty much states his agenda and POV right there for all to see. Ridernyc (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My attention has only recently been drawn to articles in this area but it would appear that there is an ongoing problem with a handful of editors disregarding core policies in order to slant articles to their personal way of thinking. Efforts at discussion on talk pages have so far been fruitless, other than having an array of baseless accusations hurled my way, so maybe another forum is needed. _wjemather^bigissue 00:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

21st Century Slave

Hello, Wjemather. You have new messages at GroundZ3R0 002's talk page.
Message added 12:41, 07 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GroundZ3R0 002 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

SYNTH?

Moved to User talk:Bachcell#More synthesis problems, where discussion began. _wjemather^bigissue 19:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

More POV Coatracking

Check out Islamic Association of Long Island and leave your thoughts on the talk page. Ridernyc (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

You are the subject of an ANI, here. Greg L (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Wje, Greg is passionate about his fields of expertise (and others). I can empathise with his being upset that you've challenged the existence of the article. However, on reflection, I think you were right to raise issues of notability and verification. Just wanted you to know. Thanks. Tony (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. _wjemather^bigissue 17:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bold former titles

I started using bold lettering for former titles of horse races in 2006 (an early example), but I decided last year to start phasing it out as regular title changes can lead to this and this.

There are about 700 races under my care, and I choose to only make the style changes when I have some other reason to make an edit. It is a slow process, but I am currently about two-thirds of the way through the de-bolding. -- Zafonic (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS suggests that they should be bolded and I see no reason not to. A great deal of my editing is on golf articles, and the same situation arises there. I have a suggestion – instead of having a paragraph or two detailing changes of sponsor and hence titles which can detract from real content when there are lots of them, there are other ways of listing previous names. Two common ones are a section listing all former names (all in bold, e.g. Women's Australian Open (golf)) and having titles embedded in the winners list (e.g. Open de France Dames). _wjemather^bigissue 08:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of a list of previous names - I might start doing this (but probably not this week!) -- Zafonic (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a big job, and I'll try to help out if I get the time. Just let me know when you've settled on a format so we can aim for consistency. _wjemather^bigissue 18:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Kindly

desist with your disruptive editing. Many thanks, and enjoy your day.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please stop deleting people from "notable residents" lists who are notable enough to have wp articles. We have discussed this before. At this point, your edits are disruptive vandalism, much as your edits at the recent ANI brought on you were. The same goes for your disruptive deletion of see also's that are manifestly related as all five involve actual or possible planned attacks on U.S. military by U.S.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yours was the only disruptive action in the entirety of the Cobalt discussions, since your only intention was to put the boot in. Your accusations of vandalism are simply not on, and should be withdrawn. As for Woodson he is not notable, and a fuller response is on your talk page. _wjemather^bigissue 09:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tags

moved from Talk:Lloyd R. Woodson#Inappropriate article title as off-topic

By restoring the tag, you seem to be willing to edit war over this absurd notion of yours. I have no stomach for such silliness. I think the long-term solution to your chronic use of tags as a tool to force discussion on topics where others disagree with you is to have your tag privileges yanked. Greg L (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tags are designed to be a tool to prompt actions, including discussion, and they should be left in place until resolved. As for you opinion on the idea, you're entitled to it, but your tone could do with some work, as could your checking of the facts before making accusations. The issue was not raised by me (diff), and it was seconded by your friend Epeefleche (diff), who has been the major contributor (by edit count) to this article. _wjemather^bigissue 21:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

By restoring the tag, you seem to be willing to edit war over this absurd notion of yours. I have no stomach for such silliness. I think the long-term solution to your chronic use of tags as a tool to force discussion on topics where others disagree with you is to have your tag privileges yanked. If you and Ridernyc feel the article is POV-pushing and isn’t notable, that’s one thing. And you seem to have a leg to stand on when you say the consensus in the first AfD was for deletion and that this article is substantially the same one. So an AfD over this version of the article is fine with me; the consensus rules.

No. What I have a problem with, Wjemather, is your incessant use of inappropriate tags to force debate on issues. Most everyone else on Wikipedia seem perfectly satisfied to just discuss things and see what others think. In your particular case, your M.O. appears to be to reach into your bag of *See me, LISTEN to ME*-tags and pull out a whopper like how this article is not actually about Lloyd R. Woodson; that is just so preposterous.

If you have a problem with POV-pushing or circumventing of AfDs, man-up and stick to the point. The problem here, really, is your long-runing battle with Epeefleche; this childish tit-for-tat you’ve got going here is fouling up Wikipedia. The rest of the Wikipedians who inhabit this cyberworld shouldn’t have to (*sigh*) and immediately drop what we’re doing every time you take offense to what another editor is doing. I suggest you stop using your tags as a tactical ploy in your strategic battles with other editors. Goodbye again to you, sir. I want nothing further to do with you as I feel being a Wikipedian is supposed to be a fun hobby. Greg L (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor should people be subjected to seemingly endless rants every time you happen to disagree with them. As I said, tags usefully draw attention to the discussion. You seem to have an unnatural aversion to them, but that is your problem. Maybe it is because you only want your friends to comment because they blindly back you up as per the Cobalt discussions, although in that case several of them withdrew or redacted their initial comments having thoroughly reviewed the issues. _wjemather^bigissue 22:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ahhh! “Draw attention.” Greg L (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Friendly note

Hi, I see you've run into the "British Isles" problem with User:MidnightBlueMan. You might be interested in the Wikipedia Talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples page where many examples are being discussed with a view of creating usage guidelines. Your contributions would be welcomed. --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Woodson title

Hi, Wjemather. We’re having a discussion regarding the Lloyd R. Woodson article’s title at Talk:Lloyd_R._Woodson#Inappropriate_article_title. None of us has so far come up with a better title than what it currently has. We would be interested in any specific proposals you might have as to a better name. Greg L (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Al Qaida Page

Hi, please desist from editing the Al Qaida talk page. Also look through the history to see how many years the discussions raged before consensus had been established. I'm afraid your disruptions only seek to re-engage the debate with points already long addressed.

Additionally, please refrain your attacks on my character. Catch up on Assume Good Faith. Thank you. Chudogg (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, I have never contributed to the talk page, and reserve the right to do so if I choose. You do not own it and are completely out of order in requesting I stay away. Secondly, I am well aware of the problems associated with such a controversial subject, the need for balance and neutrality, which is being upset by editors from both sides.
Lastly, I warned you for attacking other editors on that talk page, which you did (more than once). Just because you have contributed to an article or discussion page over a long period does not give you the right to let go with a torrent of abuse. Period. Nor are you excused for hurling unfounded accusations around. Take your own advise and check your facts. _wjemather^bigissue 23:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, If you calm yourself down I wouldn't mind discussing this further. As it stands now, I can't subject myself to further intimidation and angry discourse. Chudogg (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What kind of reaction were you looking for by accusing me of disruptive editing of a page I have never edited? I am not sure what needs discussing any further, but you are of course welcome to raise any issues you have. _wjemather^bigissue 06:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Masters Tournaments

Whoops! I was doing some formatting changes and accidentally pasted the wrong links into that template. Thanks for fixing.

I noticed there is a lot of duplication, disorganization and inconsistent formatting when it comes to the multiple PGA-related templates. Would you be interested in helping laying out a plan to condense and make these templates more easily-navigable? Also, do you feel a portal such as the one used for The Academy Awards would also be beneficial for PGA-related articles?

Let me know, thanks. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

These navboxes have evolved over the years and I don't think that they are as inconsistent as you claim, although undoubtedly there is some tidying up to be done – it is probably the PGA Tour ones that deviate the most, but I haven't had as much input into those as I have the other tours. Duplication is inevitable given the number of organisations around the world that govern golf in many different ways, and as such and it would be unwieldy to try and produce a catch-all navbox. The PGA Tour, while being the world's leading pro tour, is not the be-all and end-all. For example, it does not have any involvement in the amateur game, or govern the rules of golf.
If a plan is to be drawn up to standardize layouts, etc., then discussion at WT:GOLF would be the best place to start, involving the handful of editors who contribute the most to golf articles.
As for a portal, I don't really see the value of them. It is just something else that requires constant maintenance – something that the even the golf portal itself does not get. Sorry. _wjemather^bigissue 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WGT

O.K. thanks, can you double check the edit I added to the Ocean Course at Kiawah Island Golf Resort, to make sure that edit is a proper fit/sentance? I was wondering it myself, that's why I just added the others to See also's. I believe the Bethpage Black edit and the USGA edit's are good fits. Tinkermen (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Course done. For sure, if there are special circumstances that connect the two it may be worthy of note, but just being another course available in the game is not. There seems to be such a relationship between WGT and Kiawah, Bethpage and the USGA, although the latter possibly needs to be fitted into the article a bit better somehow. I'll have a think about it. _wjemather^bigissue 20:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask for another assist, I had wanted to add WGT to the list of "2008 in video gaming" some where on the page, where it's supposed to go, but it's not something I've learned how to do yet. When you have some free time would you be able to add it? Thanks Tinkermen (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done much editing of VG articles, but will have a look for you and see what I can do. Regards. _wjemather^bigissue 20:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WGC Event Articles!

Go look at these and correct anything that needs correcting!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• 2003 WGC-Accenture Match Play Championship, Just added!BLUE_DOG^TN 03:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• 2004 WGC-Accenture Match Play Championship
• 2005 WGC-NEC Invitational
• 2006 WGC-Bridgestone Invitational
• 2007 WGC-Bridgestone Invitational
• 2008 WGC-Bridgestone Invitational
• 2009 WGC-Bridgestone Invitational
• 2009 WGC-HSBC Champions

Thanks!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I am happy and glad, yet regretful and sorry, for the conversation we had to have on Template Talk:Infobox golfer. This had to be done in order to air our differences and come to a good solution to the problem. Just to make sure I got it right, put the Champions Tour Majors back but title it The Champions Tour majors instead of Senior major championships? Have a nice day.BLUE_DOG^TN 20:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way on the WGC's, I will be working on and finishing up the Match play articles over the next couple of weeks, which I would appreciate your help if you are so inclined! But. I am done for today on here!BLUE_DOG^TN 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will check them over (I expect someone may get there before me though). Still not convinced of the need for CT major performances in the infobox (I think that is now the only change that you are proposing?), and would prefer to hear from others (such as Tewapack) before any changes are made. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 20:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Convert Template:Footer WomensMajors, Please!

This needs to be similar to the mens!BLUE_DOG^TN 01:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:United States Ryder Cup team navbox templates

Hey, I got the US 1927-1977 done and we were 18-3-1 against your country, how do you like those marbles because now to make it competitive you had to add in the rest of Europe! See we are a nation you all can't claim that now! I got those done in an hour, see if you can't match that with your country! I am not going to do them! 69.137.120.81 (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That has to be the shortest retirement ever. It isn't a contest and since these navboxes add very little, they are somewhere near the bottom of my things-to-do list. _wjemather^bigissue 08:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I just did that to urk you, bye, bye!69.137.120.81 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Very constructive. Still doing an awful lot of editing for someone who claims to have retired. _wjemather^bigissue 01:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

An awful lot of editing in your terms is twenty to thrity edits, but it my terms it is like a hundred or more!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack Nicklaus in the Players at the bottom of the page!

What do you think of this! I would only do this for the Tour Championship and The Players Championship on the PGA Tour, but the European Tour could do this for the Race to Dubai or the Dubai World Championship or both and the BMW PGA Championship69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we have enough clutter at the bottom of biographies without adding succession boxes for lower level tournaments. _wjemather^bigissue 10:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tiger Woods and Roger Federer?

Do you want me to make yearly articles about Tiger Woods 1999-2009 and combine the years of 1996-1998 in one article to help with the style of this article! Thanks, I will discuss format for his if you agree!69.137.120.81 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to start a discussion on the Talk:Tiger Woods page rather than here, maybe sandboxing an example of what you mean. I personally do not think it necessary to have yearly summary articles for chosen individuals. _wjemather^bigissue 09:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE Says it is needed for spliting!69.137.120.81 (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It is a guideline that suggests the article could be split based on size, but the other sections of the guide need to be taken into account also. Any splitting needs to be done sensibly, with discussion. _wjemather^bigissue 05:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I did discuss the federer one with the tennis community and they did not like how I did it first but liked my second solution, which is the present day articles. I think tigers' article would be well served by some splitting, but how and what kind needs to be thought out and debated, which where do we do that on his article talk or golf project talk?69.137.120.81 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, sandbox what you have in mind first and then start discussion on the Woods talk page with a note pointing to the discussion on any related project pages. _wjemather^bigissue 21:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Luke List

Created article, see if you can expand it!69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick Gilliam

Created this, go see if any changes need to be made! THANKS69.137.120.81 (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, have made some changes already. With the majors timeline, we only generally include the years than span a players involvement; i.e we do not include years before they first played or years after they last played. _wjemather^bigissue 09:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also we only list players as member of a tour if they have actually qualified to play on that tour. Gilliam has never been a member of either the PGA Tour or Nationwide Tour, although he has played a couple of events on sponsors invites. _wjemather^bigissue 09:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I was only creating articles on the WP:Golf for Requested Articles?69.137.120.81 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I was just giving you guidance on what gets included in the articles and how we categorize them. i.e. Gilliam would not be listed as a member of either tour in the infobox. _wjemather^bigissue 10:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see now!69.137.120.81 (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you are doing anyway, but since you are working off that list, please ensure that they meet notability criteria before creating articles for them. Anyone can add to that list, and it is common to find some obscure college players or simply random names on there who would never warrant an article. _wjemather^bigissue 10:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will make sure! Hey, are you from England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland? Just curious to see where your allegiances lie!69.137.120.81 (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Look

Thanks69.137.120.81 (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Vaughan Somers

See if you can improve this any further, which it does in fact meet notablity standards!69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Major Championships

I had put up a note a YEAR ago pointing out that the current page title is wrong and no one responded. I'm not sure how it get set up this way, but using the word "men's" when referencing these tournaments is incorrect and needs to be changed. The word "golf" is also redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwrath (talk • contribs) 13:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Men's major championships article!

Go and look at the two or more calendar year section, which I made, and tell me what you think of it! Have a nice day and a nice day watching my national open!BLUE_DOG^TN 04:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes?

Tell me what you think of putting infoboxes on say List of PGA Championship champions like I just did with List of French Open men's singles champions? We can work on this one together because the photographs in the leads are just not quite working for me, which I will need your help on how to organize them!BLUE_DOG^TN 04:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Will have a look sometime this week and think about it. _wjemather^bigissue 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Revert Vandalism on List of U.S. Open (golf) champions

This page needs your rollback feature badly!BLUE_DOG^TN 01:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is always a burst of activity surrounding ongoing events, and unfortunately quite often there is a significant amount of vandalism thrown in. In this case it looks to me that the removal of content was accidental. I have reverted to the last good version. _wjemather^bigissue 01:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU!BLUE_DOG^TN 01:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Golf - Sport or Game?

No problem with the revert and thanks for the background. Philg88 (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

List articles of women major champions

Go and look at these and make any corrections that you deem necessary!BLUE_DOG^TN 17:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)