User talk:Wjemather/Q3 Q4 2010

Major Championships

Wjemather, not a single person has responded to the move request, so I'm pretty sure it is safe to do so considering a) it's the actual correct term and b) at the very least both you and I agree. Starwrath (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Another note is, what is WP policy regarding capital letters? The term is "major championships", but the previous page only the first letter of the first word is capitalized, whereas, for example, the OWGR capitalizes the C as well when referencing these tournaments. Starwrath (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That is part of the discussion that is needed. Also, there are several other related articles, templates and categories, for example List of men's major championships winning golfers, Chronological list of men's major golf champions, Template:Footer MensMajors, Template:Men's Career Grand Slam Champion Golfers, Category:Men's major golf championships, Category:Winners of men's major golf championships. There are probably others. On top of that, there are all the links to these articles, templates and categories. As such I think centralising discussion at WT:GOLF would be the best idea. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 08:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Then lets get that discussion going. Those other pages should change too. On capitalization, I think "Major Championships" but I really don't care. I do care however how the current page is both factually wrong and then redundant. Starwrath (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So I haven't seen any movement on this. Can I go ahead and move the pages again without you reverting? No one has responded on the talk page, and there hasn't been a single argument put forth for not moving the page. Starwrath (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't. Centralised discussion needs to be had. The major contributors to golf articles should be notified, etc., etc. I suggested WT:GOLF as the venue, but have seen nothing there as yet. I am quite busy, so I would suggest not waiting for me to start the discussion. I am also not particularly swayed by your argument for renaming since most people do actually regard them as the men's majors. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

People "regard" things as X all the time, such as myself even referring to the U.S. Open as "The Open" during the week it's played, but that does not mean that that is the actual correct term for the event. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should be factually correct and pages should be named according to what they are not what they are "regarded" as. The entire point of the redirect system is so that people can find things "how they are regarded as" but that does not mean the actual page should be one of those terms. Otherwise, shouldn't things such as FIFA World Cup be changed to "Men's FIFA World Cup" be changed? We're not being consistent, in addition to the fact that saying these are "men's events" is factually incorrect. On another note, can you find me some sources referring to these as the "men's majors"? If you are correct, then the PGA Tour, OWGR, ESPN etc. would be calling them by that name. Also, don't revert everything in my edit if you wanted to change just one thing. That list article was being extremely inconsistent in its use of alternate names for the events and I cleaned it up so that it was always using the normal names in every case. The term "major championships" is used in many pages (including every single major's page) and again, I was changing to be consistent. You still haven't put back the 3-4 citations I had added into the Majors article when you did the revert. Starwrath (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So not a single other person has responded on either the Majors page or at WT:Golf. Would you agree that I've satisfied the discussion requirement to now move the page? You are the only person to respond, and you stated that you agreed, so I don't see what the issue is. Besides, we've already established it's factually incorrect anyway. Starwrath (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, because there remains no consensus for such a move. Also, I did not, and still do not, agree with you. _wjemather^bigissue 12:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

How could the result of a discussion be "no consensus" if no one participates in the discussion. Also you said, on my talk page, in THREE SEPARATE CASES that you do, in fact, agree with me: "While I agree in principal, they are generally thought of as the men's majors since no woman has ever qualified", "Again, I tend to agree on this point and am not sure if the disambiguation is required." (in regard to the term 'golf'), and finally "As I said above, I broadly agree, but I think we need to have the discussion first." You have also yet to refute my argument that calling them men's majors is factually incorrect - otherwise according to Wikipedia policy the page needs to be changed. I have attempted to have the discussion in multiple places for over a year. No one except you chimed in, where you have stated that the reason you reverted my change was because it was a) controversial and b) there was no discussion. A legitimate effort has been made to have a discussion, and how controversial could it be if NO ONE RESPONDS. You have also yet to provide sources that call these events "the men's major golf championships" while I have multiple sources that call them either "the majors" or "the major championships." Starwrath (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You are just ignoring most of what I have said and just picked out the parts which suit you, so to be perfectly clear, I do not agree with moving the article. While I agree that women can enter, I disagree with your assertion that they are not regarded as men's events. Therefore you do not have consensus for a move and per normal procedure, it stays as is. _wjemather^bigissue 07:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So you lied multiple times on my talk page? What you said was you agreed but we needed to have a discussion first. You did not say you disagreed, just that, again, there needed to be a discussion first. Also, again, how does how something is REGARDED as determine the name of the page if it is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. According to WIKIPEDIA POLICY MISLEADING ARTICLES (as in, calling something a men's event that IS NOT A MEN'S ONLY EVENT) should be RENAMED. Also, Wikipedia requires SOURCES. Where are your sources for calling these tournaments men's events? Where are your sources that use the term golf as well? I completely agree that these tournaments are regarded as men's events. I completely agree that the term "men's major golf championships" should redirect to the page. My point is that the page should be named correctly, regardless of what it is "regarded" as. Otherwise, why is the page called "The Open Championship"? According to the PGA Tour and ESPN, it's "The British Open." Oh that's right, what we REGARD something as is different, and may not be what something actually IS. Therefore we solve the problem via redirects. I've brought up this argument MULTIPLE times and you have yet to respond to it. You have yet to show sources. Check the Official World Golf Ranking - endorsed by the IF of PGA Tours - and they are officially called Major Championships. Also, why is the page U.S. Open instead of Men's U.S. Open? Or Men's Open Championship? Both of these have women-only versions, and according to your logic, since they are regarded as "men's events" the page should be named that way. This is totally inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Do you think that the page should be titled "men's major..." but not "men's US Open..."? How is that consistent? Starwrath (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do is look at how they are referred to in the context of women's golf, or women's sport in general, since, as pointed out before, it is redundant to say men's and golf when it is already clear that men's golf is the context.
I have better things to do than endlessly go over the same ground, so will not be discussing this with you any further here. There are other avenues available if you insist on pursuing this, but this one is now closed.
As a final thought, a merger of all the major's articles (men's, women's, senior.s) might be an option, since they are really tour specific anyway. Regards. _wjemather^bigissue 17:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So you don't give any sources, and don't refute the argument about how other things are "regarded as X" but their page names aren't reflected this way, and just declare the discussion closed as "no censensus"? Quite frankly, that's bullshit. Is the NBA labeled men's? Is the NHL labeled men's? Women's golf refers to these events the same way men do - they are the "major championships", unless they're talking in context regarding their tournaments. Why would the women's perspective be given precedence over THEIR ACTUAL NAME anyway? How does that possibly make sense? Again, following that logic, the page should be "British Open" from a U.S. perspective. You have yet to demonstrate anything that would suggest why how one particular group refers to something determines the name of that page, when a) it's factually incorrect (as you have even noted above) and b) it's not even the correct term. We also haven't endlessly gone over the same ground. You have yet to address my arguments. Most of the discussion on WT:GOLF was talking about how I did the merge, and not even the argument at hand, and on my talk page, not only did you state multiple times that you agreed but you just mentioned a discussion needed to be had. I've tried to have a discussion - you have not addressed my concerns, and have not refuted my statement that the current title is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and no one else has responded. You stated earlier that this was a "controversial" move when you reverted it. How can it be controversial if a note has been on the page for a YEAR and no one bothers to counter the arguments? On a different note, what are the other avenues, as you haven't been very helpful at all, not even bothering to actually provide sources for your claims or why how some group regards X as Y takes precedence over the actual term (as noted here http://www.owgr.com/about_us/default.sps?iType=425 which states, "the offical world golf ranking, which is endorsed by the four Major Championships and...") Starwrath (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I was going to add a qualification section to the majors article, giving an overview of how to qualify for the tournaments (and linking to the specific spots on each majors article for more information). One of the specific sentences that I would write, just like in the PGA Tour article, would be something along the lines of: "Similar to other major sporting events and leagues, there is no rule limiting the major championships to "men only." While no woman has successfully qualified for a major, some have tried, such as Michelle Wie.(ref) Also, women have played in the U.S. Amateur, which was previously considered a major championship, although they did not compete during the period in which it was considered a major. (ref)" How could I add something like this in if it completely contradicts the name of the article itself? It's extremely confusing if the article is named "Men's X" and contains the statement "there is no rule preventing women from playing." Starwrath (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

At least as a compromise, I added the term "Major Championships" with a reference to how they are referred to by the OWGR in the opening sentence. Starwrath (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you before, there is no official title for the majors, so comparisons with The Open Championship, the NBA, etc. are completely irrelevant. You seem to have missed my earlier point – in the context of women's golf, the majors would normally refer to the LPGA majors, in senior's golf it would almost always refer to the Champions Tour majors. In the context of golf in general it would normally mean the men's majors. _wjemather^bigissue 06:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

While I can agree that there is no "official" title so to speak, the Official World Golf Ranking in its official capacity specifically refers to them as the Major Championships. How much more official can you get than that? I see what you're saying regarding referencing, but I'm not sure how that really pertains to the discussion. "The Open" is used, in context, to reference any number of "Open" events, in multiple sports, yet specifically refers to the British Open when no context is given (or that is the Open being referred to in context). Just like the term "the majors" does. I'm not sure how that effects naming the article with the term "men's". While I can definitely see your point regarding the fact that it's not technically official, what is official is that they are not men's events. According to your argument regarding what is official and what is not, at the very least that should be removed from the title. Starwrath (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I just tagged my proposal so it should show up under requested moves. If you really have changed your stance from what you said on my talk page (and really care) - then you should probably oppose. If you're simply opposed because there is no consensus and don't really care, then disregard this. Starwrath (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Stefania Croce

See if there's anything I missed in creating this article! thanks.BLUE_DOG^TN 00:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Recognition

• Just a note: You did alot of great work today, keep up the good work!BLUE_DOG^TN 01:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Kraft Nabisco Championship champions

Hello Wjemather, I have this article up for FLC nomination, which means I need you to go look at it!BLUE_DOG^TN 23:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Stanley Park

Agreed, make a redirect to there and expand the article further. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

tour pros on Callaway Golf page

Thanks for re-inserting some of the tour players and endorsers on the Callaway Golf page, but it is obvious you have some type of bias. Why would you omit an entire group of tour players because you deem them not "major" enough? It is a fact that Arnold Palmer represents Callaway Golf. It is also a fact that Annika Sorenstam represents Callaway Golf. They are very well-known figures. By removing them, you are providing a disservice to Wikipedia readers and your edits continue to perpetuate misinformation and lack of information on this page. Two For Mirth (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not current players on the major tours. Simple. There are plenty of editors who feel that lists of endorsements should be completely removed and I can see why, since essentially is is a marketing tool. _wjemather^bigissue 11:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and please cease from making accusations regarding the motives of other editors (read WP:AGF). _wjemather^bigissue 11:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There are also plenty of editors who feel that information should be accurate and complete. The information on the Callaway Golf page is neither, and you are preventing that from happening. Oh, and by saying I am using this as a "marketing tool," you are making an accusation regarding the motives of other editors, and that accusation is incorrect and offensive. Two For Mirth (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, article content should be encyclopaedic. What you added was not, for an array of different reasons already explained. _wjemather^bigissue 12:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not explained the reasons; you simply dismissed the changes and provided no specific information or help in correcting it. You asked for specific examples of incorrect information - I provided those examples, and yet you continue to ignore it and revert to the incorrect information. You selectively removed entire sections of new content that are accurate, verifiable and sourced, and the reason you gave is based on a philosophy of "editors who feel." For reference on that quote, see your post above. Are personal feelings part of the Wikipedia process? Why are other similar pages not held to the same standards and corrected to align with what you have personally deemed to be the proper model for this type of page? You are not removing their information on pro tour and Nationwide Tour players, just Callaway Golf. And why are you threatening to block or ban another editor who disagrees with you? Two For Mirth (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, there were no threats, merely a warning that continuing to add content in violation of WikiPedia policies may result in a block, and I am not the only editor who has notified you of this. I recommend that you read through those policies. _wjemather^bigissue 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You are censoring information. Simple. You are reverting to information that you know to be incorrect, and you have sent a "warning" that I will be blocked if I again try to correct it. You are imposing your personal opinions on a specific page regarding which tour players should be included - as well as other information - yet you fail to apply the same standards to similar pages. I recommend that you evaluate the impact that your censorship has on the veracity and mission of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia process. Two For Mirth (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. You need to read the policies. They are quite clear. I cannot possibly monitor every single page on WikiPedia, but I happen to have this, and several other similar ones, watchlisted. I have asked you to list the "facts" that are incorrect and need changing on the talk page (with references to support them), but you have so far refused. The onus is now on you to provide the necessary information. _wjemather^bigissue 15:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oosthuizen

Fair enough, although I'd say any image is better than none. I've started Aloha Golf Club. I've managed to request two photos of him from flickr so far, hopefully I can also get one of him holding the jug at the Open on the weekend. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. _wjemather^bigissue 10:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Check out 2010 Open Championship now! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! _wjemather^bigissue 13:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Individual Golf Tournament

Your last edit to Template:Infobox Individual Golf Tournament inadvertently "broke" lots of pages - if the "|caption = " isn't present then you get a "{{{caption}}}" at the top of the infobox, see for example 2009 Open Championship nd 2010 U.S. Open Golf Championship. Tewapack (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Have reverted and will look into it tomorrow. Thanks for the notice. _wjemather^bigissue 22:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

People linked to al-Awlaki

Discussion moved from User talk:Epeefleche

Hi, you recently restored a whole section of Anwar al-Awlaki that had been split into a new article – People linked to Anwar al-Awlaki. The result is that one largely duplicates the other but there is the potential for them to be out of step and contradict each other (in fact they already do in some respects). Could you please cast your eye over the former and cut the content down to a decent summary of the most high profile cases, since this was seemingly not done when the split was performed. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 18:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but last I saw it looked appropriate. Moving that section out of the article is not appropriate, since it is at the core of why he is notable -- probably another section that is less significant should be moved out, if any.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. There doesn't appear to have been much of a discussion prior to the split either. My initial take is that the linked people section possibly goes into to much detail anyway given full articles exist in most cases, and as it stands it is ripe for a split given its length. I don't think it would take anything away from the article as long as a proper summary section were written. I'll leave it for you to mull over, but either way the content should just be in one place. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 19:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Will look when I have a spare hour, which is not precisely at the moment. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention. _wjemather^bigissue 19:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tx. You are of course correct about the paucity of info. The article is over the 100 point, so it is reasonable to look at a split. Though not required (and it is still close to 100). My first take is that if we move anything out, it should be something other than the material most likely to be the focus of interest of the reader seeking the page. So ... early life and/or Works, for example. I've reached out to the initiating editor in question to discuss, as he is a highly respected editor who is usually quite thoughtful about these things.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say the Awlaki is the subject of the article, not the people he has been linked to in some way, and as such that section is a good candidate for splitting (of course with the proviso that a decent summary is left in the main article). It is probably best to discuss this fully at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki rather than various user talk pages. _wjemather^bigissue 06:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that whatever he is notable for is the most important material to keep in the article. There would not be an article, were he not notable. His early life and his works are not why he is notable, and if (still not certain that is the case) a split were necessary, the last thing I would want to move is the info he is notable for.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree in principle with what you say, I maintain that the article is about Awlaki and not the people he has been linked to and there is far too much detail regarding individual cases (Hasan & Abdulmutallab) which is already well covered in other articles specifically about them. Since you are contesting the split, the onus is on you to initiate discussion on the talk page, otherwise I think it would be reasonable to re-perform the split. _wjemather^bigissue 09:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that accurate?

Discussion moved to User talk:Michael Glass where related discussion is ongoing.

WikiProject Darts invite

You have been invited to join WikiProject Darts. We are dedicated to improving and expanding darts-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in darts and/or your edits to Darts-related articles. If you would like to join, please click here, and add your name to the bottom of the list of project members. ~~~~

Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for fixing the banner, i have been waiting on that for ages. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 16:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And you spotted the deliberate mistake! _wjemather^bigissue 00:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

MOSNUM & ISO

How exactly does this help when discussion is not concluded? I added my comments on the talk page, but until there is consensus for change, please leave it state that the article was in before the edit war started. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Check the history. Jc3s5h‎ made a change (19:24, 3 August 2010). I reverted (19:01, 12 August 2010) – my edit summary makes that perfectly clear. Jc3s5h‎ edit being in place for 9 days does not make it standing consensus. _wjemather^bigissue 01:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Check back even further. The addition you're suggesting restoring is inaccurate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how far back are you going? _wjemather^bigissue 01:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

July had better wording. The date format is not the ISO standard and the imprecise nature of the wording could allow YYYYMMDD format to be acceptable, and no one wants that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The wording of this section has been static from before the beginning of January, "Months are expressed as whole words (February, not 2), except in the ISO 8601 format...", until Jc3s5h‎ changed it. _wjemather^bigissue 01:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what you restored. That was cumbersome. The ongoing discussion is proving to be useful. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary was clear that was what I had done and I do not think it was cumbersome. However, perhaps it would have been even clearer if I had reverted and then added with 2 distinct edits, but I didn't see the need at the time. I see that you intended to revert to the prior version, but just missed where the original change had been. _wjemather^bigissue 09:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Phil Taylor

Hi, look at my comments at the bottom and respond, can't sem to get any responses. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 08:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Official World Golf Rankings

shame on me ...i 100.1% thought i cliked it ! oops i didn't! sorry + thanks for your help kernitou talk 19:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Developing WP:DARTS

Hi, I like the work you have been doing on the guidlines and now that the project is well developed with assessment, bots, guidlines etc. we should develop the project further now with new ideas, if you have any feel free to ask or do it yourself if you want.

PS. Put the barnstar on your userpage, you derserved it. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 17:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you're not doing too bad yourself. You're right in that there is still a lot to do before the project is fully setup, notability guidelines and the like and it would be good if we can get an article up to GA. I'll try and help with the Taylor article when I can, but would like to get the templates standardised first.

Could really do with lots of active members to help thrash things out when necessary. I'll continue to post on WT:DARTS whenever something crops up so everyone can see it and hopefully others will chip in. _wjemather^bigissue 00:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

John Williams (snooker referee)

I've restored the page per your request. Just note that this is a BLP with zero sources, unless sources can be found to verify the info the article will undoubtedly be deleted again. If he is notable as a prominent snooker referee who presided over world champions, it shouldn't be too difficult, but it would be better to do so sooner than later. -- Atama頭 15:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have already added one reference which should be sufficient to confirm notability. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 16:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good now, very well done. :) -- Atama頭 16:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits to 2010 Masters, PGA Championship

I was wondering why you reverted my edits for the Masters and the PGA Championship. I believe they were perfectly suitable. Please explain in more detail. Regards. 74.12.96.101 (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Uploading images

Hi, do you have any experience with uploading images or could you recommend anyone that does, im asking because in order to get the Phil Taylor article to GA status (or FA if lucky), it will probably need more than one image. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The only problem usually encountered is in licensing. There are a few images (tv screen caps) that have been uploaded for use in darts biographies with claims that they fall under fair use. They don't, and I will be going through and tagging them before long. Basically any photo that you have taken yourself, you are free to release one of several licenses for use on WP. Any other images you find are free to use as long as they are licensed in a similar manner. There are several policies and guidelines to read through! It is best to start at WP:IUP. _wjemather^bigissue 18:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have a clue how to upload images and couldn't make sense of Wikipedia:Image use policy. Sorry to ask, but if you have the time, could you please upload a couple of images. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 20:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, it is a bit confusing. I've only uploaded a couple of images myself, mostly replacing existing ones with lower resolution or cropped versions. It's been a while since I last made an aborted attempt to upload any other type of image (I noticed that the image didn't have a valid license). WP:UPI is a kind of how-to guide. _wjemather^bigissue 20:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Phil Taylor

Your changes have 2 instance of WP:PEACOCK. Could you please fix them. --Philcha (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not add anything. All I did to most of the prose was remove the rogue carriage returns – I haven't had time to give those sections a full going over as yet. Along with MrK, I am trying to fix the article in general, which includes removing the excessive gushing commentary that has accumulated over time. _wjemather^bigissue 18:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox darts player/sandbox

Hi, I have a suggestion for the infobox. I think we should remove "Playing darts since" because it is the most pointless thing i've ever seen in an infobox, you can see when they started playing professionaly by looking at the "BDO" and "PDC" section. Please just remove it. It's useless. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 13:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go with that. It's impossible to source accurately for most people anyway and is pretty meaningless. After all we don't record similar dates for anything else. _wjemather^bigissue 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the infobox looks good now, do you think it's time to make the changes to the actual infobox. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 23:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is some (well, a lot of) work to do first. All the tournament data (wins/best major performances) that will no longer be in the infobox needs transferring into sections within the main body of each biography article. _wjemather^bigissue 23:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, amd I love what you're doing with Glossary of darts, you fixed it up brilliantly. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 13:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. While it definitely looks better, I'm fairly sure that there is a lot of made up crap in there – I've certainly never heard of half of them in the 30-odd years I've been playing and watching darts. The real problem starts with having to reference everything given I suspect many of the off-wiki glossaries were originally copied from here. _wjemather^bigissue 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Darts

Hi, I created documentation for WP:DARTS, have a look and see what you think (I basically copied it from WP:CANADA's template documenation so it didn't take that long), I also added all the templates we created to the project page. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Darts ad

Hi, did you see the ad that EWikist made for WP:DARTS yet, they made the barnstar image aswell.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #221

Isn't it great, I think this will be a great way to get more members. You should add it to your userpage. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 08:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Phil Taylor image

OK, i have sent an email to PhilThePower.com regarding an image I would like to upload. If I get permission, what should I do next? Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I see someone else has posted some guidance to your talk page. They can probably help with images more than I. _wjemather^bigissue 15:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, they are helping me upload a image of Taylor holding the 2010 Premier League trophy, it's a good picture and will help get it up to GA. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 18:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:DARTS

Hi, i'm having a problem with the archiving of the talk page. The bot archived 6 threads today but it is not showing up in the archive section of the talk header. Do you think you could fix it? By the way, 16 members now. Thats even more than WP:CUE and they've been going for four years, we haven't been going for four 4 months. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot counter was set to start at 4, so I have unarchived and reset it to start at 1. Might work? _wjemather^bigissue 19:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's working now. _wjemather^bigissue 16:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:otheruses4

Please delete instances and replace with {{about}}. {{otheruses4}} is deprecated. Thank you199.126.224.245 (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

{{otheruses4}} is not depreciated at all, as is abundantly clear from the talk page and recent(ish) RfD. Since it redirects to {{about}} and works, I will not be wasting my time. Thanks anyway. _wjemather^bigissue 06:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not useful. It is confusing, and unclear to new editors.199.126.224.245 (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and I suggest you read through the RfD again. You need not bother me any further on the subject. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing you are wrong is that the hatnotes need as much detail as possible. This is just wrong because the detail is found in the articles, and the purpose of the hatnotes is just that, to disambiguate the articles. If articles happen to have the same name, but are disparate, then it is clear they do not need any more than the differentiating nouns.199.126.224.245 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you misread. I wrote "as necessary" not "as possible". _wjemather^bigissue 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi - It strikes me that this user may well be the same person previously banned for repeated disruptive editing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:199.126.224.156) - the ISP is almost identical. It appears they have not learned from the experience... Mabalu (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is obviously banned user User:100110100. I have blocked the IP address. If you see similar things again, feel free to let an admin know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Will do. _wjemather^bigissue 18:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfinished discussion at WikiProject Darts

Hi, I invite you to finish the dispute for the importance ratings on darts articles.

Click here to see discussion.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Darts at 16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Template:Infobox darts player/sandbox

Hi Wjemather, regarding your work on the sandbox of the darts player infobox, I would like to direct your attention to Template:Infobox snooker player, I think this is a great infobox and ours should be more like it. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 09:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, really busy at the moment. Yeah, that's the kind of cutbacks I'm looking for, but not sure when I'll have enough time to complete working on the sandbox. As I mentioned before, all the tournament wins and achievements stuff needs migrating into the article body for all darts player articles before we can go anywhere with it. Lots of work to do there first really! _wjemather^bigissue 22:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bluedogtn

I have tidyed up all the loose ends of my editing on wikipedia. I will be forever leaving wikipedia on 04:00 1 October 2010 in order to persue another passion in my life. I used to have a great and hightened passion for this place, but now that has all but fizzled and burned away to nothing, which I cannot rekindle it anylonger in my soul. I know we've had some contentious battles at times on here, but I forgive you and say let bigones be bigones, which I hope you eventually can do the same for me. I wish you all the best in editing on here in the future, all I can say is I give you this Faith, Hope, Love, and Peace for your editing on here, which the greatest is LOVE! Peace my fellow wikipedian. May God have mercy on this and mine wikipedian soul. I hope you get admin on here one day if you want it.BLUE_DOG^TN 05:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleveland Golf

OK, just tell me what I need to do to update the CG page.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickThiry (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

All content should be supported by reliable sources, preferably independent ones. The problem is that the reference you provided did not mention anything about most of what you added. _wjemather^bigissue 18:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitworths

If you feel the subject is not notable or is blatant advertising (I don't think it is) and wish to propose the article for deletion please do so. You could also detail the concerns you have on the article talk page so that they may be addressed. It is not acceptable to vandalise the page as an alternative to following these established procedures. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 22:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion. I would like to apologise as we seem to have been in an edit conflict. My problem is not however with the article itself but with the user that contributed the article. One of my own articles keeps on being edited by this user, arguing it does not conform to Wikipedia standards and changing what does not seem to conform. I have tried to discuss this on the discussion page. But to no avail (no response). You will have noticed that my comments were remarked out, so that a browsing reader or user would not see these comments. I have brought this to the attention of the administrators (through the noticeboard) although I feel it is all a waste of everybodies time. I have decided to retire from Wikipedia. Enough is enough. I was just trying to clean up some odds and ends but this is going to far. I decided to retire because I felt the whole process has become to frustrating. Now I am also angry. Again I would like to apologise as I meant no offence to you. --JHvW (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I currently have handicap 17.5, but that will improve drastically as I now have a lot more spare time 8-). And I make my own clubs and ...... good luck. --JHvW (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding WP_EL

Dear Wjemather, Sorry to be annoyingly new to the wikipedia talk facility. I am the chap who added external links to several football pages which you removed and advised me why you had done so. I wrote to you last night on my talk page and also in error at the bottom of your own talk page. Essentially it seemed to that it was okay for me to include these links per WP_EL and I have explained why I thought that and asked for your viewpoint on this. I do not want to get into squabbling or contesting a judgment by someone much more experienced in application of wikipedia policies than I, but as it stands it doesn't make sense to me why the links are unwelcome, so it would be helpful to have some further communication with you to straighten this out so I don't end up just disenchanted. Look forward to getting clarification on this. Thanks Tim Richardson Tim8008 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, as it says at the top of this page I'm really busy with work at the moment. Be assured I'll reply on your talk page as soon as I get time. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 07:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - hope your work is going well - will watch out for communication from you on my talk page.

Tim Tim8008 (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cricket article talk pages

There appears to be duplicate WikiProject Cricket banners on many cricket-related talk pages.

Such as on Talk:French cricket.

Since you are interested in cricket articles and their development, I thought you might want to know about this.

The Transhumanist 20:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Notice would probably be better posted on the project talk page. _wjemather^bigissue 20:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding, incivility, disruptive editing, and edit warrring

WJE -- I've found you disruptive in the past, and you seem to be making a large number of controversial edits recently to article that I am editing (spelling of Arabic, POV, etc). Please don't wikihound me. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Arabic? What are you talking about? And who the hell do you think you are? As I've said before, making accusations and thousands of tiny edits to articles may briefly serve as a smokescreen but in the end does little to hide the basic problems with your editing. You have a clear and obvious POV that permiates many of your contributions. Being a lawyer you are evidently also adept at gaming the system to try and impose your version of content, mostly by shouting RS, RS, it's in the RS, but also by making these pathetic accusations. I don't buy it, and I'm not the only one. I will, as always, continue to rectify any problems I see, whether you agree with it or not. _wjemather^bigissue 00:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what I am talking about. I am the fellow editor asking that you stop wikihounding me and editing disruptively, as you have in the past. Please take this as an official warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Get over yourself. As before, put up or shut up. Official warning... hilarious. Again, who the hell do you think you are? I was not disruptive before, and nor am I now. I merely took a break from dealing with your shit. _wjemather^bigissue 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please consider it a civility warning as well. Have a good week.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll consider most of your comments to be provocation, which would be a breach of WP:CIVIL unlike any of my above comments. If you disagree, you know where you can go. _wjemather^bigissue 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not seeking to provoke you. I am asking you to not engage in wikihounding, disruptive editing, edit-warring, and incivility, and providing you notice that you should consider this a warning in that regard. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that warnings are are only given when an offence has occured. Given I have not engaged in any of the activities you describe, your warnings can be seen as nothing but provocation. _wjemather^bigissue 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You have indeed engaged -- not for the first time -- in that behavior. In fact, you oddly accuse me of edit warring, while you've reverted one more time than I have, among other things. In any event, I am encouraged by your statement to assume that you will not engage is such behavior in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Knock it off. I've had enough of your unfounded allegations for one day. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 01:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no wish to repeat anything that I've said, other than my wishes for an enjoyable week. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

THE 19TH HOLE

WATCH THE VIDEO.

http://knightrideronline.com/knight_rider/season_three/the_nineteenth_hole/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.167.65 (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? A fictional place in a fictional TV show. We do not include WP:TRIVIA here. Thanks anyway. _wjemather^bigissue 18:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)