User talk:Chief disambiguator

March 2019

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 2002 Open Championship, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As further information, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a forum, blog, soapbox, fan site, message board, advice site, advertising vehicle or tabloid. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish rumors, gossip, personal opinions, personal experiences, messages, commentary, advocacy, complaints, advice, joke edits, promotional material, original research or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve John Buczek

Hello, Oogglywoogly,

Thanks for creating John Buczek! I edit here too, under the username JamesG5 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Comment about South African tour removed, not in available sources. Several sources and some info added, links need formatting. There's a lot of additional info that can be extracted from the sources. Page needs categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|JamesG5}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JamesG5 (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South African Tour wins

I noticed a comment you made on the Cobie Legrange. What is unclear, going back to the 1960s/1970s is which tournaments were "tour" events and which weren't. Just because he won a tournament in South Africa doesn't make it a Sunshine Tour win (or whatever it was called at the time). Personally I'd prefer "South African wins". The same applies to Australia/New Zealand. Many of the tournaments were not "tour" events. All very confusing. Nigej (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Official Tour Wins - Tour era for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Official Tour Wins - Tour era is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 29 August 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

When adding statistical analysis, please ensure they have real significance. The value of these "statistics" when they have not been quoted/reported outside of their primary source is questionable at best, and some of those you have added to various articles are also extremely trivial (e.g. "17th most dominant" has very little value). Regards. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only added information to 4 of the 20 tournaments listed because I thought those were the only relevant ones. The information about Nichols' win seemed most interesting. It is often noted that he had the PGA Championship lowest score record for 30 years but this strikes me as somewhat misleading given that the tournament is played on very different courses every year (i.e. Nichols could have been playing an easy course). Nichols' performance relative to everyone else in the field helps substantiate his dominant 1964 performance. In general his was the 19th most dominant of 202 majors - in the top 10% of modern majors. That is a pretty big deal -- but not a lot of ppl know about it.
I included the '77 Nicklaus information because it demonstrates how extraordinary he played against the field and still didn't win. This attained a lot of media attention. (As did Mickelson's 2016 loss against Stenson.) I included Grady's "relative dominance" because it is largely not remembered as a particularly domineering win. I also included Love's 1997 win - you did not delete this -- why?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Hi. Best keeping discussion here as my IP address could change at any time (and often) so I may not see/look for messages left elsewhere (especially on IP talk pages). Ok, so there are two issues here...
I think the first thing would be to review WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTSTATS, and to a lesser extent WP:UNDUE; i.e. wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics or trivia or "interesting titbits", and undue weight should not be given to relatively minor or incidental pieces of information.
The other issue is the statistic you added - "relative dominance" based on field mean scoring - is a very obscure one which is not commonly discussed or referred to outside of the guy who is producing it (indeed, that's if they're ever mentioned at all). While dominant performances do get coverage, I haven't seen this specific stat mentioned anywhere else, so it's validity is questionable. If, as you say, something has gained a lot of media attention, then please use these 3rd party sources as references instead of Barnwell's blog (which is dubious as a reliable source). The Watson/Nicklaus and Stenson/Mickelson shootouts did receive a lot of coverage and it was obviously noted how far clear they were of 3rd place, but no mainstream coverage mentions relative dominance in relation to field scoring average.
I thought about removing the Love one but it didn't seem quite so clear cut, as it felt like something may have received coverage outside of Barnwell's blog. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it would be ok to say something like "X win is considered one of the most dominant" (and maybe even use the r-d stat as a ref), but to say "X win is statistically the nth most relatively dominant by mean field scoring average" is problematic because the statistic is not a commonly accepted or quoted one. It's even more problematic when talking about runner(s)-up. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I am relatively new as an editor so I am not fully aware of all of Wikipedia's rules. Overall what you say seems to make sense. The only real misgiving I have is your characterization of the source. Barnwell isn't some random guy on the internet (as you probably know) and Grantland is a well-respected website (albeit, technically, a blog). Is an article by Bill Barnwell on Grantland seriously not considered a legitimate source?
Otherwise, I guess I should get acquainted with Wikipedia's rules. Does this page cover most of the guidelines?
Thanks,
Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
No problem - I've been editing on and off for well over 10 years and still find some of the nuances of policies and guidelines baffling. Even administrators don't seem to have a clue half the time! Yes, WP:COPO is a good starting point for content stuff; WP:RULES for more general look at the minefield. Good luck & don't get weighed down with it.
Yes, you are right about Barnwell & Grantland to a certain extent, however the problem with it from a "reliable source" perspective is that the content (essentially blogs) has not gone through the same rigorous editorial process as mainstream media, or peer review that statistical research would. As such, I would say that while it maybe a usable source, we just have to be careful in how we present any information gleaned from it, i.e. not give it undue weight and treat it as an individual's opinion and not as fact because it's reliability maybe questionable. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trove

Nigej, Trove is certainly a "treasure trove" of information. Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention! I can't believe some government library system created it. With the search function, it is far better than Google News Archive. Do you know of any other countries that have search engines like this?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Oogglywoogly

Thank you for creating Nedlands Masters.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for this new article. I am a bit concerned by all of the empty entries in the list of winners. If the tournament was not held in those years, then the respective rows in the list should be deleted altogether. If the tournament was actually held in those years, please do your best to find who the winners were. Also, what does the "(a)" mean after Graham Marsh and Terry Gale?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Doomsdayer520,

My apologies for the late response - just haven't been on here in a while. I think User:Wjemather filled in most of the blank slots. We definitely need more information (like determining what events were on the Order of Merit and what ones were not) but it's a good start. Also the "(a)" refers to amateur. If you have any more reservations about the page please let me know.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kurt Cox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1973 U.S. Open.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary/Secondary/Tertiary Sources

Please see WP:PSTS for a run-down on what constitutes Primary/Secondary/Tertiary sources – newspapers, etc. are normally secondary. Regards. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wjemather,

Thank you for bringing this up. I assume you are notifying me because of what I wrote about early 20th century New Zealand Opens, especially pertaining to Ted Douglas. Right now I only have "secondary sources" from newspapers that state, usually multiple years after the fact, that Douglas won the event. I am looking for "primary sources" - i.e. newspaper stories reporting directly from the event that were published the following day.

Here's what I just read on the wiki page: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." I feel like my ideas on primary/secondary sources are confirmed by this statement.

Growing up I usually learned that primary sources were sources reporting directly from the event whereas secondary sources used these primary sources to create a broader narrative. For example, a New York Times article from, say, July 11, 1947 of a speech given by General MacArthur during the Allied Occupation of Japan would qualify as a primary source. On the other hand, Professor Marius Jensen's referencing of this speech in his The Making of Modern Japan (published 2000) would qualify as a secondary source.

If I am mistaken about these distinctions, however, please let me know.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Yes, you have it. Sorry, not sure what I was doing there – I obviously didn't read what you wrote properly and/or misunderstood what you meant. Also, what I wrote above makes no sense either – if I remember what I was thinking, I'll get back to you! wjematherplease leave a message... 11:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think you may have been confused because I referenced newspaper reports as secondary sources. For Douglas' page I only have secondary sources from a few years after his victories stating that he won the event. For example, his 1914 win is referenced in a 1922 newspaper report. Usually newspaper reports are the primary source but here it is different.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

References from Trove

You may not be aware of a simple way of creating references from Trove. When you have an article displayed, click on the "i" symbol on the left of the screen. This should bring up a section called "Details". If you scroll down in this section you will find "Wikipedia citation". You can cut and paste this. You need to enclose it in <ref> </ref> and be aware that it's not perfect. It puts a strange comma after the volume= parameter. Also sometimes the newspaper links are wrong. Also I prefer to convert upper case titles to lower case. Nigej (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigej,

Thank you for the advice. I just completed my first citation this way under the page of Peter McWhinney. It refers to his performance at the 1995 Australian Open. Please tell me what you think.

Also, was I doing something wrong before?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Not saying you we're doing anything wrong. In fact you're near the top of the list in citations. Just trying to make life easier. Nigej (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1983 Cannes Open

Norman defeats Pavin by a shot. Did this exist?

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/116407672?searchTerm=singapore%20open

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Have added a few bit to Norman's article. Australian sources called it the Cannes Open. Seems there was an invitational event for a few years before the European Tour event started in 1984. Details sketchy. Nigej (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nigej, thank you for making the changes. I actually only originally put this up to remind myself to mention this on the WikiProject Golf talk page. But nonetheless thank you for noticing this. I was wondering if we wanted to put a tour column to designate when it was a tour event. I know it is mentioned in the text but it may be additionally clarifying if we created a column. Not sure if the typical reader reads the text.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1965 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates (February 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Northern Escapee was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Northern Escapee (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Oogglywoogly! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Northern Escapee (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Sandy Galbraith (golfer)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Sandy Galbraith (golfer). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Sandy Galbraith. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Sandy Galbraith. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I see the same the same article.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Wait, if I created two just delete the less comprehensive one. Sorry about that.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Oogglywoogly

Thank you for creating 1974 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates.

User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

When you can, please add more sourcing to the list articles you've been creating on PGA Tour Q-School graduates. Thanks, and keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 TT me 15:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Onel5969,

Thank you for notification. I will add more citations soon.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Thank you

for your additions to the Royal Fremantle Golf Club article - appreciated !! JarrahTree 07:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice words JarrahTree! I think I have improved the Royal Fremantle Golf Club page but there is definitely room for improvement. If you or anyone else could help that would be great.
Thanks,
Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

WA Open

I have found a nice source for the WA Open results: https://www.cottesloegc.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/WA-Open-History-Scores-and-Venues.pdf and have updated the Western Australian Open article accordingly. Does confirm that Tuohy won at Mount Lawley in 1960 with a score at 291, 1 ahead of Brian Henning who had a final round of 79. Sadly no dates. Nigej (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information Nigej. I have added this information to Tuohy's page.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Carlos Ortiz's Highest OWGR

Hey, I recently noticed Carlos Ortiz's highest OWGR isn't updated properly, his highest rank says 48th but should say 44th, which he did achieve on February 28th. I went through the past discussions about the highest ranking and saw that you're the person in charge of updating them, or at least one of the people in charge, so I just thought I'd let you know. Brandonlw97 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brandonlw97, Thank you for the message.
Though I communicate a lot about OWGR rankings I am actually not in charge of it. Nigej is in charge of updating the rankings. Anyway, it looks like you are right. According to the Official World Golf Ranking page of Carlos Ortiz he did peak at #44 a few week ago but it still says #48 on his page. It looks like it should be updated. Nigej, could you update Ortiz's peak ranking?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
@ping(Brandonlw97). Well spotted. A simple typo, changed 45 to 48 instead of 44, for some reason. Nigej (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barry Coxon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Murray.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:1965 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates

Information icon Hello, Oogglywoogly. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:1965 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of the New Course

Hi Oogglywoogly,

I am beginning to put together a new article for the New Course at St Andrews. However I would like your opinion as to what to name it. "New Course" is already in use. Therefore in my opinion I have two options:

  1. New Course at St Andrews, which is consistent with the Old Course at St Andrews, or
  2. New Course, St Andrews (as per naming conventions), in which case to be consistent I would then also need consensus to rename the Old Course at St Andrews to Old Course, St Andrews.

I prefer No. 2, New Course, St Andrews, what do you think? SethWhales talk 06:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification SethWhales. I just posted on the WikiProject Golf talk page.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:1965 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates

Hello, Oogglywoogly. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "1965 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You can definitely delete this draft. I already ended up creating this page and it was approved.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Ooggylwoogly[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://pgatourmedia.pgatourhq.com/static-assets/page/header/files/1999_pgatour.pdf, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I actually just noticed the edits on 1999 Players Championship.
Thank you for the notification. As a full disclosure, I have used the PGA Tour Media Guide for the Eligibility Requirements section for a number of other pages for The Players Championship. They go back to the late 1970s. If I have violated copyright laws for these pages please let me know and I will delete them.
You also stated that "content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words." I guess I could do that but I feel like it would violate WP: OR. Any advice on this would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
The issue isn't that we can't use the information, it's just that we shouldn't be copying it word for word. It looks worse because the "eligibility" section and the "field" section are currently separate, although we have a longer term plan to combine these, per our normal style. I'll have a go later at changing some of these. Nigej (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oogglywoogly, if you can recall places where you've copied copyright material into other articles, please go back and remove it. As a general rule, if you are unable to re-write the text in your own words for whatever reason, please don't include it.— Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Nigej said, our intention all along has been to integrate the "Eligibility Requirements" and "Field" sections. (We have had recent discussions about it on our talk pages, before you contacted me, if you want evidence.) So I'm definitely not ready to delete the "Eligibility Requirements" for the other Players pages. In short, the "word-for-word," copyright problem will be resolved very soon.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
@Nigej: I got the ball rolling with this starting in the late 1970s. I noticed you didn't included a citation for the "Field" category. That would help me out a lot to complete the Eligibility Requirements section. Is there a link?
@Diannaa: I forgot to include you last time. As we stated, we are beginning to integrate both "Eligibility Requirements" and "Field" categories. I think the copyright problems will be resolved soon. What are your thoughts?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
My thought is that if you've got copyright issues to clean up, do it ASAP.— Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian Cévaër, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Louis Stevenson School.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mike Colandro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springfield, New Jersey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maine Open, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeff Julian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yale Golf Course, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connecticut Open.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Connecticut Amateur

Hello, Oogglywoogly,

Thank you for creating Connecticut Amateur.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

There is no context nor introduction to this article. Where is this event situated among other golfing events? Why does this article have no categories? It is good if some context can provided for this article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: Thank you for the message. Looks like categories have been added. I also created a history section - I know it is short but will expand it later as I have time.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

TaylorMade Driving for Relief Charity exhibition

Hi how are you doing I have third party sources that claim this was as charity exhibition event and i do think this event should be removed from the professional wins section like The Match editions were. I have a source from the co-host and co broadcaster Sky Sports among others labeling it as an exhibition. Can you look at this for me please ?. Thanks 178.167.155.9 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, the discussion is at WT:GOLF. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did and I said on that page that I have evidence that the event has been labelled as a charity exhibition by the co hosts and co broadcaster. So why are you sending me a message here ?. I was asking someone else a question ? 89.204.227.174 (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ 178.167.155.9
@ 89.204.227.174
First off, sorry about the late response and thank you for your contributions. However, I must say that I, like some other contributors here, have some issues with your reasoning about this event.
Basically, we came to the understanding on the general talk page that "exhibition" wasn't a category we could define. It might seem like an obvious category for a golf event but nonetheless we couldn't do it. So referring to an event as an exhibition here just has no value.
Not to say that the TaylorMade event has to be included in the Professional wins section. Not all victories, even if buttressed by a reliable third-party source, must be included in the Professional wins category. I believe golf editors came to the conclusion (in passing, albeit) that events like club championships, junior championships, pro-ams victories, and a number of other wins should not be tabulated in the wins sections. So perhaps this TaylorMade event aligns with this general category - a minor event that should not be tabulated. But right now I am not convinced.
In general, I think you are making a category mistake. You are applying a term with no meaning on WP ("exhibition") to a golf event. If this event does align with a discrete category - like "pro-am" - that we came to the consensus not to be included then I think the TaylorMade event should be deleted from the pages of McIlroy and Johnson. But so far that has not been proven.
Best,
Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
P.S.
@ wjemather

Jerry Stolhand

Hi Oogglywoogly,

I’m writing to you in regards to Jerry Stolhand. I’m his grandson. I would love to know more of his story if you have it.

Please contact me via email honeman@outlook.com.au 101.180.66.176 (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shennecossett Golf Course, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connecticut Open.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated amateur etc

I've added some extra parameters at Template:Infobox golfer/sandbox. See .Template:Infobox golfer/testcases#Joe Stansberry. Left hand side is existing infobox, right hand side is the sandbox version. 3 examples here. 1 is just the current situation, 2 shows what it would be like using different parameters (only rhs is interesting), 3 simply adds an additional "Reinstated amateur (2)". Is this the sort of thing you had in mind? Nigej (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigej, Thank you very much; I like this a lot. The only thing I might change is "Turned professional (2)" line to something like "Turn pro again" or "Second professional career." I think it would simply look better without the parentheses. The only other thing we should do before making changes is getting general consensus on the main talk page.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
Hey Nigej, No one responded to me on the main talk page. Nonetheless, I think we should move forward in adding the aforementioned lines to the infobox. Seems like common sense.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
Couple of minor issues 1) what names are we using for the second set eg ""Turned professional (2)"", personally I'm not keen on using words like "pro" 2) How does this fit in with the "status" parameter (generally "Amateur" or "Professional"). Currently if you use the "yearpro" parameter then the "status" parameter is ignored, so you can't have both displayed. Seems to me that we can get rid of this extra logic and just let the editor decide. See the examples at Template:Infobox_golfer/testcases#Joe_Stansberry. Nigej (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nigej, Let me respond to your points.
1) I don't have a particular preference for "pro" or "professional." But the title of this line may be fairly long therefore we may have to use "pro."
2) I don't quite understand this. If we use the "yearpro" parameter then the ("professional") status parameter is ignored (as you state). I am fine with this. But are you wondering in cases when the amateur status is re-instated the amateur status parameter is automatically ignored? Sorry, I just don't quite understand. (In the last example you have with Joe Stansberry, when he hypothetically gets his amateur status re-instated a second time, the status says "Amateur." So I'm not sure what the problem is.)
Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
Its an issue if we retain the current logic. Then if "yearpro" is used then "status" is always ignored. Nigej (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nigej, I guess we will have to deal with it; it's just a singular line in the infobox. There are only a handful of guys who turned pro and then had their amateur status re-instated permanently. It shouldn't determine how the reader evaluates the golfer's entire career.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
Hi Nigej, What do you think?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rick Hartmann has been accepted

Rick Hartmann, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Reading Beans (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Oogglywoogly!

Happy New Year!

Oogglywoogly,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metropolitan PGA Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salisbury, New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Mike Cahill (golfer)

Hello, Oogglywoogly,

Thank you for creating Mike Cahill (golfer).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for creating this article on an Australian golfer. While it is clear you are very familiar with the work of this athlete and his accomplishments, I would encourage you to significantly cut down on length, as it is over 7700 words long with too much detail that will not be of interest to a casual reader WP:LENGTH and WP:DETAIL. To give one comparison, the page on Tiger Woods is 8400, and that is of a world-famous individual, even beyond golf as a discipline and after it has undergone numerous edits to reach GA status. Moreover, citations are inconsistent and many list newspapers.com as a source when it is in fact a repository. Perhaps cutting down on the number of sources (there are currently over 200) will help. On that note, the lead should be expanded to better summarize the article and contents of sections WP:LEAD. Please let me know if you have any questions!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ppt91}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Ppt91 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ppt91,
Thank you for the notification. I am going to spend the next week or so making basic edits. After that period, I would like to have a conversation with you on improving the page in general vis-a-vis Wikipedia's rules about length and detail.
Sincerely,
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Recent edits

I've got to say I find some of your recent edits quite annoying. In your edit to the Victorian Amateur Championship why do you delete spaces eg "Joseph Owen ||" to "Joseph Owen||"? Why quotes around center which becomes "center". I've gone to the trouble of creating it in with a consistent style and you're just make random changes. Nigej (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't even notice. How does it look now?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
I use Visual Editor which may explain some of the inconsistencies. From my end it looks totally normal.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
When I do a "diff" I find that you've introduced some mistakes: Daivd McKendrick, Stephen McGraw, Alan Lehrer. You've deleted most of the flags but not all of them. You've deleted a seemingly random set of red links but not others, you've added <small>(1)</small> to some years but not others, you've changed align=center to align="center" and you've randomly deleted spaces (previously all || had a space each side). Just as nightmare. Nigej (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you need to do the editing in a different way. Even then I really see how David comes Daivd, Alan Lehner becomes Alan Lehrer or Stephen McCraw becomes Stephen McGraw (twice). Is it some spelling correction software? Almost seems like you're typing everything again and making mistakes. Nigej (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also we're not now using superscripts for footnotes, we're using templates efn and footnote. See Air New Zealand Shell Open for an example. Nigej (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ Nigej: No the spelling mistakes are mine. I was making edits on the Victorian Amateur Championship page hastily and by the end thought I may have made some mistakes with the names. (I was more careful at the end.) It was a long and boring exercise and I wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. Sorry for any trouble it caused - next time I'll make sure to be more conscientious. With the red links I actually had a method for it. I maintained red links for all guys who won the event more than once and golfers I had actually heard of (e.g. Sloan Morpeth, Paul Moloney).
In general I found this to be a simple task and am sorry it caused so much trouble. I don't know why the textual issues (e.g. with spacing) happened. All I was doing was making simple edits on a table using Visual Editor which I have definitely done many times before. (For example I recently created tables for the NY State Open and Met PGA.) The only thing I can think of is that there are technical discrepancies between Visual Editor and Source Editor that may have not been resolved yet.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Mike Cahill (golfer)

Hi @Oogglywoogly. Thanks for your ping regarding edits on Mike Cahill (golfer). I've removed two tags from the page and only left the details tag, because I still think the article is too WP:DETAIL detailed for a casual reader, especially the "Professional Career" section. Here's an example: The remainder of the mid-1970s were not as successful, however. In January 1976, Cahill played the Australian PGA Championship at Rosebud Country Club. He opened with a four-under-par 68 to break the course record, sharing the lead with Bill Dunk. However, he was "disqualified" in the second round. The Australian PGA stated that Cahill was "ineligible" because he had not played for three full years as a "trainee professional." Cahill was not happy with the decision and "left the course in disgust." This is a lot of extraneous information that simply does not have to be there, not to mention it is challenging to read for someone without extensive golf knowledge. Instead, you should aim for something along the lines of In January 1976, Cahill participated in Australian PGA Championship, although was disqualified by the second round. I also don't believe you've made any changes in terms of subsections to make the article easier to navigate. I really appreciate all your edits and willingness to improve the article, though I am afraid I am not able to add much more in terms of my feedback. I hope this helps. Ppt91talk 21:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ppt91,
Thank you for the notice and removing two tags. Right now, however, even if Cahill's page is too detailed, I do not want to make any more edits. I want to take time and carefully look over all applicable rules and see where I can improve. (Sorry but I haven't had the time yet.) In addition, I intend to not make any more golfer pages for the remainder of the year. I think over time my "style" will naturally better if I don't do this for awhile and let a new "process" sink in. I do eventually intend to make more edits to Cahill's page (and other golfer pages that may be too long) but right now I want to take a break from this particular project so I can systemically look at the rules and work on other projects on WP:Golf.
Again, thank you very much for your advice.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
@Oogglywoogly Sounds like a good plan and I am sure your extensive knowledge will help improve the project. Feel free to reach out in the future if I can be of help and good luck! :-) Ppt91talk 21:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ppt91 for your help! I will be sure to get in touch if I have any more questions.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early Southern Africa Tour pages

Hi Oogly, thanks for putting the effort to get the ball rolling with these pages. I've tried tidying these up, cleaning up the tables, adding order of merit etc. However, the issue which I seen coming is the Order of Merit. As we only have the "South Africa and international sports factfinder" archive book to work from regarding OoM winners and their total earnings (which I don't think is entirely accurate). The 1975/76 season worked out correctly to what I totaled from the earnings column in the tournament results pages. However, their figure of 19,326 for Gary Player in 1976/77 does not match. I total him to be 14,638 and Dale Hayes actually should win the oom with 17,750. This will probably have issues going forward unless the tour add oom reports to their info centre (Hopefully they do) so we can accurately report the oom standings. It may be of use to you to email the tour (only if you want to) to see if they intend to add these reports in due course. I have tried contacting them before regarding this kind of stuff but didn't get very far. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimmymci234,
Thanks for the notification. For the Order of Merit I am taking everything exclusively from User:Wjemather's sandbox. I haven't done any independent research of my own. I know his source is from the factfinder book but I wasn't able to find much about the Oom (or anything) when I use the "search" function. What are your search methods?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
@Oogglywoogly: We can calculate it by using the individual tournament reports via the winnings column. So far most seasons winners match to the book, in 1975/76, 77/78 and 79/80. 76/77 doesn't match to the book as mentioned before, but I think the book has got it wrong and the tournament reports are better to go off. Also 78/79 doesn't match because the last 2 tournament reports don't have the correct earnings reported.
Also can I ask you to tidy up the reference templated in the season outline section in 79/80 page. I don't have access the full newspapers.com site, so if you can just copy and paste a ref template used from one of the previous seasons and amend accordingly would be great.
Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jimmymci234, Thank you for the message. Just wondering, but how can you infer the total purse from the newspaper reports? The reports just usually note the champion's earnings. In addition, I corrected the citations for the 1979-80 Southern Africa Tour page.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
You can calculate the total purse by totalling the prize money column from the results reports on sunshinetour.info. Jimmymci234 (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Oogglywoogly. Thank you for your work on 1978–79 Southern Africa Tour. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

When adding citations from Newspapers.com on the Southern Africa season pages, please use the following template: <ref>{{cite newspaper |title= |url= |access-date= |newspaper= |location= |first= |last= |date= |page= |via=Newspapers.com |url-access=subscription}}</ref> I've had to repeatedly go into each of your edit additions and amend the citations as they have been mostly incomplete and formatted incorrectly. Thanks! Jimmymci234 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jimmymci234:
Thanks for the message. Yes I intend to systemically fix the citations one season by one once I complete the Season Outlines (through the 1999-2000 season).
Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vesper Country Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Private.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Cedric amm page

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cedric amm page, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Natal Open

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Natal Open, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Natal Open

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Natal Open, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Natal Open, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bobby Cole.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 7)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Ktkvtsh was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]