This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hehe, question already! I see that a lot of the charts are already sourced. Are you talking about needing refs for things like "Album details" and "Certifications"? There are also few chart positions that I don't see a ref for (like in "Compilation albums" for the UK, GER, and US columns, and in "Box sets" section for the UK, GER, and US columns as well)...maybe these are what you're talking about? Or all of the above? Let me know. — MissSarita01:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Miss Sarita: Basically, everything that should have a source, needs one. In summary, that's - Albums needs a live link for Dutch charts (if one exists), compilations needs sources for UK, US and Germany, box sets and EPs are unsourced, as are all of the videos. (In fact the video articles themselves are woefully undersourced generally). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response. I will take a look at all of these throughout the week and I'll let you know what I find. :-) — MissSarita15:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Dutch charts: There are two options here. In the first link, you have to scroll towards the bottom to get to all the charts because the page is a link to a specific album/song (you'll see the title of the album/song at the top under the "Dutch Charts" logo). In the second link, it takes you to the artist page, and you have to click on "Charts" and then "Albums", and there's a whole bunch of stuff going on there. Is this what you meant about needing a "live link"?
UK charts for "Compilation albums" and "Box sets" sections: The UK chart for "Studio albums" will source some of these, but not all. I was unable to find chart links for...
Genesis Archive 2: 1976–1992
Genesis 1970–1975
GER charts for "Compilation albums" and "Box sets" sections: Link in "Studio albums" and "Live albums" has these listed.
US charts for "Compilation albums" and "Box sets" sections: You can use this link for all of the albums, I believe. The ref for the US charts in the "Studio albums" and "Live albums" leads to AllMusic, which I think stopped sourcing charts.
Certifications: These are pretty easy to find by going to the official recording industry website.
Album details: AllMusic can be used to source these. The reviewers of the Theory of a Deadman discography (for some reason) required I include an additional source, but take a look at a handful of FL discographies and you'll find they use AllMusic, iTunes/Amazon (which I know is frowned upon), or don't have a ref at all. If you can find additional sources, I would include them.
Singles: Are you good on these?
The music videos will take a little more time, so I'll try to search for them in chunks, but I just want to make sure I'm looking for everything you need before moving on. :-) — MissSarita09:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
On 24 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sarah Frey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sarah Frey(pictured) is the United States' most prolific pumpkin grower? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Frey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sarah Frey), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
@TheSandDoctor: I've been a bit busy over the last few days and not done as much article work as I'd have liked, but I had a quick look and my main concern is there are a few unsourced bits, and the "Guest appearances" section is a huge load of unsourced trivia. That'll need sorting before it passes GA. I do believe I've got a copy of Life sitting around somewhere which is a great read, though not the best for pulling out actual facts. Anyway, if nobody else takes it over the next few days, I will have a look. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)00:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the nomination for the time being - not because the article isn't ready to at least undergo it, but because I don't have the time to commit to it at the moment as finals start next week. I will renominate it when finals are done with (roughly 3 weeks from now) and will let you know when I do so. --All the best, TheSandDoctorTalk06:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: That's fair enough - I have been on WP in small fits and starts over the Easter break, and normally I'd want 1-2 hours without interruption to do a good job on a GA review, which is tricky when you've got kids fighting over whose turn it is to play Minecraft.... Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
(Buttinsky) - I'm preceding my comment with an apology if I've misunderstood what's going on, but if it happens to be that the WMF intends to siderail what Kudpung and others have worked so hard to get implemented (via ACTRIAL), then I'm of the mind that NPP and AfC will become so inundated with garbage, that it will become an environment of "lost causes". I've been watching quietly in the bkgd...but I'll admit that any incentive to WMAO (work my ass off) to help reduce backlogs has waned because of all the delays. If the WMF chooses to allow anything and everything to come down the pipes, they can surely figure out how to hire a plumber to unclog the pipes. I have no desire to wade through "it" when it becomes waist-deep. Atsme📞📧23:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie, I would do a GA review on this article, but I can't as I am already a significant contributor to it. Instead I've made some edits to it today and will make some more tomorrow. Some things you might want to consider expanding on:
Closure of the Northern line part of the station between 1922 and 1924 whilst the C&SLR tunnels were rebuilt to a larger diameter and the surface building was reconstructed.
Take-over of the GN&CR by the Metropolitan Railway around 1913.
Transfer to Northern line as Highbury branch in 1930s - for the Northern Heights plan.
Closure of the Northern City Line platforms between 1975 and 1976 for the transfer to British Rail.
Mention that the Northern City Line platforms are shallower than the Northern line platforms.
The acidic ground is believed to have been caused by industrial operations (the 1896 map shows a "vinegar works" a short distance to the north east of the junction).
I'm dubious that the picture of the station building in the 1920s is definitely out of copyright. For it to be out of copyright it would have needed to have been published at some point even if it is a work for hire photograph.
I've uploaded to commons an OS map from 1953 which shows the station and junction before the roundabout was constructed. This shows that the station building was on the north-east side of the junction and in the Metropolitan Borough of Shoreditch (merged into the Borough of Hackney in 1965). Using the transparency slider on this map shows that the location of the station building is on the northern point of the roundabout's island.--DavidCane (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@DavidCane: Thanks for the comments. I've got Day & Reed's book from the library again (it seems everybody wants it!) so hopefully the missing information is in there, although I'm pretty sure I got everything that was directly referring to Old Street as present in the index. I primarily got the book this time round to add citations to Stockwell tube station which seems in quite poor shape compared to all the other Northern Line articles.
I agree with your view on the 1920s photograph and raised a thread at Media Copyright Questions here, but had no replies. And regarding the boundaries, as well as the discussion on the talk page, I got the Islington / Hackney boundary off this map, which if you click on "Create Overlay" shows a contemporary OpenStreetMap layer with the boundary in the same place. It shows the line "cutting the corner" between City Road and Old Street, putting the station building in Islington. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 00:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I got your mail and have read it; bottom line is that real life has intervened in quite a big way recently and I haven't had time to look at on-wiki stuff. I'll get back to you soon! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You recently deleted Privacy, free expression, and transparency, please could you move it to draft so we can explore reusing the text on other articles or reworking the article to meet the requirements? Whilst the source text is available elsewhere there a lot of work went into adding the references to the article, it would br very helpful to get it back. I also made a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Privacy,_free_expression,_and_transparency, I'm not sure which I was supposed to do first....
Didn't want to muddy the waters at RfA with this, but interesting nonetheless. Some have argued that feeling welcomed and part of a group is one of the main motivators for people joining almost any group - even fundamentalist terror groups, including people who go on to commit suicide attacks. There is nothing like consensus for this model, but it's an interesting thought and one that I've seen play out in several contexts; notably, bell-ringing groups are spattered with people who have no ability whatsoever but happen to have found a group who are prepared to be patient with them and that they enjoy going to the pub with after a practice. I sometimes wonder, also, how many editors here are motivated primarily by the social interaction of the site (as caustic as that may sometimes be), despite having precious little ability when it comes to collaborative editing of an encyclopaedia. I do think this explains some of the preponderance of POV-warriors we see; the more desperate someone is for social inclusion, the more enthusiastically they will attach themselves to something like Wikipedia, which provides only a poor taste of real social interaction. More socially-balanced people, who get their social fix elsewhere, are less dependent on the social aspect of Wikipedia and therefore more likely to give up on meeting resistance.
I've also seen several groups take off suddenly when a group of people who happen to get on well arrive and start making things happen, and then wither almost as quickly when that group of people disperses as life moves on. One weekly group that had suffered this fate was relaunched a week later at the same time, in the same place, in the same format, with the same purpose, but run by a different group of people who happened to click well; the group took off again. Sometimes I think this is the explanation for editor retention (or lack of it) here!
I'm not sure really what my point is; I think maybe that, while it's true that people join objectionable groups for non-objectionable reasons, it doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't object to them; most people are fairly willing to mould their ideas and beliefs to fit with whatever group they happen to fall in with. GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Blackfriars station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canadian Paul -- Canadian Paul (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Ritchie333, will you be returning to your review here to determine whether the nomination, whether with one hook or the other, is ready for a tick? If not, then a response for the nominator would be welcome. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi this PRODded A7ed BLP above was declined when I A7ed it. It’s just popped up on my watch list again and before thinking I prodded it again because it’s still an unsourced BLP (the reference is to an image on a Chinese search engine). Apologies for doing that, but you might want to check it again anyway because it definitely meets the criteria for PROD and wouldn’t stand a cat in hells chance on AFC. Many thanks and sorry if I stepped on any toes. Edaham (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I've since re-read your edit summary and realized that PROD was exactly what you were correctly (albeit hastily) telling me to do after all. My misunderstanding. Thanks for your time! Edaham (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Bishop until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.
(talk page watcher) A range block is not really feasible here. The user seems to have cycled off of the one /16 range that is dynamic and unrelated users are active there now. I did take a look at the case and blocked an IP they're still using, but I can't do much more now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: Absolutely fine, I took a week off - I didn't feel the need to put a rage-quitting notice on my talk page. I think we should all take more sabbaticals. I've also picked up some of my old software development jobs elsewhere, which is keeping me busy when I'm in front of my Mac. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I was wondering whether you'd be able to return to your review here to take a look at the proposed ALT hooks and perhaps approve one or more of them. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Yeah, sorry, I had to drop this on the floor per reasons above. I have some other book sources now, so I'll deal with this probably some time next week and get back to you. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Once you've given it the necessary expansions, it should be ready to renominate, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time to review again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Help us design granular blocks!
Hello :-) The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation will start building these granular blocking tools in a few weeks and we've asked WMF designer Alex Hollender to help us make some wireframes so the tools are intuitive to MediaWiki users.
We have a first draft of how we think this tool should work. You can read the full proposed implementation here but here are the significant parts:
Granular blocks (page, category, namespace, and file uploading) will be built on top of Special:Block. These blocks will function as if they were regular blocks and allow for the same options, but only take effect on specific pages.
We will add a new checkbox for "Block this user from the whole site" which will be checked by default. When it is unchecked the admin will be able to specify which pages, categories, and/or namespaces the user should be blocked from editing.
Granular blocks can be combined and/or overlap. (For example, a user could be simultaneously blocked from editing the articles Rain, Thunder, Lightning, and all pages inside the Category:Weather.)
Only one block is set at a time, to adjust what the user is blocked from the administrator would have to modify the existing block.
Block logs should display information about the granular block
When a blocked user attempts to edit an applicable page, they should see a block warning message which include information on their block (reason, expiration, what they are blocked from, etc.)
If a category is provided, the blocked user cannot edit either the category page itself and all pages within the category.
If the File: namespace is blocked, the user should not be allowed to upload files.
We like this direction because it builds on top of the existing block system, both a technical and usability wise. Before we get too far along with designs and development we'd like to hear from you about our prosposal:
What do you think of the proposed implementation?
We believe this should be an expansion of Special:Block, but it has been suggested that this be a new special page. What are your thoughts?
Should uploading files be combined with a File namespace block, or as a separate option? (For example, if combined, when a user is blocked from the File namespace, they would neither be able to edit any existing pages in the File namespace nor upload new files.)
Should there be a maximum number of things to be blocked from? Or should we leave it up to admin discretion?
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(Cargo) (2017 film), as delete. You didn't offer an explanation of your closure, or offer any clues as to what conditions would have to change for the film's notability to be established.
Do you remember whether the underlying basis of your deletion decision was a lack of available good references?
I have a suggestion... Since previously uninvolved third parties may wonder whether a topic measures up to inclusion criteria, and check to see whether we have an article on that topic, only to see that it was deleted, I am going to suggest that it would be helpful if every administrator who closed an AFD spent a bit of extra time to mention the policy basis for their decision. For many AFD all that would be required was a brief phrase like "topic not supported by sufficient good references".
It can be a terrible waste of a good faith contributor's time to let them spend half an hour, or an hour, researching a topic, trying to determine whether it merits a new draft, only to figure out, after a lot of research, the real reason the early version was deleted.
@Geo Swan: I closed it as such because only one person asked for it to be kept, making a bare assertion of sources that was refuted by the nominator and others, and nobody else did. I can userfy the article if you would like, but it's two sentences long and in this instance, you would probably be better off writing a new version from scratch. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Why?
Sir, why did you delete my page please expand I dont understand?
I think we had a chat here about FloridaArmy some months ago and you were desirous of not seeing them run off the project in the face of a bunch of deletion nominations etc. They're still rushing around making a lot of poor contributions, as evidenced by their talk page, and we already know that they've been very sloppy in their reading of sources at various articles. How much longer before WP:CIR kicks in? I know Deb was fed up at the time of our conversation and I see that she is still having to comment on their talk page (I can't - they banned me for something or another, which almost certainly was just pique). - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not looking to see them "run off the project", just hoping that one of these days they will start contributing properly instead of openly flouting all guidelines and creating any old rubbish just to get their edit count up. Deb (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I didn't realize that you were on a hiatus, perhaps putting up {{wikibreak}} (or {{semi-retired}} if that is better suiting) might be an idea to avoid future confusion? I wish you the best and hope to see you around again some time. Regardless though, it was a pleasure working with you on Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones. --TheSandDoctorTalk03:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.
Backlog drive:
A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Editathons
There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
Paid editing - new policy
Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Not English
A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
News
Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Sad to see you retire at this time. You've been a great admin over the years and your contributions are net positive. I hope this is just temporary and that you'll be back soon. The editor whose username is Z012:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey, where'd my future RfA nominator go? :) Nonetheless, I wish you all the best outside Wikipedia. I will be grateful to see your return. talk to !dave20:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie, I don't know what's going on but I hope you're OK. Email if I can help somehow (unlikely as that may seem). EEng23:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, Hope you're okay, Please only return when you feel comfortable in doing so - Real life is far more important than here (and I mean that in a sincere way), Anyway hope all is okay and I hope to see you here again sometime, Take care, Dave00:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I just thought "hang on, where's Ritchie's opinion?" and came to look what's going on. Hope all's well. I'm also happy to be at the receiving end of email if it's of any help. Schwede6622:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie, I'm not sure how long you'll be gone or why, but do hope things work out for the better and that you at some point can return here. You most certainly will be missed regardless. Wishing you all the best. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I am sad to see you retire, but I hope it all works out for the best and that you are eventually able to return. It was a pleasure working with you and hope to eventually be able to do so again. With that said, take your time. You have been a net positive to the project and I hope this well deserved break helps. As others have expressed, I am also always just an email away (if you want). Your user and talk pages won't be leaving my watch list any time soon. See you around kid . --TheSandDoctorTalk05:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I was stopping by to chat and was surprised to see this. Though I do not anticipate this as permanent, I thank you for taking the time to work with me on my early GA reviews; it truly helped build my confidence as a writer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a quick update to all - the issues that caused me to retire are getting gradually resolved, but I can't guarantee I will be back at the level of activity I was previously just yet. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought of you today, when I made the link to hammond here. I was close to entering you to our sad list then but will happily not do that ;) - take care, make music, and only if lime is left come here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333 - Even though we've disagreed on some things, I want you to know that I wish you well. I hope that whatever life events are causing you to step away get resolved or taken care of in the way you wish them to be, and that nothing but good news comes about things. All the best - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)18:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I suppose I'm baaaaack, though somewhat frustratingly I returned my copy of Day & Reed's The Story of London's Underground back to the library without doing anything with it, and now somebody else has got it out. Balls. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Slow edit war between me and a series of IPs geolocating to Jakarta. I wonder could you protect and/or suggest any other suitable action? I asked User:John, but looks like he's not around. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
"Very well then. Three other paths are open to you. Three cunning plans to cure thy ailment. The first is simple - block the IP." "Hmm, is that neutral?" "Then try the second, block yourself?" "Nooo. And the third?" "The third is to ensure that no one else ever knows." "Ha, that sounds more like it. How?" "Block everybody in the whole world. A ha ha ha ha!" Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I have a very good library in town. I will talk to one of the reference librarians this week. I appreciate your advice. MauraWen (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
No problem Maura. I have used my local library extensively for books containing source material for my two mega-mini projects, User:Ritchie333/Monopoly and User:Ritchie333/London termini, and the staff were quite interested in the detail I requested. I know Megalibrarygirl prides herself on being able to field questions on any topic going as her role as a professional librarian, and I think most other people in the same situation are the same.
I have also got a British Library card (although it's expired now), which are quite difficult to get hold of and only allocated if you can prove you have exhausted all other options and are stuck (which I was) - but what they haven't got isn't worth knowing about! We have previously had Wikimedians in Residence at the BL, but I'm not sure if we do anymore; WereSpielChequers, do you have any ideas? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid all seems quiet on that front. I know there is a batch upload of BL stuff that someone is working on, but I don't have any contacts at the BL any more. ϢereSpielChequers16:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I was at the BL recently for a wiki-event and renewed my card while I was there. There are lots of other good libraries in the area including the Wellcome Library and the Senate House Library but I get the impression that MauraWen is on the US East Coast so libraries in London won't be much use to her. But libraries all over are under threat from digital resources like Wikipedia and so there's pressure on them to open up and attract custom. The Library of Congress is the biggest and says that "anyone 16 years or older can come in to use the Library". It seems to be free so I'd try them. Andrew D. (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The album is blatantly a progressive rock album no matter some bibliography says. It has one, maybe two, pop rock songs on it. The rest is prog rock and art rock.
This is the tenth administrator you have asked. All of them have declined your request. I suggest you drop this now, otherwise you are looking at a block yourself. Vanamonde (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I concur. We don’t delete pages just because one person doesn’t like them. This conversation is over; post here again and you may well be blocked. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Ritchie. I'm just posting to let you know that London station group – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 16. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foxtrot (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anarchyte -- Anarchyte (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Keef contemplating the universe after finding out the crust was broken.
I don't know if you are around enough or interested, but I thought I would drop you a note to let you know that Keef's still on the run again. Keeps yelling "nobody touches the shepherd's pie!", "gotta walk before they make me run", that he is happy (not sure what about exactly...) and that he has the "<expletive>ing blues". Oh, there he goes again mumbling about song ideas...and desert(?) I gotta run now. Ta! --TheSandDoctorTalk23:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
