User talk:Dobbyelf62: Difference between revisions

To access previous iterations of my talk page, click here User:Dobbyelf62/Talk Archive 1, 2

Thanks. I work under the general understanding, the custom it seems, that if you create an article you can’t—and shouldn’t—really rate it any higher than start-class. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the Content assessment page, and the rules do not prohibit editors of the articles from assessing unless the rating is GA status or higher. If a dispute arises over an assessment, then the details can be hashed out in the talk page, but this has yet to happen to me. I generally base my ratings on other articles with comparable content and quality, and from my assessment, “We Work the Black Seam” was more comparable to C class and even B class, but I instead opted for the more conservative option. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I still feel editors who contribute most of the content to an article should leave the assessment beyond start-class to others. It just looks better. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone popped by my DYK nom for the article and suggested that, for the ALT3 hook which mentions the miner’s strike, if it were as I suggested to run on March 6, the 40th anniversary of the miner’s strike beginning, which as I said will probably generate some coverage in the British media and thus increase interest in the hook, it might be better to take it out of the DYK queue and nominate it for GA since that way it would be fresher by then.

I admit I’m thinking about this more and more since no one’s reviewed the nom in the almost-month since I made it. As I indicated, back in December it mattered less since I had plenty of hooks, but now, with that date just over two months away … it might have just enough time to work.

Do you think there’s time to nominate it, get it reviewed and promoted, and then through DYK? I don’t know what the turnover is with song GA noms … it seems that noms about, say, Taylor Swift or Meghan Trainor songs are getting reviewed quickly, but I don’t know about 40-year-old Sting songs. And I’d like it to be reviewed by someone with the freshest eyes possible, i.e., who hasn’t worked on it even a little. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s nice to hear from you again! I was on a wikibreak over the past week, so I’m just getting to this message now. My experiences with GA nominations are largely confined to a failed attempt of an article I significantly contributed back to 2019, and the article was quickly reviewed (and rejected) back then. Seeing that the article is in stable condition right now (it has not experienced significant revisions since mid December), it’s certainly worthwhile to submit it for GA review now. If the article falls short, then there will be opportunities to take that feedback and make additional improvements. I agree that the article should be reviewed with a set of fresh eyes.

As for the DYK queue, I have yet to make any submissions, but it appears that March 6th is the best chance for the ALT3 hook to be featured given the timeliness of the miner’s strike. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jarble (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Dobbyelf62! I’m glad that you are joining the
drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:46, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Hello, Dobbyelf62. Thank you for your work on Farmer’s Daughter (The Beach Boys song). Bastun, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi Dobbyelf, nice work on your new article. I would recommend including it in relevant Wikiprojects. Good job!

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

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dobbyelf62, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as ‘reviewed’, and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn’t affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren’t already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia’s core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project’s standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ….. today} 22:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contribution here. I think a lot of editors would just reinstate the false title, but you managed to find an improvement there. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I looked at Popcornfud’s essay for the rationale behind removing false titles and found it reasonable enough. For all future articles I create, I’ll attempt to abide by this rule. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources for song lyrics, other than YouTube. Can you suggest one? I see lyrics.com , azlyrics.com , musixmatch.com , genius.com

I feel that if the previous paragraph discusses former husband John McVie didn’t know Christine McVie’s lyrics were about him, some lyrics should be included to illustrate the song’s direction. Thanks.

Gregg – nh153

Thanks for reaching out. Generally, user-generated content is discouraged on Wikipedia, so none of the aforementioned sources would work. If you can find a professional music review that highlights the optimistic lyrics, I would be willing to look at it. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just regarding your edit [1] – I might be missing something but I can’t see where the source says it’s “musical gold” or where it says it should’ve been a hit had it been an A-side. I see it says the Mac version should’ve been a hit, and of course it actually was an A-side in some countries. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet: Upon further examination, the “musical gold” quote was actually for the song “Hypnotized”, although the article does cover “Sentimental Lady” elsewhere. This was an oversight on my part, so I will make those changes right now. Thanks for the catch. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dobby. I was able to finally find the second part of Christine’s 1984 documentary and uploaded it to the internet archive, here. I also uploaded this magazine interview excerpt someone uploaded it to The Ledge. Thought you’d be interested and hopefully it can also help you out. Have a good day! Juand.1974 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this. I just finished the full documentary, and I believe that we can incorporate a few things from here into the article. As for the August interview, a lot of the information is already accounted for, but I might be able to find one or two tidbits that are worth including. You can expect some changes to be made tomorrow. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dobby. I found this other Todd interview from 2016 we can use, if you’re interested.. Its split in two parts but these are the time stamps where he talks about Christine: part 1 (34:48–47:55) and part 2 (0:46–5:40). In the first part he talks about how he got to work with Christine, a bit about the albums recording, and Clapton’s contribution, while in the second one he talks about why Billy Burnette did not tour with them and about Stephen Bruton and how he met him. I think we’ll be done with the article soon after. Anyway, I hope you have a happy New Year and thank you again for all your help. Juand.1974 (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find! The Stephen Bruton information will likely fill in some of the few remaining gaps that still exist in this article. Very soon, I will be ready to move on to other Fleetwood Mac articles. Currently, I’m in the process of creating a new article for “Angel” from the 1979 Tusk album, but after that, I plan on splitting my efforts between Fleetwood Mac’s 1969 Then Play On and Mick Fleetwood’s The Visitor from 1981.

Thank you for the extensive effort you have put into this article. Back in 2023, the article was incredibly sparse in terms of substantive content, so I did my best to cover some key facts that provided readers with a decent synopsis. Now, I’m happy that we are finally finishing it. I never expected the article to become this comprehensive and your efforts have far exceeded what I initially thought could be accomplished. Enjoy the New Year! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dobbyelf62, just asking a favour. Could you stop adding dates when you tag sentences? If you leave the date blank, anomie bot comes in and adds a date. That then allows people like myself who resolve tags to quickly identify a newly added tag and fix it. If not, it becomes much more difficult to locate newly tagged phrase and resolve the problem.

This is not policy whatsoever, as I’m sure you know there is nothing wrong with what you are doing in terms of the rules, it just will sometimes help people catch the problems you tag.

All the best Boynamedsue (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: Sure. I was under the impression that it was standard procedure to add these dates manually. Does this rule also apply to templates that are added at the top of a page or the beginning of a section? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not a rule! You are doing nothing wrong, and it might even be better to put dates on in tags in the great scheme of things as it leads to fewer versions of the page to be created. It’s just that wikipedia lacks an effective worklist system, and the easiest way for me to keep track of my chosen area (resolving by whom tags) is stalking anomie bot, which is the bot that adds dates to tags (among other things). I’m not even sure how many people but me use this method!Boynamedsue (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Your “cleanup” of the extended quote in the Yes article, actually removed helpful, sourced information from the article (lead singer’s influences). Please pay attention, and please use better edit summaries when removing that much content. Thank you. Lofi Gurl (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a mood when I wrote this. I feel like I bit your head off. Regretful. Thank you for your contributions to music-related articles. Lofi Gurl (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re fine. I could have provided a better explanation on what I was trying to accomplish in the edit summary. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Onward and upward then. Nice meeting you! Lofi Gurl (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_the_Woz&diff=1282378966&oldid=1282355579
Hello Dobbyelf62, just want to ask you about this edit. That page is full of primary sources, which is not good, certainly needs quality control. Why did you remove some paragraphs about the character Scott, G4 interest in second season, and channel spin offs? Are these things not relevant enough? 11=Fish (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11=Fish: Many of the reasons that you outlined reflect my concerns with the content that I removed. Biographies of living people on Wikipedia tend to have stricter standards for permissible content. Self-published sources are generally discouraged on BLPs, and my edits were intended to address the information that was either entirely unsourced or accompanied with a self-published source. I would not be opposed to restoring some of this content if a third party source can verify the information. The Scott the Woz video titled “Taking a Look at My Wikipedia Page” invited an influx of good-faith editors to make adjustments to the article; while this did usher in some improvements, some problems that had already existed (the use of multiple primary sources) were exacerbated. My edit sought to mitigate the excesses of these problems. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for explaining. I’m learning something from this, being my first article in a while. I’ll try to note this issue on the talk page, and mind this living people policy. 11=Fish (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I’m pleased to inform you that I’ve begun reviewing the article Christine McVie (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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LastJabberwocky — LastJabberwocky (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Christine McVie (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Christine McVie (album) for comments about the article, and Talk:Christine McVie (album)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the “Did you know” section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LastJabberwocky — LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bop Till You Drop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Downbeat.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at MOS:NUMNOTES says “Adjacent quantities not comparable should ideally be in different formats”. “Not comparable” includes a quantity versus a chart ranking. I understand the guideline to mean we should write music chart rankings like the following:

• The band had three number 1 hits on the Billboard Hot 100, and four number 2 hits in the UK.

With regard to the term “Top 40”, I think it should be capitalized because it is a ranking rather than a description. Same with Top 10 rather than top ten. Different groupings are not include, such as top five, because they are not a common cultural term like Top 40 or Top 10.

FYI. User:Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Thank you for the clarification. I’ll keep this in mind for future edits.

Pursuant to Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation, I will also heavily reduce my usage of the terms “self-titled” and “eponymous”. I noticed that you invoked this essay in your edit summary for some articles that I’ve edited (including “Frozen Love“). Are there any instances where the term “self-titled” is appropriate? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’ve seen some instances of “self-titled” that make sense in context. One I saw earlier today was part of a musician biography with sections reading the year date and album activity as “YYYY: Album name“, and one of the sections was listed as “YYYY: Self-titled album”, because the album name is already the artist’s name, and a header repeating his name would be confusing. There are other cases, too, but I’m not remembering them right away. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to home, your GA page Christine McVie (album) offers a great example. The two ways I can see presenting the background material would be as follows, with your version first, and my reworking second:

• It was McVie’s first solo effort in over a decade, following her 1970 self-titled debut, which was released under her maiden name.
• It was McVie’s first solo effort in over a decade, following her 1970 debut album Christine Perfect under her maiden name.

I think both ways of expressing the information are fine. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Several of my edits have been related to self-titled albums (including Peter Gabriel’s first four studio releases), so I would prefer to have the proper information now as opposed to the alternative of unknowingly making edits that deviate from the manual of style. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are an absolutely talented editor who also finds reliable links as references that I didn’t know existed! I appreciate your work on my article! SpongeBobMusicFan123 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It’s an enjoyable challenge to dredge up reliable sources. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Past to Present 1977–1990, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael McDonald and Gary Grant.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Watch Your Step (Elvis Costello song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cashbox.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Time (The Alan Parsons Project song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Patton.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Don’t Let It Show, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Poker face and In the Heat of the Night (album).

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shock the Monkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Games Without Frontiers.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Dobbyelf62. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 13 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. 🙂 –❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]