Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

It seems you continue to revert my changes to the page "Axis: Bold as Love" solely to revert my changes and to nake no actual contribution to the editorial process. Furthermore, you requested that I review WP:CITELEAD. I did so, and it clearly states the following: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."

It does not say "Change edits so that they look good to one user and one user only".

Since you are attempting to control everything that goes onto this page without making any meaningful edits to it, I will properly change this citation myself. If you revert this change thereafter without a fair and warranted reason, I will let the mods know of your repeated counteraction of everyone else's edits.

JederCoulious (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the most ridiculous interpretations/explanations I have seen. Your attempt to characterize my actions is laughable. Based on you editing history (less than 300 edits in over eight years), your inexperience is obvious (the mods?). WP is based on establishing a Wikipedia:Consensus, usually through the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, I reverted, but rather than discussing, you reverted (you still have not discussed anything on the article talk page). It appears that this is a common tactic in your edits and I have to question your motives here. Since the two sentences don't add much to the lead, they will not be missed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elmore James discography, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Shake Your Money Maker and Joe Turner. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Having a Rave Up Canadian album cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ojorojo. I've been looking in on your GA review of "Norwegian Wood" and admiring your work, particularly your willingness to really engage with the text. (It's not something that all reviewers bring to the process, I've found.) If you happened to be looking for another Beatles song GAN anytime soon, I'd be delighted if you took one of the articles I've put up. Having just checked your user page and seen your musical tastes, I'm tempted to suggest It's All Too Much or Savoy Truffle – but I'm guessing, of course …

Completely understand if you'd rather not or you're too busy. I've been able to stop by here and say well done, so it's hardly been a wasted visit either way. Best, JG66 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Coincidence!?! I almost chose "It's All Too Much" (one of my favorite of the lesser known Beatles' songs) to review, but went with "Norwegian Wood" to help with the older backlog. Obviously, I have to finish that first, but I'd be happy to take it on. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah fantastic – thank you. I'll probably see you over at Norwegian Wood, actually. I've got to know the nominator (TheGracefulSlick) a bit, and I just noticed some Beatles Bible cites that shouldn't really be there – they'll be easy to replace with something more reliable, I'm sure. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Stick around. I think your handle on the refs will help. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

JG66, the nom has shown little interest and/or ability to improve the article (for example, after receiving his request for a reference page number, you were the one to finally add it to the article). Unless he addresses the concerns raised so far in the GA review, I don't feel like spending more time on what looks at this point to be a "Fail". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm – I'd love to see it pass, because I really like the idea of "Norwegian Wood" being a GA. (Not only that, but it would inspire me to focus on two articles I've been meaning to for ages – "If I Needed Someone" and "She Said She Said", two other songs related to the August 1965 LA "summit" with the Byrds!) But I think a fair bit of work is needed on "Wood". And if it's me rather than TheGracefulSlick doing it, (a) I can't dedicate myself to it right now, and (b) to be honest, I'd probably end up making some major changes … It's your call, Rojo, regarding this GA review. I hate to admit defeat and it would be great to see 'Slick get his first of hopefully many Beatle song GAs. From my point of view, I'll help but if that's above and beyond applying a few bandaids (which I think it is), it's going to have to wait, I'm afraid. JG66 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ojorojo, I added more sources to the recording section and made the altercations where you requested. That just leaves the matter of the final paragraph of the recording section. To be honest, I never liked it, but left it as (it was there since I got involved with the article) is since I didn't have any alternatives at the time. I'd love to replace it or simplify the text, but I will admit I am not "qualified" to explain melody, tempo, and such without complicating it for other readers.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to see this pass, so I'm going to put it on hold to allow more time to address the problem areas that have been identified. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Key to the Highway/Trouble in Mind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trouble in Mind. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed you were reviewing another GA article, but I was wondering if you could review the GA nomination Ghost (Mystery Skulls song) which hasn't gotten a review yet. Try to do it before February 27 as I'm kind of running low on Wikicup points and I wanna get some in before it ends, Thanks edtiorEهեইдအ😎 06:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have my hands full – I'm reviewing two GANs and have my own GAN, FLC, and peer review requests pending. Good luck with the WikiCup! —Ojorojo (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ojorojo. Please would you explain why you have edited out what I wrote on the Little Wing page, about the letter to Bil. I think this is interesting information to add to the heading of 'Interpretation'. I am not asserting anything, just giving the information about the similarity between the Little Wing lyrics & the sentiments in the letter to Bil. I do not think that Hendrix often made mention of women's minds and imagination, so it could be significant. People will of course make up their own minds, but I don't see why this info should be suppressed, and I have quoted my sources. It is no more speculative than the comments of Leon Hendrix and Charles Shaar Murray, particularly as Hendrix said the song was about one girl. I am new to editing, so I would like to know in what way I have transgressed! Jaspermont (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I think this issue is better discussed on the Talk:Little Wing#Letter to Bil page, so I added it there. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Care to take another look at it? Jimknut (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ojorojo, I have nominated this list for FLC. Can you spare some time to help with that. --Inside the Valley (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on a GAN right now, but I'll try to take a look in a few days. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. As you said in the review I would like some suggestions for improving the prose. Please use my talk page or Talk:Mohanlal filmography. Also check the corrections I had made, whether I had done it the right way or not. --Inside the Valley (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. I experimented with the width of the distributor table to fill up some of the empty space to the right (please revert if you don't like it). Also, I added the lead suggestions to Talk:Mohanlal filmography#Suggestions for lead. If this is helpful, I'll do the same for the last two paragraphs. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That was helpful indeed. I'll comment in it later, may be tomorrow. About the distributor table, what if I add another column for listing the "studio"s by which the films was produced. It may sounds little irrelevant, but will increase the width. And this is only a suggestion. --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If it provides useful information, a studio or other column may be added. Otherwise, the table should probably stay as is or as before. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Let the table stay as is. --Inside the Valley (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Having a Rave Up with The Yardbirds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dazed and Confused. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Having a Rave Up with The Yardbirds 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well, it looks like someone else has jumped on this. I'd still like to go through the article some more, but I think I'll wait until the review's done. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, there was competition? Well, I saw it was left unreviewed for a month, so thought I might step in... FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. For all anybody could tell, CT might have been busy elsewhere for some time. I'm sure he knows that he is welcome to participate. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Having a Rave Up with The Yardbirds you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Having a Rave Up with The Yardbirds for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Having a Rave Up with The Yardbirds may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• interested the group in recording "[[For Your Love]]", a new [[pop rock]]-oriented song written by [[Graham Gouldman.{{sfn|Russo|1998|p=19}}. Clapton expressed displeasure over departing from the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Having a Rave Up with The Yardbirds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I Wish You Would. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If you get the opportunity I'd appreciate it if you could review FLC - Hoodoo Gurus discography. Dan arndt (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the comments during the first HG discography FLC. Adhering to the style guideline (that never made it past the proposal stage five years ago) is not mandatory – it added "It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals." There is no FLC requirement that list candidates must conform or be consistent with other FLs. I own several published discographies and none follow a specific format. Additionally, none are focused so greatly on sales/chart statistics. In the proposed style guide, all the record/release details are squeezed into a column so narrow it is difficult to read. To me, this does not meet the "visual appeal" style component of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria #5. If the second HG FLC follows the same course, my comments may not be helpful. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You might be interested in this discussion. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Richhoncho, PROs, at least in the US, pay out money according to a complicated formula that is supposed to represent public performances. They survey radio stations, restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. in various markets to determine what's being played. Then they take all the money they've collected from those folks in blanket licensing fees and split it up according to the songwriter's presence in that market, i.e., Taylor Swift gets x%, Drake gets y%, etc. By the time they get to Chevelle, they might get 0.00000000000001%. I've heard of artists being mystified by their BMI checks; the way the amounts are determined makes it very difficult to get an accurate accounting. The real money is royalties from album and single sales (based on units sold), licensing for use in movies, ads, by other artists to record, etc., which is a separate matter. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the PRO–money angle. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware how convoluted it all becomes, here in the UK if you don't reach a certain cut-off figure it all goes to Paul McCartney or somebody else who doesn't need the money. LOL. but the underlying issue is if a PRO has got your listing wrong, you are going to complain just in case there's some cash coming in. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hendrix 1969 Royal Albert Hall soundcheck.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Who Do You Love? (Bo Diddley song), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Santana and Hoodoo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ojorojo, I meant to follow up earlier (sorry for the delay), on whether you were still having problems with your Notifications buttons? (re: this comment). If you are still having problems, it might help to mark a single notification as "unread" (click the "..." icon on a read notification), and then reload the page. If that doesn't work, perhaps try a hard-refresh to clear your browser cache (WP:REFRESH). Let me know. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

i've tried your suggestions, but nothing changes. New alerts are added to the total figure, but I can't tell what they are. The problem may be that my browser is out of date (I haven't been able to update it). I'll have to work on this. Thanks for your effort. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, two more suggested fixes:

1. Open your browser's JavaScript console (per-browser shortcuts are in step 6 of WP:JSERROR), and then paste this text into the text-box at the bottom of that area, and then click [enter]:

new mw.Api().postWithToken('csrf', {action:'echomarkread', all:1});

- that will forcibly "mark all local notifications as read".

2. If that doesn't fix it, then it might be a cross-wiki notification - Try opening the wikis listed at Special:CentralAuth/Ojorojo, to see if you have local notifications there, that somehow aren't getting through.

If those 2 don't help, I'll wait for you to ping me following a browser update (which I strongly recommended anyway, as they often contain important security bug-fixes). HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Who Do You Love? (Bo Diddley song) 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 Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Who Do You Love? (Bo Diddley song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Who Do You Love? (Bo Diddley song) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Who Do You Love? (Bo Diddley song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Who Do You Love? (Bo Diddley song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mercy, Mercy (Don Covay song) 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 Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Mercy, Mercy (Don Covay song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mercy, Mercy (Don Covay song) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Mercy, Mercy (Don Covay song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mercy, Mercy (Don Covay song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of songs recorded by Jimi Hendrix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crosstown Traffic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of songs recorded by Jimi Hendrix

added links pointing to Loose Ends and Larry Lee

Lifelines: The Jimi Hendrix Story

added a link pointing to Dallas Taylor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heart Full of Soul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I'm a Man. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The article Heart Full of Soul you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Heart Full of Soul for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sunshineisles2 -- Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Communication Breakdown

added a link pointing to ISWC

Good Times Bad Times

added a link pointing to ISWC

How Many More Times

added a link pointing to ISWC

Your Time Is Gonna Come

added a link pointing to ISWC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you improve its genre with reliable sources? Destiny Leo (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's now sourced. I apologize. Destiny Leo (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ojorojo, just in case you didn't get the ping, the issues you raised in your review have been addressed, and they're ready for you to resume the review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ojorojo, I know we had an RfC on the inclusion of cover versions in {{Infobox song}} which resulted in consensus to delete them, but did we ever reach a consensus on the other things that can be added, including {{Extra track listing}}? I ask because I've come across {{Mi Delirio track listing}} and {{Inesperado track listing}} which can probably go to TfD as they are, being track listings for pretty unnotable albums and completely unnecessary, but it would be good if we had some RfC consensus to back up the deletion. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I've been busy for the last week, but I see a template editor hasn't gotten around to removing the cover versions fields yet (maybe they have been busy too). There was no consensus on the earlier question of trimming the infobox fields, because it was probably too broad. The recent discussion about collapsible fields in infoboxes didn't produce anything, but it may be one way to tackle the extra track listing issue examples you've given. I'll look into this in the next couple of days. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Extra track listing/doc#Usage has two template versions for listing tracks from albums which include other versions than the original track: "The third [template] is for use with {{Infobox song}}, where several versions have been recorded. The fourth is the same, and again is for displaying the entire track listing of an album." Additionally, the Notes include "The {{Infobox song}} versions may also be used with the {{Infobox single}} template if other versions/variations of the same song have been recorded. In this situation, the first version of this template should be used first (representing the single's album) and the third version should be used afterward (representing recordings on other albums). See "Bring Me to Life" for this use of the code in action." I think these can be removed, since the recent infobox song consensus is to remove cover/other versions. The disruption would be minimal, because I don't think I've ever seen these used in this way – even the "Bring Me to Life" example no longer uses this. As a first step, I'm going to be bold and remove them from the template documentation. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Third Stone from the Sun 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Third Stone from the Sun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Third Stone from the Sun for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ultimate! 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Ultimate! you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ultimate! for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bipartisan Report. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unknown Pleasures. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10