Hello, Format, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Rklawton13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your edits. Please consider 1) Using the Show Preview button (beside the Save Page button), 2) Grouping edits together to avoid clogging the page's edit History which makes it hard for fellow editors to monitor the edits (as you did here, 23 Feb. 2008), 3) Describing each edit with the Edit Summary box (above the Save Page button). Hu (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I noticed your recent edits to 1987 and 1991 in British television regarding the soap Prisoner: Cell Block H. Thanks for refining the links to a more specific target. I've tweaked them a little further, however, as the series was known as Prisoner: Cell Block H rather than Prisoner in the UK, and used to appear in TV listings under that name. I hope this is all right, and happy editing. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, just wanted to get your opinion on the Karl Kennedy page before I do anything here. I've noticed, for some reason, someone is going around the Neighbours pages and adding family trees. I really don't understand this though because for most of the characters this will be displayed under the relationships section in the infobox. Is it worthwhile taking these out of the character pages or should we keep them in? --5 albert square (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi!
I've noticed that you've made some edits to Neighbours today. I don't know if you're aware of this, but Neighbours is currently a good article nominee and any contributions to get it to this would be most welcome. You can find full details of what work needs carried out on the article and what work has already been carried out by going to Talk: Neighbours and you'll find it under the GA review section.
Incidentally, I notice that you removed the storylines section. Can I ask where this was moved to? Or was it just deleted? It's just that this is mentioned in the GA review that this was a section to be improved --5 albert square (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi there, I'm another editor who is helping to get the Neighbours article to GA status, just thought I'd come and introduce myself. I noticed you have just added some edits to the new titles section and wanted to let you know there is a discussion on the talk page about said section (length, lack of refs, etc). - JuneGloom07 (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Hi - I have reverted some of your changes and re-edited some others in the Charles Manson article. The reverts were executed because there were some really important points left out in your edits and one edit removed an entire paragraph. There has been a lot of tension amongst editors of this article of late, and it would really be appreciated by several of us if you would come and discuss edits - or at least make comments about your edits (especially the huge ones) before doing any more such as the two I completely reverted. I'm not trying to discourage you from editing the article, I'm just asking you to better communicate what you have in mind. Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen
I don't know if you saw the reply I placed on my talk page, but I recognized too late that I made an error in thinking you had removed a paragraph completely, rather than moving it. My apologies. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, in fact, an entire paragraph was not removed. Two paragraphs were merged into one, simply by removing a full stop between them. Please feel free to edit and not be discouraged by having your edits jumped on by anyone as they have been. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
In case you didn't notice, I told Format specifically that I *wasn't* trying to discourage him/her. Further, I didn't "jump" on anyone. False accusations and aspersions aren't wise nor advised, WHL. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Kindly do not address me. I made no false accusations or cast no aspersions here, although you do appear to be trying to cast it that way. Keep your warnings to yourself. I told him not to be discouraged by having his edits jumped on. That applies anywhere, not just to you. Format, feel free to email me and keep it up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
WHL - If you don't make comments about me, you won't have to worry about whether or not I address you. I gave no warnings. You most certainly did attempt to cast aspersions on my character with the "[don't] be discouraged" and "jumped on" comment - others in WP apparently believe your lies, but I'm not one of them. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Again, please do not address me, in any form. There were no comments made about you, only about his edits being reverted. Take it how you like, but please stop dragging your issues to Format's talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Format, I saw the edits you made and I liked them. I hope you will return to the article and continue. We need more editors at this article. I've been having troubles also having my edits stick so I'd love to see others participate. The more the merrier is the way I feel about it. Please do return and help this article, it's really needed. Happy editing, --CrohnieGalTalk11:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, there are questions and suggestions going on here. If you have the time and the interest would you mind popping in and giving any suggestion? I'm trying to bring the interest of editors back to this article as it is in need of some major work on it now. Thanks for listening to me, I hope to see you there, --CrohnieGalTalk17:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Unfortunately the changes removed the encyclopedic tone. "Boy Toy" is considerable POV, is not mentioned in the film and does not improve the section. Tightening done removed pertanent information. A great deal of time and effort went into improving this article to gain GA status. Several editors envolved have formed a consensus. While further edits to the article are of course welcome, and bold editing is acceptable and encouraged, please consider the wording used on this article as it has undergone extensive discussion. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Richard Kline certainly became notable in TV shortly after this episode (starring role in Three's Company for several years), and listing people who later became famous in the field (TV or film) is SOP. Considering this is a TV show, it is people known well in that field that are usually listed as guest starring in episode synopses. That is the standard practice anyway. I don't think being a Broadway star, major or not, makes McMartin notable in this oeuvre. Besides, based on the WP bio I find no evidence that McMartin was a "major" broadway star. He only seems to have appeared in a couple of successful musicals on Broadway, the rest of the listed shows being forgettable, failed, regional, or touring work. However, his presence on TV since, though not making him a "major" star in that field either, is adquate to include in the episode listing, so I agree he is notable enough to be included. Njsustain (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmizing 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 template from the top of the article. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Box (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Mallaby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Mallaby (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CID (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthony Hawkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bluey. 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.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chard Hayward, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh. 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.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Secret Life of Us, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Tredinnick. 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Format. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Format. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
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.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.