User talk:1archie99

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

You can ask questions at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Pronunciation of "Pierrot"

I'd like to be able to put up a pronunciation guide on the Pierrot page, but I don't know how to use the rather complicated symbols involved. My dictionary gives two pronunciations, the first, presumably, of English speakers: (1) pee-uh-roh and (2) Fr. pye-roh. Beebuk 11:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Merriam Webster dictionary that I purchased as a cd and installed on my computer speaks the pronounciation of "Pierrot"; it sounds to me like it is saying "pier row". I would prefer that or either of your pronounciations be in the article than that on the page which appears to me to be ancient writing from an ancient cave.1archie99 (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairport Convention

No. The editors' notice is there for a reason: to reflect long-standing consensus about how UK bands are described on Wikipedia, i.e. as mass plurals. If you want to upset four years or more of discussion and debate, please take it to the appropriate venue. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 04:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. This is the first editor's note I have come across. I did not notice it. This is is the first time another editor said that I had committed an insult in my two years as an editor. I was unaware of the difference in use of plural in British English. If the notice could be put at the beginning of the article it would be more noticeable. 1archie99 (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is at the beginning of the article. I fail to see how you could have missed it when you edited the lede. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have experienced such a note at the end of the info block; I will be more likely to check for one there.1archie99 (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this change does affect the appearance of the article: it introduces another line break, so the first line of the lead is moved down, and is no longer level with the upper edge of the infobox. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I reverted the change. I just noted that 56 are watching the page. Justifiabe. I am a new fan of "them". I did not notice that they were electric or rock oriented; I just know that I thought they were very good in a 2003 performance that is archived on the internet.1archie99 (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fairport have covered a wide variety of genres in their 43-year history, and the change in style over the first five albums (which were released at six-month intervals between June 1968 and July 1970, each with a different lineup, and with just two members common to all five) is particularly significant. These days the lineup is much more stable (only two changes in 25 years), but they tour both as "Fairport Convention", with mainly electric instruments, and as "Fairport Acoustic Convention", where only Peggy's bass is fully electric. A typical Cropredy festival (mid August) has them playing twice, once with a nostalgic lineup (deaths permitting) and once with the current mob. Get yourself two or three compilations, then you can tackle the task of trying to acquire the entire back catalogue (including some obscure live sets). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you add the info on the dual touring groups to the article?1archie99 (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would; but to do that I need reliable sources. A stack of ticket stubs, programmes and theatre publicity doesn't count; and personal observation is WP:OR. I can get hold of local newspapers that state things like "Last night's concert by Fairport Acoustic Convention was ... [insert reviewer's opinions here]", but, in general, these reviews don't mention the two different bands. If I took two reviews (one for each), and describe them as two bands on Wikipedia, this would also be prohibited; see WP:SYN. A specialist music publication would be the way to go. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had not offended Rodhullandemu so severely. The silver lining is that I learned more about music from you. When I continued to find "error" after "error" that should have been a clue that I did not understand the situation; even though I did not notice the editors note.1archie99 (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dual-band setup is mentioned briefly at Fairport Convention#Years of stability 1986 to 1997; it's not mentioned in the next section, although it does continue. I don't know of a good ref that I could use, so I've raised a thread at Talk:Fairport Convention#Fairport Acoustic Convention.
Where a potential edit could be controversial, it's usually best to propose your suggested amendment on the article's talk page. There, you're much less likely to cause the irritation of others, although you must be prepared for disagreement. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about "offended Rodhullandemu". There exist WP:Assume good faith and WP:Please do not bite the newcomers and WP:Civility, otherwise nobody would stick around to edit anything. So WP:Be bold in updating pages and reread the WP:Introduction. As the Buddhists say, Live, learn, repeat. --Lexein (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Talbot's Holiday Magic

Subcategories I replaced Category:2009 albums with Category:2009 Christmas albums because the latter is a subcategory of the former. It is still in Category:2009 albums, just down one level. Cf. WP:SUBCAT. Please respond on my talk if you have more to say. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winamp Playlist

Replied to your comment at Talk:Winamp --Lexein (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC) </math>[reply]

Lexein; appears that I may have damaged a comment of yours, please note it was not intentional. Your reply to my original comment got me working on the problem. Winamp is a very useful product; now if only it could slow down the playback. I have noted that some audio files of music that are in fast tempo sound better played in speed as low as .8; also, lyrics are more easily understood.1archie99 (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Connie Talbot vandalism

For what it's worth, 20 November 2000 is the factually correct date; the information is (usually) considered non-controversial and a source isn't even required. That's certainly the date the original source said. We'd probably be able to cite it to something self-published if the lack of citation is worrying you. J Milburn (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question whether replacing a date that had existed unchallenged through many edits with a date of an editor's choosing with no citation and removal of a request for citation is or is not vandalism is still unanswered.1archie99 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Two editors who prefer 1999 but do not cite where they got their info have made the date controversial. 1archie99 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) It seems to me that a date of birth should not be added or changed without the source of same added. You added within the article an edit note that I appreciate; that the date is correct and should be left alone, thanks. It is important to me to have the correct date for a someone so talented, so notable and so young. I have located a source or two that support the current dob in the year 2000 and was about to add it to the article when I noted your edit note. I decided to hold off for the time being.1archie99 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Evancho

I saw you added the track listing to the artists' article. However, I had already created Prelude to a Dream which covers that exact information. Thus, I have reverted your edit and any other touchup edits others have done on that section. Typically, track listings go into an album article; only under very specific circumstances would they not and thus go in the artist's article. Since this artist has become extremely notable in just the last 24 hours, and the album itself is soaring from over #142,000 in rank (not popular) on Amazon up to #34 (well, let's just call that popular, quite an improvement) as I type...so it also is notable now as a best-seller a whole nine months after its release. CycloneGU (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly afterward withdrawn from sale; I have done searches on the internet every other day since then trying to find out why.1archie99 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Jackie Evancho

I know you mean the edit in good faith, so I do not do this as a warning or anything.

The top three candidates each week on AGT, we do know, make it through to the next round by default. However, there is no way for us to know which act actually got the highest number of votes. The only two acts we know are the ones who came 4th and 5th (as I stated in the edit history), and those become the two acts the judges must choose from. We don't even know that the other eliminated act is 6th (though I suspect it). Since top three are not announced numerically, the show has the liberty of putting them in any order they want to. Remember those times where things are chosen "in no particular order"? Oftentimes, someone called out in the middle ends up the highest voted or best result. So please do not restore "#3 out of 4" to the article; being #3 is no different than being #2 or #1, she's still safe. If the judges had had to bail her out, then we'd note that. CycloneGU (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGT Season 5 round chart

I agree. The number indicating the week of competition in the round chart is confusing at first glance. You can go ahead and add the parentheses in the heading of the chart. Gamer9832 (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollie (album)

If you would actually read #5 at WP:ELNO you would see that your links are not reliable sources at all and that they should not be in the article. If you put them there again, an administrator will deal with you. Radiopathy •talk• 19:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the article and opened a discussion on the talk page- the edit warring there was not acceptable. The protection does not endorse the current version of the page- please discuss the issue with the other editor to see if you can reach a consensus. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

See my edit on the talk page of Classic Arts Showcase  Done - i.e. deleted. Skier Dude (talk 03:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album page discography setup

There is no "First album" in that section. The only three items that work are "Last album", "This album", and "Next album". There is no room for additional discography. As Prelude to a Dream came before O Holy Night, there is no need to include it as the latter already appears as the preceding ("Last") album. CycloneGU (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Internet Explorer 9 are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. @) 03:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I took your advice re my problem with IE9 1archie99 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 8-30-11 Thanks for your revision of IE

No, there isn't: I found it manually in the history (I thought it could be removed some months after March). I hope I understood what you asked me for because I'm not English.--Luca Ghio (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works, it gives a place where the percentage can be found. I just removed the extra space in your revision.1archie99 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to me, tables in Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary_table referring to old months should not be removed. For my opinion about browsers, even if I contributed a lot to Internet Explorer articles here in Wikipedia, I use Firefox and I have not been using Internet Explorer for years: the last version made significant progress (but it still has long way to go), but it is very late in comparison to concurrent browsers and then it does not work on my Ubuntu.--Luca Ghio (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RapidShare

Apologies for overlooking your question on my talk page. My reasoning for the edit was that each article is about the specified company. There is no connection between the companies of Mediafire and Rapidshare, other than they provide a similar service. If we were to cross link every company in Wikipedia with every other in the same industry we would have large section of lists in every article. Categories do a far better job of this, and I note that both are in the File Sharing category. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should those using an ip address never be blocked permanently just because the ip address is linked to a mobile phone?

J Milburn started this section as reply to a question I left on his talk page because he has been helped me in the past.

I've replied on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link to his talk page. I have renamed the disussion, copied the replies from his talk page thru now and seek further input from other wikipedians at this section of my talk page.The conversation copied from the J.Milburn talk page starts below.1archie99 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular IP is registered to a mobile phone provider and, per the notice on the IP's talkpage "can be used by many of its customers" so these edits are probably not from a single user. And it has been blocked for certain periods of time, as the block log and the IP's talkpage User talk:99.129.20.130 prove. Shearonink (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IP addresses rarely get blocked long term, as they are often shared by multiple users. That particular user hasn't even received any recent warnings- the only thing that can really be done is to warn when there is vandalism, then report to AIV. To have anything like a long term solution, there would have to be a a change in practice. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it appears that this phone provider seems to attract nothing but vandalizers, warnings have no effect; I see no reason for not permanently blocking this ip address. If a change in practice is required to permanently block this ip, it should happen. What is AIV?1archie99 (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really my area, to be honest, but, as I say, indefinite blocks for IP addresses are not generally used, other than for open proxies, the logic being that many different people will use most addresses- certainly the case here. AIV is admistrator intervention against vandalism; it's where unĆambiguous vandals are reported to administrators for blocking. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

END OF COPIED DISCUSSION--FURTHER COMMENTS WELCOMED.1archie99 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ip address was blocked in the not so distant past for 6 months. It did not stop the vandalization after blockage removed. It is time for permanent blockage.1archie99 (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

helpme tag

{{helpme}}

I need an experienced editor to check out the change I made to this page.1archie99 (talk)

You've never edited The Haunting Hour. You only edited the talk page. What exactly are you looking for? Avicennasis @ 05:05, 6 Elul 5771 / 05:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wished to put content in. Now that content currently on the talk page I created should be on a disambig page. So Haunting Hour should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect page. That is what I need help for. Once that happens I can put my content on the disambig page.1archie99 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have DAB pages for 2 articles. We have hatnotes instead. See Template:About. Therefore you end up with just two pages, each one has a hatnote to the other page. e.g.
  1. The Haunting Hour: Don't Think About It at the top of the page use {{For|the 1940's Radio program|The Haunting Hour}}
  2. The Haunting Hour at the top of the page use {{For|R. L. Stine's Horror film|The Haunting Hour: Don't Think About It}}
However, you need to get your version of The Haunting Hour up to a reasonable standard before you replace the redirect. I suggest you create it in your user space as User:1archie99/The Haunting Hour, and when finished you could ask for feedback at WP:RFF, and then replace the redirect. Let me know if you need any more help.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Not neutral"

The phrase "level of her whirlwind worldwide performances has calmed" is not a neutral one. Do you have a reliable source which mentions the facts you have added? About her career dying down but her still uploading videos to YouTube? We should strive to report only what has already been reported, to avoid original research and fancruft. The article does need a little updating and cleaning, and this is something I intend to get to soon- you may have noticed that I recently expanded our articles on Christmas Album and Holiday Magic. J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found her latest belt it out style very different from her previous mellow style. She is very talented and these videos give us an idea of what to expect should she decide to do more cds. Her present style is similar to Anna Graceman who made it to top ten on AGT and I think is a candidate for a possible article. Ok, I am a fan and your quote may have been overdoing it. I was surprised by the quantity of her videos posted and thought noting this was a good addition. Is not their existence a reliable source? All one has to do is click on to the videos to verify they are there. I appreciate all the work you have done with this article. You stated in a discussion a few years ago that you are not a fan. Evancho, the subject of the article which I have done a lot of work on and she are both admired by me.1archie99 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackilion Evanchion Musiswitch

Replied again regarding the title. Look on my talk page for where I got the idea; details are there. CycloneGU (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's Got Talent Feedback

Hello, looking at the article history, you have edited the Canada's Got Talent Season 1 at least once. Because of this, it would be great for you to help provide feedback on a proposal that will help improve the article as the show progresses. Please go here to see the 1st proposal and provide feedback on it. More proposals will be submitted soon and I will ask you to please provide feedback on those as well once they are submitted. Thank-you!--Dom497 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WBBZ-TV

Point taken (although the show will also air in the traditional Sunday morning time slot, and there are other weekend talk shows of the type that don't air on Sunday as well). The "Sunday morning talk show" phrase was simply to direct to the stated article. I'll pipe instead to avoid the seeming oxymoron. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evancho

Hello! Thanks for the message! I'm away from home, so I don't have time to talk much until after 11 August. Thanks for your help with the article. Wikipedia gets easier and easier the more you edit. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Western New York

Hello,

I am from WikiProject Western New York. The reason I came here was because I noticed you were interested in NY, so I thought you would like to join this project and help WNY articles. If you do please sign up on our main page. Also, if you know anyone else interested in WNY, please inform them! Thanks,

--Dekema2 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic Woman (2007 TV series)

Hi. Please do not add phrases like "short-lived" to articles as you did here. This kind of wording is subjective and doesn't belong in the context of an encyclopedic article that is suppose to remain neutral. While it's tempting, we can't editorialize. The phrase is also not needed to help readers "decide whether to continue reading". It takes all of 30 seconds to read a lead paragraph. If someone can't spare that amount of time, they likely wouldn't be reading about a television show on the internet anyway. Thanks. Pinkadelica♣ 04:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your message at my talk page.

You've been here since 2008 and you don't understand WP:BRD? You made a bold addition, I reverted it. Next step is we discuss it, not you revert my difference of opinion on what makes for proper content with an insulting label of vandalism and then compounding the problem by insulting me further on my talkpage. I will be reverting it again. Cool your jets and come talk about it at the article's talk page before you re-add it, or you will be getting reported for edit warring. There are numerous reasons besides WP:NOTDIR that content should not be there. Sorry you disagree, but problems like this get solved with discussion, not edit warring. I suspect from your extensive knowledge of a neighborhood in Buffalo that you have some sort of connection to the neighborhood. That does not give you any more right, or any special insight, into editing the page in question. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback deployment

Hey 1archie99; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WECK

WP:NOTDIR (4) SPECIFICALLY STATES that Wikipedia is NOT an online program guide! Therefore it is in fact, justified for its removal! The article is NOT "skeleton" as you stated as it is almost 9,000 bytes in length. Anyone who wants to see what's on can visit the station's site or turn on a radio.Stereorock (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit to exclude the program guide which is explicitly prohibited by WP:NOTDIR (4). It specifically refers to WP not being an electronic program guide which the inclusion of a timetable clearly makes it.Stereorock (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRN request

Your Dispute Resolution Noticeboard request has been closed due to lack of discussion at the article talk page, which is required by all content dispute resolution forums here. Moreover, I note that at the other editor's talk page you said, "I am notifying you that your editing to the Kaitlyn Maher article has been reported to the administrator of Wikipiedia. Your latest action could be ruled Vandalism and your prior actions as edit warring." First let me note that DRN is not an administrator's board and most of us who work there are not administrators, second let me note that what is and is not vandalism at WP is pretty well defined and what the IP editor is doing at Kaitlyn Maher pretty clearly is not vandalism. Falsely accusing someone of vandalism, however, is regarded as a personal attack, so if you should choose to actually take this to the administrators (via WP:EWN or WP:ANI), you need to be careful of what you say so that you don't get a WP:BOOMERANG. If I were you I'd strike out that message on the IP's talk page and add a polite note asking them to discuss the matter at the article talk page (with a link to it). Give it a few days without reverting, then ask again and give them another couple of days. If they don't post to the talk page, then revert and if they revert back then report them to WP:ANI for continuing to revert without responding to your request to discuss. That will usually work. Remember that there is no hurry. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my message to the other editor leaving a request to talk with a link to the talk page of the article. I will not revert even if that editor reverts once again. If no response I will invite one more time and wait another two days before reverting if necessary and follow the rest of your instructions. I do not understand how the other editor's removal of my edit with its attached citation with no explanation "pretty clearly is not vandalism."1archie99 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that the instructions that I gave are nothing more than my practical experience and observations about the best way to get a non-discussing editor to talk while at the same time putting yourself in the best position to enlist an administrator's help — which isn't a sure thing, even so — if that proves to be unsuccessful. As for the vandalism thing, can you identify the section of WP:VANDAL#Types of vandalism that you believe that behavior falls under without falling into one of the things listed at Wikipedia:VANDAL#What is not vandalism? It sure looks like a good faith, if perhaps practically misguided, edit to me. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. To me it looks like a good faith edit. There are plenty of other editors who will help you support a good edit, so there is no need to edit war. The only result of an edit war is editors get blocked and articles get protected. Apteva (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Please help me preserve the integrity of an article you contributed to

Hi- please be aware of the rules surrounding canvassing. Neutral messages about ongoing discussions are fine- perhaps you could leave some comments on WikiProject talk pages. In the mean time, avoid edit warring, and be aware of the three revert rule. If you need to, you can also open a request for comment. J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC):[reply]

If you check the other editors talk page you will see that their is evidence on continual disruptive editing on other articles. I was hoping that you would check out the editing activity on Kaitlyn Maher and weigh in as to which is the better recent editing of the genre. I would appreciate your assistance. Before I contact other contributors I will check out your reply carefully. You are the only contributor I have contacted.1archie99 (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of removing the comments at Talk:Kaitlyn Maher#Genre in info box because they belonged on the IPuser talk page, not at the article talk page (see WP:FOC}. I do not know an easy way of generating diff's, but I will tell you how I do them. First I type in {{diff|}} and then cut and paste the diff URL from the history. This method only works if the exact diff is selected and gone to by clicking "Compare selected revisions", and does not work if you go to a different diff by clicking next/previous edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaitlyn_Maher&diff=554729498&oldid=554173916 Then I cut and paste this into what I have typed before, like this {{diff|https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaitlyn_Maher&diff=554729498&oldid=554173916}} and then delete all of the stuff I do not want, and adding pipe characters "|", leaving this: {{diff|Kaitlyn Maher|554729498|554173916}} The final result looks like this,[1] and adding an additional pipe character lets you add text that will be a part of the link. (like that) I hope this helps. Apteva (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your contribution on the article talk page. I will try to learn from the advice you gave above.1archie99 (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the easy way to provide a diff is just to use the URL of the page, like this[2] but using the diff template is the preferred method of providing diffs. I do not use any tools, but I am sure that many of our editing tools assist with the creation of diffs using the diff template. It also helps to click on the created link to verify that it goes to where you intended. Apteva (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Connie Talbot

Hi, I saw the rude comment you posted about me there. Could you please answer the question and correct your mistake about my supposed removal of links, could you please not repeat the rude comment (especially as it is mistaken) and could you please be more careful in the future? As regards sourcing on BLPs I take this very seriously and so should you. It is quite common for people to get blocked over BLP violations and I would hate to see you at risk of such. Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please correct the mistake you made regarding the links? Thanks, --John (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Connie Talbot

Yes, this whole thing is incredibly messy. Once John tells us which claims he finds so questionable, we'll hopefully be able to dig up some further sources to back them up. In the mean time, I'd advise not reverting him, as he seems to be quite ready to block those who edit in a way he finds problematic. I don't think this is likely to be resolved peacefully, sadly, but we can hopefully see the article get back to where it was. J Milburn (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well- perhaps he'll not revert you now that there are three editors who have expressed disagreement with his understanding. Hopefully we can hash this out on the talk page... J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of fictional films may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Bewitched episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Lane (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot #talk# 10:40, 1 May 2014 #UTC#

{{helpme}}

I followed the instructions but the dab solver is not working. It works in preview, Charles Lane the actor who died in 2007, but reverts when I save. Why?1archie99 (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works ok for me...... if still a problem on other pages bring it up at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions.--Moxy (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:1archie99/Artvoice

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

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

A tag has been placed on User:1archie99/Artvoice, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PNGWantok (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:1archie99/Artvoice

User:1archie99/Artvoice, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:1archie99/Artvoice and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:1archie99/Artvoice during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. PNGWantok (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Artvoice) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Artvoice, 1archie99!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added a couple of templates, and also added the article to two Wikiprojects.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

AGT

Could you stop changing the article and your the one acting like you own it, so stop being so arrogant and wait for a consensus TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of my appreciation I sent to User:Ssilvers in 2012 with replies

Jackie Evancho discography

I am very impressed with the Evancho article. Evancho and a few other ladies from BGT, especially Hollie Steel, have impressed me very much both as artists and personalities. I appreciate your review and improvement of my most recent contributions to both the bio article and Silver Screen. I find it very challenging to make most of my contributions; I am amazed at the quantity of your contributions. Looking over the Evancho articles' talk pages it would seem that you have impressive skills at callaborating without being offensive and stubborn as a few other editors I have worked with have been.1archie99 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only official Asian charts are these:
http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard0.aspx (Taiwan)n
http://www.gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/album/list.gaon (Korea)
http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/w/ (Japan) ... <snip> --Simone Jackson (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC

I wanted a copy to remind me that there are editors that I value and have had no problem with that I can remember. In fact there are only two that I remember being obnoxious, one of them was the only one this year; the other was some time ago.1archie99 (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Merry Christmas and best wishes for a very Happy New Year. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Editing Skills timeline

Today I made my first edit using the cite web template. It was not easy to use. I had to change the layout of the reference for Mark Grisanti 5 times before it looked right.

Help! Wikipedia does not recognize my identity when I use the Google browser!

I am told that a response has been sent by Wikipedia to my email but I get no response in my email account!1archie99 (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 1archie99. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 1archie99. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, 1archie99. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi 1archie99! You created a thread called Request for help at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]