User talk:Adamzanzie

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Adamzanzie

Thank you for creating Recital of the Dog.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 15:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

New message from Geraldo Perez
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shrek the Third § Inclusion of Barack Obama's comments on film. &#x0020;Generally per the WP:BRD convention, once an addition is reverted, it is expected to start a discussion about the issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Hobbit (1977 film)
Hi, thanks for correcting an error on this article. However the source only verified part of the new claim, and that only in a passing mention with no specific indication of dates and nothing about dialogue. I agree the author is notable so his blog is (by exception) allowable, but it is a very weak source here and we need something better. Presumably he's written a book about it in much richer detail, verifiable to page number.

That reminds me, citations do need more detail than just URL. For one thing, websites move, get reorganised, and die, so an old URL can easily become untraceable. For another, when an article is fully reffed to complete citations with author, title, date, publisher, ISBN, and page, a naked URL both sticks out like a sore thumb, and degrades the quality of the article.

Basically we should never add a bare URL, and should always cite in at least as much detail and in the same format (cite book ...) as the rest of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)