User talk:AnimatedZebra

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. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  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'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. 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) 17:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Samsung Group
Hi

Just to let you know I have undone your revert to Samsung Group. You're right WP:ELNO does state that Twitter is normally to be avoided but it also says "Except for a link to an official page of the articles subject". As per WP:ELOFFICIAL as the Twitter link is an official Samsung account and is updated and controlled by Samsung and discusses Samsung products for which they are notable, it would then be allowed. Any questions feel free to ask me on my talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see... no worries. I must have miss that part but will remember in future. Sorry for the late response, I had login problems until I realise that my clock was set 8 years in the past hehe. Thankyou! AnimatedZebra (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply about Vigin Australia URL
Hi,

I just saw your message. To post messages you can do this on the users talk page. To do this just click Discussion on the user profile. I have moved your post from my profile to my talk page.

I agree i think it looks better. Like you i go around changing URLs. I tend to keep on the Aviation articles and you will find 99% of them the URLS are in lower case for example:

Singapore Airlines, Qatar Airways, Lufthansa, Lufthansa Cargo, Virgin Atlantic Airways, Air New Zealand, BMI (airline), Malaysia Airlines, British Airways, Singapore Airlines Cargo

So i reverted it to keep it consistant and to match the other airlines.

Also in general terms of the World Wide Web standard URLS are always in lower case.

--Boeing747-412 (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Worth a shot, let me know what happens
 * --Boeing747-412 (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

background color on user page
Take a look at your userpage...I've given you something to play with...:) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  04:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm was just about to Log Out and I saw your message... =D

Although I'll have to play with it later. THANKYOU! AnimatedZebra (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wilkommen Sie. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  04:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Try taking a look at the history of your user page and follow along with each change to see what does what. This is using CSS and Web colors. Which pages did you look at for learning? A good start is here. ⋙–Berean–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  19:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Which controls are you having problems with? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  16:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To make it easier, what Wikipedia page would be a good place to start learning how to do all this? AnimatedZebra (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User Page Design Center. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  17:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WHY can't we just have check boxes instead of endless Wikipedia pages to read. lol *sigh* AnimatedZebra (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cherry Ripe
Regarding this edit to Cherry Ripe (chocolate bar), the owner of Cherry Ripe is not Cadbury plc. All of the Cherry Ripe trademarks (77556, 100333, 109808, 207527, 499813, 942669 and 953720) are registered to Cadbury Enterprises Pte Limited, 346 Jalan Boon Lay, JURONG 619528, SINGAPORE. This means that legally, Cadbury Enterprises Pte Limited, not Cadbury plc, owns the brand. Cadbury plc is not supported by the citation that I included last time you "updated" the owner's name in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops! I just replied on your page the same time you did on mine. =P
 * I understand now (I think) but what about the actual chocolate bar itself? AnimatedZebra (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you own the actual chocolate bar when you buy it. ;) The brand is the important thing; you'll notice the infobox is called Infobox brand to reflect this. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I know now that the "Cherry Ripe" brand name is owned by Cadbury Enterprises etc. but isn't the article about the "Chocolate bar" and not it's brand? Who owns the actual product itself, regardless of wheather it has a registered trademark or not? AnimatedZebra (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The bar is the brand. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Candy bar
Your request wasn't deemed as uncontroversial, so I transformed it into a proper move request. See Talk:Candy bar. I hope this is okay. Rennell435 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash;innotata 01:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for YouTube
An article that you have been involved in editing, YouTube, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JC Rules! (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Sydney New Year's Eve
Please note that Category:Sydney New Year's Eve does not exist. The correct category to use is Category:Sydney Harbour New Year's Eve Fireworks. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks AussieLegend. I wonder, is it possible to rename the Category page? AnimatedZebra (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is. You'd need to propose the change at Categories for discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yohgurt
I found the numbers (5000) cited as the number of "Class A" members in the Dairy Australia coalition on their website: http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Industry-overview/About-Dairy-Australia/Who-we-are/Members.aspx

You should post your opinion of support or opposition of the move in the "Move page" section, where it can be seen and counted. -Kai445 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Sydney New Year's Eve 2011–12 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sydney New Year's Eve 2011–12 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sydney New Year's Eve 2011–12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Emptry section and infobox type
Hi AnimatedZebra. I noticed that you quite consistently leave empty "External links" sections after you edit. If you remove all the links from this section, please also remove the heading. A second thing I noticed is that you add External music video without specifying the type. It should have the same type as the infobox, so you should add Song is this is used by the infobox, see e.g. here. Happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Muhandes. Sorry about the "External links" sections. I figured it would've been helpful to leave them there/put them in, in case anyone wanted to add their own links in, with the External links section all setup and ready to go. I won't do it in future.
 * As for the Song, can you explain? I looked at the link you provided but I don't understand what it changes once the article's published, since the article still looks the same. Also, does it only apply to songs? Or singles too? AnimatedZebra (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * --- Sorry for the additional reply, but I just noticed you've edited/reverted a lot of my edits back en masse. Couldn't you have just let me fix them myself? I was planning on doing it after you replied to my question (once I understood it), and it would've saved you the hassle.
 * Additionally, in regards to adding more than one music video link... isn't it somewhat important to include them? Most articles describe different versions that exist for a song, but describing a music video to the reader only goes so far, hence why they should be linked. It saves time for the reader, especially if they aren't interested in reading beyond the lead section (or at all), and simply wanna get straight to the video to experience both the song and music video the article is describing... in mere seconds.
 * A good example is Starley's "Call on Me" song (which you changed back). As an Australian (which she is too), I only knew her song from the remixed version/music video, but when I looked at the article for the first time (I forgot the song's name), I went straight for the link, and after a moment of confusion I realized it was a different version of the song/music video that I never knew existed. I added a link to the remixed video because it's the more popular version here and internationally (12 million YouTube views for the original, 181 million views for the remix), yet now only the link to the original one remains after your edit.
 * Shouldn't it matter? Is one extra or two extra links so bad? I read all the rules regarding External and YouTube links, but found nothing about them being limited to only one music video. If you don't agree, is it possible we can seek a 3rd opinion from the community or whoever writes the rules? Let me know your thoughts, but can we please pause some of the reverting for a moment? As I said, I can do it myself afterwards. AnimatedZebra (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of questions, and I'll try to answer them all.
 * Regarding the type parameter, it changes the color of the heading. The default color is khaki (for singles). If the article is not a single, the infobox color would be different. It's not a big deal, but some people find the change of color distracting.
 * Regarding the mass edits, I got a little carried away. I had some free time before going on a long drive, so I thought I'd relax and edit a few, and I found myself editing more than a few. I'm sorry if you found it offensive; it wasn't meant to be. I won't intentionally edit any more of them, and you can clean up older articles yourself.
 * Regarding multiple links in infoboxes, I believe there are two issues. First is whether multiple external links should be added at all. Wikipedia is not a directory, so just listing all music videos to make it easier for the reader to find them is never a valid reason. Sometimes listing many links borders on WP:LINKFARM. When a specific version of the music video is notable enough to be covered by multiple reliable sources, including it as an external link has merit. The second issue is whether the links should be included in the infobox or the external links section. Here, the consensus has been quite strict. The top infobox is kept for listing key facts about the first release of a song/single, and links are provided to the official video for that release. Linking to the video seems inconsistent if we don't list the remix in the infobox.
 * Anyway, as always, I am not attached to any of my edits. If you think I'm wrong, undo my edits with an appropriate edit summary, and I'll probably just remove the page from my watchlist and walk away. Have fun editing! Muhandes (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One other thing. Although you didn't ask, a link to the artist's official website on each of their songs/albums violates WP:EL. If the website has a specific page about the song with extra information such as links to all music videos, a list of releases, lyrics, etc., a link to that page may be appropriate, although in that case you probably want to use it as a source anyway, so you don't need it as an external link. As you don't want me to revert your edits, please do so yourself. Happy editing! --Muhandes (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey again Muhandes!
 * I never noticed that the Song parameter changed the heading colour, even though I can clearly see that the rest of the song infobox looks a different colour. I'll definitely re-check all my edits to fix this, as it now bothers me. lol
 * You didn't offend me mate, I'll admit I was kinda annoyed that all the editing was happening so fast when I hadn't even finished writing my first reply yet. What if you were wrong? Even though I figured you were probably gonna be right anyway, sometimes people can surprise you.
 * For example, I had an issue yesterday with a user who reverted a single infobox/section I was in the process of creating (slowly step-by-step), only for them to remove it all within 4 minutes saying that it wasn't released as a single. They were correct, but I had to ask why they didn't simply convert it into a song infobox for me, and they said the song wasn't notable at all. They didn't even consider that I was in the process of making it notable, so I just left it.
 * I don't mind if I'm wrong, but sometimes this place moves too fast to learn and/or fix your own mistakes.
 * Can you explain what you meant by: "Linking to the video seems inconsistent if we don't list the remix in the infobox." I think I might be too tired to think, since it's 7am here and I haven't slept yet lol.
 * Sorry about the official website links too, I'll be sure not to do those in future either. I'll revert those as well.
 * AnimatedZebra (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi AnimatedZebra. I agree, sometimes this place does move too fast for someone trying to learn. I try to be part of the solution, but I am also (evidently) part of the problem. In my defense, I didn't rollback any edit, so I wasn't even aware that I was reverting you. I simply thought of it as some minor editing to pass the time and relax.
 * Regarding my statement about linking multiple videos, in general, the top infobox would only list the details for the first release, except for the case of an album song that was later released as a single, for which either the album version or the single version are chosen. Other releases are usually discussed in the body and if enough material exists, have their own section and infobox. Of course WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so you have anomalies like Call on Me, but that's a minority, and if I cared more I would have "fixed" it. Muhandes (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Cosmetic spaces
There is absolutely no reason to edit pages solely or primarily to add cosmetic spaces between the infobox and start of the prose. This can sometimes lower where the prose starts on the screen and it's unnecessary. Articles do not need to be made "consistent" by any editor in this regard, so please avoid adding these spaces. And why are you unspacing headings? If an article has consistently used spaced headings, you have no reason to be changing them. Please stop with these purely cosmetic changes. Things don't need to be perfectly or even aesthetically spaced. Thanks.  Ss  112   23:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry. AnimatedZebra (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you still making edits like this solely to change where a parameter is in the external music video template? It works wherever it's placed—it doesn't need to be changed. Why don't you start making substantial edits, like when you actually have content to add, instead of fiddling with spaces or the placement of a parameter on all these female singers' single articles? In regards to some of the content of your other edits, to clarify, I only asked you to not add a line between the infobox and where prose starts, e.g. to not add the spaces if they weren't there already. You don't need to be editing articles now solely to take away the spaces. Another thing, please stop adding multiple video links to the infobox. In some cases, you have added three external links in the infobox—this is hardly ever beneficial to readers. The infobox is not supposed to be a repository of links or links to all alternative versions of a video. One usually suffices. The rest can be put in an external links section or, alternatively, just left out. It's not a big deal—some editors don't like these templates at all as they feel like it just serves to promote YouTube links.  Ss  112   07:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey again Ss112. Sorry for the wall of text below, but here goes...
 * [1]. Regarding your first question about external music video templates, I edited them that way because Wikipedia's guide for creating that template shows them displayed as such. Plus, most single/song articles that I've come across already have them set up that way, so I figured... why not some consistency? The core part of the template that's the same across most articles is the following:
 * ((External music video|((YouTube|I4IXxzioDAk|"The Cure"))
 * So it makes sense that all the extra stuff goes at the end, such as: |header=Audio video or |type=song etc.
 * ((External music video|((YouTube|I4IXxzioDAk|"The Cure"))|header=Audio video))
 * ((External music video|((YouTube|I4IXxzioDAk|"The Cure"))|header=Audio video|type=song))
 * Now, does it still work regardless? Yes. Does it need to be changed? No. But can it be changed it? Yes (technically).
 * Yeah editing articles doesn't need to be made consistent, but they can be, right? After all, anyone can edit Wikipedia (be bold they say), but just make sure that you don't vandalize, be mindful of real-life people and factual information, cite your sources etc. There's no specific rule (at least that I've found), that says I or anyone can't merely edit pages solely or primarily to remove an unnecessary space, rearrange a template's display to match other templates, or align a single character in an infobox to make it vertical with the rest of its parameters. I do try to edit articles in one single go, but sometimes I forget what I was doing and end up making several edits. I'm getting better (I think).
 * Yes I'm aware many of my edits recently aren't considered "substantial", but does that matter? There's no tier list or criteria on how much or little someone can edit is there? If I did add substantial content to an article whilst also aligning one single parameter in an infobox, would that be ok? Is it just minor/unnecessary edits on their own that are bothersome? Whether they're done by themselves or alongside substantial content, the outcome is still the same isn't it?
 * Editing Wikipedia can be daunting for anyone, especially new editors. I think back to when I first started, I couldn't even understand why two similar "Single" articles didn't look the same when looking at their editing pages, which made me not want to touch them at all for the longest time. Surely you can agree that consistency can be helpful, at least for newer/un-experienced users? If all articles of a certain type are set out the same, it makes life way easier for newer editors to know how to setup their own articles, by using already established ones as a guide (to copy/paste if you will). Remember that space "...between the infobox and start of the prose", you told me not to do anymore because it "...can sometimes lower where the prose starts on the screen and it's unnecessary." If every Lady Gaga single/song article uniformly didn't have that unnecessary space anymore, then wouldn't it make it a high chance that all new future Lady Gaga single/song articles won't have it anymore either?
 * --- In a nutshell, if it doesn't matter yet doesn't hurt the article in any way, then why does it matter whether or not I do it? Most editors I've come across don't seem to care either way.
 * [2]. Secondly...
 * Ss112 says: "I can't believe this guy wrote more AAHHH!" (I'm sorry)
 * Secondly regarding video links, I've recently been informed by an editor about adding additional video links within an infobox. I only started doing it after I noticed other editors had done it, so I did the same. Plus I looked at the External Music Video template (see here) and saw it showed 4 video links in one example, so I figured it was ok. Some of my additional video links I might agree with others' opinions that they were unnecessary, but some I don't.
 * For example:
 * Steps - Here and Now / You'll Be Sorry. I added two video links here because the single was a double A-side with two songs/music videos and the article is about both.
 * Starley - Call on Me. The original song and music video were somewhat popular in various places, but the song was later remixed with a new music video created, both of which became more popular internationally. I added the remix video in (which was later removed), because it was substantially more important.
 * The whole point of an infobox is to have a quick glance at an article's information without having to read it all yeah? It seems redundant to limit it to a single video link, where some songs have an additional and substantial remix/video that merits a link of its own (not all of them, just some). It certainly saves time for the reader, especially since an article can only goes so far in their description of a song/video. A direct link to the actual song/video on YouTube where they can experience it for themselves is incredibly efficient.
 * Sorry you had to read all that Ss112 (truly). I'll refrain from editing anything further until you reply (if you reply that is). No hurry. AnimatedZebra (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it all; I skimmed it. You seem to be going back to the same sets of Samantha Jade, Delta Goodrem, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga and other pop music articles to find something to do on them. That's what it looks like. Sure, there are some ways you can make things consistent on articles in a given topic area, but because different editors have worked on different articles and because Wikipedia has literally millions of articles, you cannot hope to make all of them consistent. And even if you do try, some editors will revert you over what might seem like simple or uncontentious things because they disagree or simply don't want them that way. You've been editing like this for a month or so at this point, so let's be real, "most editors [you've] come across" is not very many.
 * I didn't read it all; I skimmed it. You seem to be going back to the same sets of Samantha Jade, Delta Goodrem, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga and other pop music articles to find something to do on them. That's what it looks like. Sure, there are some ways you can make things consistent on articles in a given topic area, but because different editors have worked on different articles and because Wikipedia has literally millions of articles, you cannot hope to make all of them consistent. And even if you do try, some editors will revert you over what might seem like simple or uncontentious things because they disagree or simply don't want them that way. You've been editing like this for a month or so at this point, so let's be real, "most editors [you've] come across" is not very many.


 * "Secondly", I wasn't talking about the Steps or Starley articles you just linked to. On several that I saw (I do not recall which), you had either two or three links. There is just no reason an infobox needs to have three YouTube links stuffed into the bottom of it. This is why external links sections exist, and even then it's probably overkill to link to all versions of a video. Infoboxes exist as an overview, not an exhaustive list or even really a place to link videos at all—the functionality exists yes, but you shouldn't be overusing it. I'm really just trying to tell you to find substantial reasons to edit instead of repeatedly going back to the same articles to...what? Sometimes literally add one space. You're really typing out paragraphs to defend making cosmetic edits where nothing changes in the visual output of the page. You say all this like you need to edit to put a parameter in the order the template example has it or "why does it matter, it doesn't hurt anybody". Nobody would say it hurts anybody—but that still doesn't mean it needs to be done. Also, the template documentation is an example. It's not gospel and doesn't need to be followed to the letter. I assure you editors would still be able to discern where the parameter is and what its functionality is no matter where it is placed in the template.


 * If you continue down this path of hyperfocusing on cosmetic aspects of an article, you will get more editors taking umbrage with this and asking you the same questions I am. Any substantial and reasonable contributor to this website will probably tell you the same thing I am: You should find substantial things to do here instead of seemingly making edits for the sole purposes of adding spaces, adding more links to infoboxes and overusing the external link template, and your main defense to all of this being "consistency" across many different articles many different editors have worked on, when this is an unachievable and pretty foolish task even if you spend years doing it. (Some sure have tried. Without bots, none have gotten there.) I got told by two admins a few years ago that I should find more substantial things to do when I was in a dispute with an editor who didn't like the fact that I created a lot of redirects. If they were telling me that over redirects, imagine what they and others would tell you about essay-length replies to defend your desire to add spaces and YouTube links. All this being said, I am not interested in a continued back-and-forth. I can't stop you from doing what you're doing at the moment but I'm asking you to consider what I'm saying and try to take it on board. Consider whether your edit really makes a difference to the article. That's really it.  Ss  112   05:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

s' or s's
You are incorrect in assuming "s's" is grammatically incorrect. MOS:POSS states: "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle)." I also notice that you asked Muhandes for advice on this exact matter and they replied to you pointing out that "s's" is also correct, but you appear to have just ignored them. Please stop changing this because you are wrong in doing so per Wikipedia's MOS. I note in some instances you actually changed the title of websites and in others changed direct quotes. Do not do this. We don't alter direct quotes. In future, I suggest you search the MOS for grammatical rules before trying to change them wholesale, because it may result in mass reversion/rollback of your edits like I've just done.  Ss  112   23:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I see. I didn't know there was also a MOS:POSS page. I was initially conflicted since I was taught never to add 's to people's names already ending with an s (it looks so wrong to me). After I reached out to Muhandes about it, I later noticed way more Britney pages than I initially thought, where both Spears's and Spears' co-existed on the same page, even cited links from the same website like Billboard.com used both. Examples from Britney Spears:
 * Using the CTRL + F function, I found Britney's main article page had 82 uses of Spears's and 148 uses of Spears', so I went with the majority and decided to changed them anyway.
 * Although you've reverted my changes, there's still 148 incorrect uses of Spears' on her main article page, not including all her many other pages. Also, a handful of the cited link titles/quotes I changed actually didn't match what the website had written (I forget which ones). I'd be happy to re-check every cited link and change only the ones that don't match, including all uses of Spears' ---> Spears's in her articles if you like? If not, no worries.
 * One more thing, on her pages for In the Zone (3rd Spears's down), and Britney Jean (3rd/8th Spears's down), someone used a different apostrophe type in her name three different times. Spears's (normal) Spears’s (odd type). Just FYI. AnimatedZebra (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can change the instances to "Spears's" elsewhere if you want. I never claimed it was consistent (those examples are incorrect too), but introducing something against our MOS should not be done. After I reverted your edits yesterday, I already corrected the instances of "Spears'" on her main article to "Spears's". Only the examples that are part of prose and not website titles or direct quotes should be changed to "Spears's". If it's inside of a citation or between quotation marks it should not be changed.  Ss  112   00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)