User talk:Pete Best Beatles

Use of possessive apostrophe at John Haigh
I changed it's twice - once when I saw your post at the Teahouse requesting help for citations, and again just now after you changed its back to it's.

Showing as it's means it is (it's is a contraction of it is). Apostroph will confirm this for you - I couldn't find it explained when I reverted your change, otherwise I would've (see what I did there? a contraction using an apostrophe) mentioned in the edit summary. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Born to Kill (1947 film) (January 26)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AssumeGoodWraith was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Born to Kill (1947 film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Born to Kill (1947 film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Born_to_Kill_(1947_film) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AssumeGoodWraith&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Born_to_Kill_(1947_film) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 07:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

My talk page
Do not delete my own comments from my own talk page. What is up with that? Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse
You massive deletion at Teahouse was reverted in less than one minute. That was vandalism, and stunts like that will get you indefinitely blocked from editing anything. You ARE allowed to delete content from your own Talk page, as that is taken to mean that you have seen it. David notMD (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about. As far as I know, I only un-checked the box to watch the page. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At Teahouse, View history shows that you did a massive deletion, which I reverted. Also shows in your chronological list of Contributions. If this was accidental, fine. David notMD (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT
Please note that FILMPLOT is a MOS tyle guideloine and not a mandataory policy. Many of us feel that having the actors' names in the plot section is a service to our readers, since it allows them to read the plot and understand who is playing the part described without having to shift back and forth from the "plot" section to the "cast" section.

I will be reverting your edits using rollback. Please do not continue to do this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Beyond My Ken, the WP:FILMPLOT guideline is quite clear and direct on this point. It states Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is considered redundant to the "Cast" section. If you disagree with WP:FILMPLOT or think it does not reflect the current de facto consensus, I'd suggest opening a discussion or RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film to clarify consensus. (Pete Best Beatles, you're welcome to open the RfC there yourself if you get to it first; just use RfC and include a direct neutral question at the top like Should this line be removed from WP:FILMPLOT?.) I don't think it'd be a good idea to mass rollback these edits, as they conform with our guidelines as presently written, meaning that it would violate WP:ROLLBACKUSE to rollback them. Best, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is cleaer, but -- again -- it is neither a policy nor is it mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not a good reason for reverting this editor's work. It is a guideline, yes, and it is still encouraged that all editors follow it. You say that your way allows [the reader] to read the plot and understand who is playing the part described without having to shift back and forth from the "plot" section to the "cast" section. Why? A reader can just scroll a little bit down to #Cast and learn about who plays who. It is not going to kill or hurt them to scroll down so why the repetition? The only thing you're doing is encouraging new readers who stumble onto the articles you have worked on and make them think that that is the correct way to make a plot summary. Just follow the guideline. Many of us feel that having the actors' names in the plot section is a service to our readers So? Just follow the guideline. Wikipedia cares about consistency, and you're disrupting that progress. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Clay Pigeon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Service Cross. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Your username
Hi there. I wanted to draw your attention to our username policy, specifically WP:IMPERSONATE, which states Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. I assume that you are not the 80-year-old drummer, but your username may give the impression that you are connected to him in some way. You may want to consider changing it to avoid confusion. Happy editing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I just put a disclaimer on my talk page. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL Understood both reason for the warning and the disclaimer, but yeah, I don't think anyone expects the real Pete Best to be editing wikipedia ;-) CAVincent (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Belated Welcome!
Welcome Pete Best Beatles! Hello Pete Best Beatles. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Mr Reading Turtle, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page and someone will try to help. To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own personal sandbox] for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your userpage.

Please remember to: The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
 * Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

 Sincerely, 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 &#124;🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦&#124;☎️&#124;📄 12:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)    [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr_Reading_Turtle&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 &#124;🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦&#124;☎️&#124;📄 12:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your User Page, films...
I have transgressed by editing your user page, I hope you will forgive me. I am interested in reading the articles you have edited. If you will put your user page film/article titles in wikilink brackets    an interested friend can go directly to the article and enjoy! I did this to the first film, Private Hell 36, hope that's okay, just did it to show you an example. Best wishes, and a pleasure to meet you,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  21:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your post on my Talk, Section "3 thank you's"
PeteBB, I have commented on most of your post. Then, I attempted to reorganize, may have missed some pings. So, please just open the entire section, and you will see that I have interleaved some replies to correspond to your questions & comments. Hope some if this will be helpful!  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  20:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think I got it all. Moving the responses to under the question was a good move. Guss what, you and I are engaged in an edit conflict! I was writing some more just a minute ago, and the message came up. Now I know a little more, so I copied my work, and now I'll try to past it right here:
 * The was one more issue if forgot to bring up: in the production section, my six additions are basically just one sentence each, I give them a break because they are each conceptionally different, but it looks bad. I wondered if you think there's a way to combine any of them, if need be.
 * Combined two paragraphs, same topic. Also some mild ce (copyediting) Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  22:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One more issue, with the Reviews: At the start of each review, I alternate between mentioning Source - Author and Author - Source, but I'm not sure if that's enough to sustain interest for six reviews. There's a rhetoical trick to reviews, where you kind of foreshadow what's coming up: "Author X is more positive ... Contemporary reviews were more nuanced..." etc. Maybe I should do that, but I didn't think about that when writing them the first time, I wrote them the way they sounded best at the time.
 * I like your alterations, adds interest. I think the foreshadowing is a wise course, and serves the reader. Thanks for italicizing the rest of the "newspapers". But, now, I'm wondering if these sources should be wikilinked, if they have WP articles? I did one of them, see what you think, etc. You are more familiar with MOS:FILM....  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  22:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you take the time to investigate Pistol for me, which I appreciate, check out the discussion I had with the Edit-conflict editor at User talk:KateS01. They were very civil, but it might be interesting to see the objective mistakes I found (they agreed to all my edits). More interesting are the two subjective edits I want reinstated. One I've accept, but the other one I double down on.
 * It might seem like I'm an indecisive ball of neuroses, but I don't think so. I just think a lot about making a good encyclopedia, and it's fun to actually talk about this stuff with someone.
 * I'm going to re-order the reviews right now. I knew about doing them chronologically in film noir articles -- I try to differentiate between new reviews and vintage ones when I add them. I notice some articles don't mention it, probably because the initial writer only had reviews of the old sort (the word contemporary gets very non-intuitive here, doesn't it). If you have both types and don't mention that, it's either very confusing, or not obvious and therefore very damaging, I think. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pete Best Beatles made some comments above. In regards to reviews, sometimes a film isn't well-received at first, but then....They may develop a cult following. Or, some years/decades later, reviewers may realize that the film was on the breaking edge, for its time, and now deserves another look. Yes, the word contemporary, can be confusing, very good point. "With the time", when the film was released or "with the time" years later. Can you insert the year, in the reviews? X said this in xyz year....Y said this in zyx year...or some such.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  00:28, 16 June 2022 (UTCz]
 * Made the final tweaks to Pistol; I think I'm done. The article appears to be done too: views have dropped of precipitately since I first edited it (109,347 views since that day!). Thanks for the heads up about linking the media sources in the Reception section, I totally spaced that out. I do like links, though - I'm proud of the fact that in the article for the film noir The Clay Pigeon I was able to link to the articles "Japanese war crimes" and "Internment of Japanese Americans" in the same sentence! Regarding adding modern reviews and the word "contemporaty", I think I did it right in the article for Baby Face: I added a review identified as "modern", then tweaked the earlier review so it said "contemporary" and I defined it so as not to be ambiguous.
 * Hello, Pete BB! I have never considered checking the pages views! But, I'm usually working on something "old", not a current event (so to speak) like the Pistol series. Well done, the links on The Clay Pigeon, gives readers the opportunity to learn more about the background and history!
 * You have discovered the most marvelous solution for reviews, I like "contemporary" and "modern", excellent word choices! I will remember this elegant approach. Regards,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  03:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pistol (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Harris.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... I am looking at the article of a living author and professor, James Naremore. The body of the article lists eight publications of his, but only one of them is in the Bibliography (the only entry there). I would like to improve the article, and as I see it I have three options: 1) add the other seven works to the Bibliography and leave the books in the body of the article, so that there is total duplication, 2) eliminate the one work in the Bibliography, thus eliminating the Bibliography itself, or 3) add the seven books to the Bibliography, making it complete, and deleting all mention of the books in the body of the article. Which of these is preferable? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it to the bibliography section. If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you telling me to add them to the bibliography when you just deleted almost the entire article? I can't see those books anymore, and even if I could I shouldn't add them if they are unsourced. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Umm, PBB, the section Primefac removed as "unsourced" is still available in the article's history. Go to the article, click on View history, click view diff for the day removed (as unsourced) from the article, and you will see all the books, etc. You can add the books/publications to the Bibliography section, without sources. PBB, here's a source for the Guggenheim Foundation fellowship mine this one! Hope this will help you, all is not lost!  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  03:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Naked Raygun
Hey there. That particular sentence already references the punk scene, and it seems clear in context that Naked Raygun was part of that scene. I'd agree that the band is best described as punk, and they are so described in both their own article and elsewhere in the Big Black article. Probably not needed in that sentence. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * When the notice of the change to the article came across the transom, only the immediate change was highlighted, and I didn't have time to investigate further. I knew that's how they were described in their article, and that's what we called them back in Chicago! Did you know that they reformed recently, and put out two videos? One is "Living in the Good Times", and the other is "Broken Things (Official Lyric Video)". The latter is especially interesting if you ever spent substantial time designing show flyers, or schlepping around with wheat paste slapping them up. They're on Wax Trax! now, which is mighty strange. The old Wax Trax! record store was practically the center of the Chicago punk scene, but their label was the premiere industrial-dance label in the world, I believe. They gave us Ministry, for God's sake! --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I just saw this. Yeah, pretty funny for Naked Raygun to be on Wax Trax. And yeah, as an aging former punk rocker, I'm pretty familiar with both the band and the label. "Vanilla Blue" might still be in my personal top 20 all-time singles. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "Vanilla Blue" is a real banger. I especially like "I Don't Know" (Throb Throb) and "Walk in Cold" (Jettison) also. It's interesting to note the latter was written by Erik Spicer, the drummer (he also wrote the catchy "Wonder Beer" off of Understand?). He was the drummer for that unholy alliance between Ian MacKaye and Al Jourgensen that was Pailhead, also on Wax Trax!. Maybe that's where the relationship between NR and WT! began.
 * PS: All-time favorite punk song: One Chord Wonders by the Adverts. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You may wish to consider DYK?
As you are expanding existing stub articles, you may wish to explore qualifying for a DYK (Did You Know). I am not an expert here, but read WP:DYK, and most specifically the WP:DYKRULES section. If you expand an existing article by "fivefold", you can qualify for a DYK. "Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose" and "no more than seven days old". If you have an interest, I will provide a a tip or two. DYK is not mandatory, of course, but a "feather in the cap", if you are interested. Thought you should know about this.....Regards,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  04:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Power pop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Beat Records.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on your User Box
Thanks so much for touching base with me to let me know about your nifty new Userbox! I'll get around to adding it soon. I was hardly editing for a couple of years due to a bout with a rare form of cataracts. I had one eye fixed in April, but I still am legally blind in the other and it has slowed me down quite a bit. Most of the active editors, upon whom I used to rely and/or just work with on projects, have gone inactive. so it was nice to get a message. Let me know if you ever feel I can be of assistance. LiPollis (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you wrote back, maybe you could be my Guinea pig - if you do punch it up, let me know if it works. The code worked perfectly on my User page (that's where you can see the actual box), but the code brought up what you see in the message: red text. I hope it's a function of some quirk of the talk page, or else I made a typo. (I know there are other quirks out there, like you can't type italics in edit summaries, for example.) I must point out the idea was mine, but I didn't actually do the design, that was the helpful editor whose user name is embedded in the code. More importantly, I have a bunch of questions about the WikiProject/Novels and the Crime fiction Task force, if you're up for it. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter Buck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
This is your only warning; if you create an inappropriate page again, as you did at User:Para Clark, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT OTHRES' USER PAGES - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I thought I was initializing their talk page. I left a nice message. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow, that seems like a pretty harsh response for your transgression (I'm inclined to make a sarcastic comment, but it doesn't sound like these folks appreciate such humor). Nevertheless, I have no doubt of their good faith.
 * Admittedly, the page that's displayed when you access the non-existent user page indicates that you probably shouldn't be creating the user page if you're not the user whose page it is supposed to be. But then again, if this is such a serious infraction, you have to wonder why, not only do they not implement an actual access restriction, but they provide a link to go ahead and create it.  Never mind the diligent efforts you have made at contributing to WP -- those count for nothing!  I would empathize with your situation, but for all I know, empathizing with someone who has received such a stern warning may itself be a serious violation of the rules.  Fabrickator (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In a pseudo-campy Craig Ferguson voice: "I know!" Pete Best Beatles (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you need a User page created...

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Skip Spence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temple Records.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angry Samoans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BMG and Cargo Records.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Tim Buckley
 * added links pointing to RTL, EMS, USM, UMC and JCI

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

List of all-female bands
Hello. Your recent edit to List of all-female bands appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Noted. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 7 Year Bitch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AWA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Page moves
Hi Pete Best Beatles. For some reason, you mistakenly moved "Bomb the Rocks: Early Days" to "Wikipedia:Bomb the Rocks: Early Days Singles 1989-1996" by mistake instead of "Bomb the Rocks: Early Days Singles 1989-1996". The Wikipedia namespace has a special purpose as explained in WP:MAINSPACE and you shouldn't be moving articles there. I'm almost positive this was just a mistake, and I've moved the article to its new title. Please try and be careful in the future because a bad page page move can have a ripple affect and create all kinds of unforseen problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It was a mistake, and I realized it right after making it. I got confused about the first prompt and the word article . I didn't change it immediately because I thought a second move would be even more detrimental, and I figured having the first move rejected would kind of reset things. Sorry. (I did make another move to a different article successfully right after that.) --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No big deal and things have been cleaned up. In general, if you're going to be moving articles about albums, you should make sure to check whether any of the images used in the article are non-free. A change in an article's title affects needs to also be made in any corresponding non-free use rationales in order to avoid the files being mistakenly removed by bots. That's how found your page move. The album cover used in the infobox was flagged for a non-free content use violation since non-free files can't be used in the Wikipedia namespace. Anyway, if the same thing happens again in the futire, you can move the page to the correct title yourself and then ask for help cleaning up any redirects that were accidentally created by the page moves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The other page move alluded to, Insaints, didn't involve an image, thankfully. So basically what you're saying is that an image needs to be re-approved for a new article name, or the approval needs to be renamed? Forget renaming articles, I know nothing about images. Make it simple - what do I need to do if there's an image in a page that I intend to move? I take it I need to ascertain its "free" status, but I don't even know how to do that. (Is there a tutorial or primer or essay about images?) I'm perusing this because it will probably come up again sometime. Thanks. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A non-free file needs to be used in accordance with WP:NFCC and the way this is assessed is by determining whether the file's use satisfies the ten criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. One of these criterion is WP:NFCC which states that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace; so, when you mistakenly moved the file to the Wikipedia namespace, you essentially made the use of any non-free files used in that article invalid. Non-free files used outside of the main space will be eventually removed for such pages, and then even possibly deleted if they're not subsequently re-added to another article within a certain period of time. Another one of the ten criteriaor at least part of one of the ten criteria is WP:NFCC. This criterion requires that a separate specific non-free use rationale be provided for each use of a file on its file page. So, if a file is being used in multiple articles or in multiple ways within a single article, a non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each of those uses. If a file is missing a rationale for one of its uses, the file can be removed per WP:NFCCE for that particular use. When you move a page that contains non-free files, you've essentially changed the location where those files are being used. If all you do is move an aritcle to a new name and don't change anything at all about the way the file is being used, then all that you really need to do is to update the non-free use rationale on the file's page to reflect the new name of the article where the file is now being used. If, however, you've changed the way the file is being used in some way (e.g. moved it from the main infobox to another part of the article, moved it from one article to a section of another article as part of a merge, add it to a completely new ariticle altogether), then the non-free use of the file itself may have also changed as well and need to be re-assessed for each of the new uses. In this case, all you did was move the article to a new name without changing the way the album cover art in the infobox was being used; so, all that needed to be done would be to update the article parameter in the rationale on the file's page. Many times you don't need to do this as long as the old name of the article properly redirects to the new name of the article, but it's still helpful to update the rationale accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zero Boys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Affirmation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vic Bondi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EFA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:How to be a Detective
Hello, Pete Best Beatles. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:How to be a Detective, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:How to be a Detective


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:How to be a Detective, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:A Rage in Harlem (novel)
Hello, Pete Best Beatles. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:A Rage in Harlem (novel), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:A Rage in Harlem (novel)


Hello, Pete Best Beatles. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "A Rage in Harlem".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:28, 30 September 2023 (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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)