User talk:RBBrittain

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Firsfron of Ronchester 05:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Good edits and a request
You make good edits to the various pages and clearly have knowledge about the music industry. As you probably saw, lots of fans descended upon Back to Basics and I discovered yesterday that nobody has it on watch and it sometimes needs some clean up or asking for references (personally I prefer to just ask for references instead of removing an entry). It's probably going to receive a lot more edits in the coming weeks when it gets to number one all over the place, therefore another watcher is appreciated especially since you are in the US so that gives to overlap. KittenKlub 11:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Cocoaguycontribstalk 00:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

More about that cheque...
I added a note to your picture that U.S. checks are almost the same as Canadian cheques. This is the format for the MICR line on U.S. personal checks, with "/" in place of the routing-number symbol (on either side of "00005-123" in yours) and "#" in place of the account-number symbol (at the very end in yours), maintaining your numbers except for extra zeroes to pad out the routing number (9 digits in U.S.) and check number (4 digits in U.S.): /000005123/ 123-456-7# 0243 Also note that the format you used for the check number (#243#) is used in the U.S., but only for longer "business" checks; U.S. personal checks always list the routing number first.

The U.S. "fractional routing number" for this check would be: 0-512/000. (The "/" is either a real slash or a full horizontal bar as in traditional fractions. There is no "zero-padding" in this number, but I had to use "0" and "000" here for reasons too complex to explain.)

U.S. checks' date box is like that on your British cheque sample, except a little ways to the left (not directly over the amount). The "fractional routing number" is usually above the date in very small print, though on older checks it was to the right of the date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RBBrittain (talk • contribs).


 * I work in a bank and we do process U.S.-encoded cheques very often, but thanks for pointing out the position of the cheque number and the "fractioning", I wasn't ware of those. I guess I am just too lazy to do a U.S. cheque sample, plus it would be bulky to have a lot of cheque samples on the cheque article. Happy New Year! -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

TCG Muratreis / Murat Reis
Hi. You edited USS Razorback (SS-394), changing her Turkish name from Muratreis to Murat Reis. But in the references I've seen, e.g. and, the Turks really did make ship names into one word. Or did then and still do sometimes. Check the Salihreis-, Barbaros-, and Yavuz-class frigates at the Turkish Navy's official website, though apparently they balked at naming a ship Cezayirligazihasanpaşa :-) —wwoods 02:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks for character names
Could you offer your opinion in this discussion of quotation marks for character names on the Academy Awards pages? Thanks. Cop 633 14:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Woohookitty
Please do NOT leave anything else on this page. I am tired of your beating a dead horse, so I deleted everything on this page concerning my American Idol (season 6) edits. I will report any further comments by you on this page to the administrators. --RBBrittain 23:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

HMV Oxford Street store
I have no idea which it store it is, I can't remember, sorry. Edward 22:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Lady of the United States
I strongly agree with your proposal on the Second Lady of the United States AFD page, that the article should be renamed, furthermore, I also think that questions raised regarding the article are also applicable to the related similary-named category (Category:Second Ladies of the United States) although I am not sure if we should wait until the AFD vote on the article is closed before initiating any action with respect to the category. --TommyBoy 20:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

re: the Dreamgirls songs.
You'll find no arguments from me. GassyGuy requested the merge back in March, and I complied. I prefer seperate articles, though, for the reasons you gave. --FuriousFreddy 05:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Bank Identification Numbers
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Bank Identification Numbers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of Bank Identification Numbers. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sydius (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag in Superman II
Hi RBBrittain,

Thanks for the note on Superman II.

1. It's bad form to remove a fact tag without adding a reference. Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to conform to WP:CITE and a "fact" tag is useful when another editor believes that the article needs an inline citation because of a statement that is either disputed, or will be disputed by other readers. That said, thank you for alerting me to the fact tag removal instead of just removing it.

2. If the claim that the two movies were filmed at the same time is "clearly established from the film's well-documented history", then it should be easy to find a reference to cite, right? If you're able to provide such a reference, then please add it and then do remove the fact tag.

3. The reason I added the fact tag was that although I certainly believe that part of Superman II was filmed at the same time as the first Superman movie, it is quite an exaggeration to claim that "both movies were filmed at the same time". The former statement I wouldn't have bothered to fact-tag, but since the latter statement is in the article, I fact-tagged it (and will now put the fact tag back until an inline citation is provided).

Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, take a look at the latest revision, which should not be controversial: Superman and Superman II commenced filming at the same time.  I still disagree that it doesn't need a fact tag.  A reader might be really interested in how the two productions were filmed simultaneously ("Did they film all the Daily Planet scenes on a room-by-room basis, mixing them all up; or was it all the Superman I then Superman II shots?"), and they would want a citation so they can go read about it; it's presumptuous of you to declare that inline citations aren't needed when other editors disagree.  I'll leave the fact tag out for now, but it would improve the article, which is the whole idea.  Tempshill (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, if it's so "universally" understood, then it should be easy to find a reference that says so. I'd far prefer, of course, to use a reference like a book about the making of the movie, rather than IMDB.  I think your concern about overreferencing is misplaced; Superman II is not over-referenced.  Tempshill (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cinderella (musical)
I have expanded and reorganized the article to bring it more in line with WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. As a major contributor to this article in the past, would you mind having a look and giving me your comments? It still lacks Synopsis and Awards sections, which I am still working on. Thanks. --Thomprod (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Falling Hare
Hi. This image went through the possibly unfree image process. I don't deny that the cartoon itself is PD-US-not-renewed, but the character of Bugs Bunny is still copyrighted, and letigiuously pursued. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Syesha Mercado
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Syesha Mercado. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Syesha Mercado. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

American Idol nominations
You can remind the nominator of the following: Now that's it from me - I am returning to my small holiday, from which Alexis Grace has again rudely awakened me. You should know that it was DRV'd before, and it would be nice if someone (for once) followed the instructions to talk to me in advance of going to DRV :) Good luck.  Best wishes, 09:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion of a single article does not set precedent, just as the retention of articles does not (this is the flipside of the argument used in the AfD of Alexis Grace and is just as valid)
 * Deletion requires an actual reason - he hasn't shown that they have no notability beyond WP:NOTINHERITED/WP:NRVE
 * Why hasn't he considered the possibility of redirection/merging before deletion per WP:BEFORE (a policy) - that is something to be considered on the article or project talkpages, not at AfD.

Mex Rev templates
Hi, re: I'm not sure what you mean by "dead template" in reference to the Campaignbox (which is pretty standard on Military history topics) - I have actually been gradually expanding it over the past month - but generally I find that the "Timeline of the Mexican Revolution" tends to screw up the layout and is lacking aesthetics. Additionally I've added the same time line to the general Mexican Revolution template found at the bottom of the article. For one thing I see no reason to remove the Campaignbox.radek (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, gotcha. The article got vandalized which screwed up the template and i didn't notice it. My thinking is that the campaign box is still useful as the Mexican Revolution was both political and military in nature. The general template is at the bottom. Mind if I put the campaignbox back in?radek (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare in Love
Then go to WT:FILM and run a search for discussions about the use of succession boxes. I have no idea what you are referring to when you say 1, not 49. You returned 3 succession boxes when two of those awards have templates for the same awards directly below them. That is redundant to the templates. I posted a new question regarding these and if there are 49 articles with redundant succession boxes, then there are 49 articles out there where it needs removed. And if there are 49 articles out there, there are also 33 articles that don't have them. Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Olympic Torch in Vancouver
I appreciate you messaging me about your edit to the 4 lighters instead of just Wayne Gretzkey. I dissagree, however, as you said this will be a debate up until the point that the Olympic Committee releases who it was officially.

I have no personal preference on who lit it, I could care less honestly -- I simply want the encyclopedia to be as accurate as possible. Perhaps we can edit the page and some how write it in a encyclopedic format, that there is controversy over who lit the official torch. Teamcoltra (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of THAT Corporation
A tag has been placed on THAT Corporation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Live Show edits
Thanks I appreciate your additions to Live Show, but I reverted them because they constituted a pretty long aside about time zones and included unsourced claims (e.g. that 30 Rock was delayed in some regions.) If you can make a slightly more concise explanation with a citation for anything potentially contentious, it would be a very useful addition. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

22nd Amendment
I removed your paragraph about Herbert Hoover in the discussion of affected individuals. The exemption only applied to the incumbent President at the time of ratification, not to anyone who'd been president before it was ratified. Hoover could not have served two more terms after the ratification, but only one more. JTRH (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

UK Singles Chart
Thanks for alerting me to my error, but I only added seven days onto the date provided for the single before. I'm well aware that The Official Charts Company add six days onto the charting date, but rather than edit each of the existing dates in the table I chose to merely continue the pattern. Glad to see it's been reverted to how it should now though. AlligatorSky (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Musdan77 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records
There is a discussion in the Talk:CBS Records page which I'm asking you to get involved in. As you may know, the former CBS Records label is now Columbia Records and the former CBS Records company is now Sony Music. Someone wants to add more material about the former CBS Records in the current CBS Records article which is not connected in any way with the old CBS Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Debates
thanks for the article moves. i had wondered, and simply copied the style of the first. good catch.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Song title disambiguation
Hi. Sorry, but I've seen it just the other way around; where notability of the version of the song decides the disambiguator. I really don't think there is a standard in place for Wikipedia. When people search for "One" in Google, most of them are going to be looking for a Three Dog Night song rather than Harry Nilsson. They will think that the Harry Nilsson is a different song altogether.Hoops gza (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

One (Harry Nilsson song)
Many thanks for moving this back to its rightful place. By sticking to timelines, rather than the more fractious and opinionated "more famous" we can avoid all the "this-band-is-more-famous-than-that-band arguments" which so often shatter the peace at WP. Happy editing. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Mike Gundy
Mike Gundy Hi sorry. I think in haste I changed your edit back to the wrong one. Not really sure myself which team or conference he is for. It just seemed like there was a lot of vandalism so I put it back to the original. If you know better please change it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathguide (talk • contribs) 18:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bret Bielema
The move to Arkansas has been reported by multiple media outlets. I think it doesn't have to be reverted any more. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Grand Convention
A quick Google rather disproves your suggestion. See for example
 * Title	Birth of the Republic: The Origin of the United States
 * Author	Warren L. McFerran
 * Edition	illustrated
 * Publisher	Pelican Publishing, 2009


 * Of the author Google says says "Warren L. McFerran served as the national director of Tax Reform Immediately and was a contributing editor for the New American magazine. He attended Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana, where he was designated a Tulane Scholar, and he earned a bachelor of science degree in computer science from Orlando College in Orlando, Florida."

Also as the page is in British English about an English issue, the correct term to use is a British term, for example any biography article about a Briton fighting in the American War of Independence would look odd if the popular American term was used for the war, as would the use of that well used American English term "patriot". -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Los Angeles Convention Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nokia Theatre (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) 11:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Universal 100th Anniversary logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Universal 100th Anniversary logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Constitutionality subsection of Federal Reserve Note article
Greetings, RBBrittain -- you are cordially invited to an edit-war I'm hosting, over at this article. :-)   You recently made an edit there, including a hidden-HTML-comment that I'm disputing.  Please see my rationale over on the article's talk-page.  I've also written some future plans for expanding that paragraph, but I wanted to get your hidden-HTML-comment prohibition against adding any more citation-need tags resolved, beforehand.  Thanks.  p.s.  If you are too busy elsewhere, or otherwise are not interested in discussing this article at the moment, no problem, and sorry to have bothered your userpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Discount window
An article that you have been involved in editing, Discount window, 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. greenrd (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

National Statuary Hall Collection
You undid the addition of the Frederick Douglass statue from the collection in the article. I added it based on a Washington Post article. In response to your removal of the statue from the list, I've sent the following email to the Architect of the Capitol:

Is the Frederick Douglass statue in Emancipation Hall part of the National Statuary Hall Collection?

I edit Wikipedia, and I added his statue to the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Statuary_Hall_Collection#Collection based on this Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/frederick-douglass-statue-unveiled-in-the-capitol/2013/06/19/a64916cc-d906-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html

Now another editor has removed this statue from the list, claiming that it is NOT part of the National Statuary Hall Collection. I need to know: is it part of the collection?

Thank you.

- Paul M Lieberman

I'll let you know how they respond. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BestOfBond2012.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:BestOfBond2012.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Major film studio
RBBrittain: "Replace Columbia TriStar with Sony Pictures Entertainment (Affirm, Stage 6, SPWA & SPHE are all part of SPE, but are *not* in the Columbia TriStar division; SPE is the true "studio" division of Sony)" "SPE is just as much a "recognized studio" by most standards. Please explain further before reverting again...) " "Studio parent" is the parent of the major studio. If you looked at the other Major Studios entries, many don't fall in under their "Studio parent" like Marvel Studios and Marvel Animation, both of which are under Marvel Entertainment not The Walt Disney Studios. So, the table includes all affiliated film units (as it would negative any separate independent or mini-major status) as they are seen as part of the major studio even if they are not under the major studio for this status. In any regards Sony/Columbia's table row would get bloated with every parent unit listed up to the conglomerate (Sony Pictures Entertainment, Sony Entertainment, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Corporation). Also, in the Sony/Columbia situation, Columbia is recognized as the major studio not Sony, I guess for historical reasons. --Spshu (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The "group" you keep reverting it back to is at best just a paper-only division within SPE covering Columbia and maybe TriStar, and is NOT clearly referenced as the actual "parent" of ANY studio (much less Columbia). SPE is well-known as the immediate corporate parent of *ALL* of Sony's studio arms (including the lesser ones), and is well-documented as such (until late 2013 Columbia's logo used the tagline "A Sony Pictures Entertainment Company"; then it was shortened to "A Sony Company" like most of the others).  SPE is the closest equivalent in Sony's corporate structure of most of the others listed in the "Studio Parent" column; the one most like CTMPG is Paramount Motion Pictures Group, but then there's not many alternatives in "new" Viacom's corporate structure between the parent & Paramount proper (especially after CBS got the TV side -- yes I know this is about films, but all the major studios except Paramount also shoot TV shows on their lots).  Maybe YOU need to reconsider... --RBBrittain (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Um yes it is referenced "Sony Pictures divisions: Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group": "Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group (CTMPG) encompasses Columbia Pictures, TriStar Pictures, Sony Pictures Classics and Screen Gems in addition to releasing groups, Sony Pictures Releasing and Sony Pictures Releasing International." Yes, I previous reconsider as I had Sony Pictures instead of CTMPG there and some came a long a different editor which lead me to look into CTMPG. Again, it is the parent of the "Major Studio", which is the subject of the article and the table. As, pointed out with the Marvel situation, there is no requirement that all unit listed be under the Major Studio's parent, just in some part of the conglomerate. I tried showing the complexity of Sony but editors threw edit wars over it. So your personal assumption that it is just me is just plain wrong. Spshu (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability of individual Star Trek episodes
As we clearly disagree on this, the appropriate course of action would be to either address the problem by adding sources to establish the episodes' notability, or discuss the matter at the Talk page to discuss the matter and reach a consensus. Personally, I would recommend adding sources; if the episodes are individually notable then surely sources must exist. In any event, simply removing the tags without addressing or even discussing the matter is improper. Please do not do it again. You may wish to review Talk:The Gamesters of Triskelion, where there was a similar issue; in that case sources were added which improved the quality of the article and easily addressed any notability concerns. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UnivCentralARSeal.png
 Thanks for uploading File:UnivCentralARSeal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 05:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for KJNE-LP
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;KJNE-LP &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for KJNB-LD
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;KJNB-LD &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Jane Seymour (actress, II) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jane Seymour (actress, II). Since you had some involvement with the Jane Seymour (actress, II) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

June 2019
I have reverted your edits at Press Your Luck and opened a discussion on the talk page at Talk:Press Your Luck. While the discussion is underway, please respect WP:BRD and do not edit-war your edits back into the article. Regarding your question about excluding years for crew, I have raised that at WT:TV. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

response
(Familyguysofunny (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)) my apologies I was incorrect in my edit (Familyguysofunny (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Back to the Future Part II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers. 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) 06:03, 29 May 2021 (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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"National film registry"" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_film_registry%22&redirect=no National film registry"] and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at until a consensus is reached.  Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:22, 24 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)