User talk:Michaelmalak

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Michaelmalak! Thank you for your contributions. I am Chipmunkdavis and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! CMD (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prez Debates ref

Hi,

   You added a needed reference to the article on the presidential debates commission, but you left the contention that the arrangement is controversial unsupported.  Does the book call it controversial?  If so, the maybe You could add a page ref. from the book to the end of the paragraph.  (I'm not disputing that it is controversial, since I personally am very much against it, but in Wik we are supposed to support such statements. What cheer, Kim

I was just quickly and surgically adding a reference to remove one {{when}}. It does bother me that there is a "controversy" statement in a section outside the "criticism" section. I would like to rewrite the whole article (except for the "criticism" section I've been working on) so that I can in good conscience remove the non-NPOV heading at the top.

Lisa Biron and Alliance Defending Freedom

Thanks; good work. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Michaelmalak. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States federal government credit-rating downgrades

Great work on merging the 2011 and 2013 articles, and also on re-formatted the article into separate 2011, 2012, and 2013 sections. Gfcvoice (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Your recent editing history at Korean Air Lines Flight 007 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Korean Air Lines Flight 007. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Runit

The article Runit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no clear indication of notability; no reliable independent references

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deb (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Join WikiProject Microsoft!

Why don't you join WikiProject Microsoft?

It seems that you have been editing Microsoft-related articles, so why don't you consider joining WikiProject Microsoft, not to be confused with WikiProject Microsoft Windows. WikiProject Microsoft is a group of editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microsoft, its technologies, Web-based sites and applications, its important people, and share interests regarding Microsoft. This WikiProject is in the process of being revived and is welcoming any and all editors who are willing to help out with the process. Add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft/Participants and/or add the userbox {{User WikiProject Microsoft}}. Thanks! STJMLCC (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your ADF edit

I haven't reverted it although there are several things wrong with it, but have taken it to WP:RSN#Using a court brief to back a claim that same-sex couples shouldn't adopt where I hope you will respond. Doug Weller (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEVAR

Your revert at Castling was bad. WP:CITEVAR doesn't apply here. {{citation}} was already used in the article so replacing {{cite book}} is justified in unifying the citation style in the article. Also cite book doesn't work with {{harv}} (try it, click on one of the old cite book links to see). Quale (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also I should have noted that {{citation}} vs. {{cite book}} doesn't qualify as a change in citation "style" (my language above was a little imprecise). They are both templates in the same series that render citations in the same style. Citation isn't any less precise than cite book. Cite book is a waste of time, since it offers no benefits over citation. I think it's largely a historical artifact before the fully general citation template was implemented, but I'm not an expert on the history of the citation templates. Citation is more modern and it works in combination with the harv templates by generating CITEREF anchors so the links work; cite book doesn't. Quale (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGM-30 Minuteman

Please don't restore material that is uncited. Either find sources for it or let it go. WP:V is the key principle here. --John (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?

Regarding your edit summaries in your recent reversions [1] [2], you refer to a "compromise on the talk page". Could you please provide diffs? I don't see any such compromise on the two talk pages. Also, have you seen my edits at Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics regarding the factual inaccuracy and WP:NPOV issues with the boilerplate text? And have you been following the discussion about this matter on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Firefly_algorithm not the talk page. The article in its current state may not be NPOV, but in my opinion your edits today made it less so. Would like to discuss on Firefly talk page. Michaelmalak (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, but I still don't see on that page where a consensus was established to add this particular boilerplate text on every page. I see that you yourself proposed this, and as far as I can tell one subsequent commenter opposed this proposal, and one partially supported it (saying only that the article should weigh both positive and negative information, not that the criticism should be emphasized and placed in the lede). That doesn't really appear to be a consensus to me, but to the extent that it was, I don't think I violated it at Firefly algorithm‎, since I did not remove all the criticism but rather cut parts of it that weren't specific to the algorithm, and moved what remained to a dedicated section. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best for the non-specific criticism to reside on a common page somewhere rather than pasted as boilerplate into each algorithm -- and then link to that page from each algorithm with a one-sentence description of the common criticism. Perhaps expand the criticism at Swarm intelligence#Metaheuristics into its own subsection (sibling section to Stochastic diffusion search, ant colony optimization, and particle swarm optimization)? Michaelmalak (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the non-specific criticism should reside on a common page—and indeed, User:Ruud Koot has already done this at List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#Criticism of the metaphor methodology. (Some other editors have complained about this, and I've tried to address their concerns, but I think the bulk of the content was fine as it was.) I think it would be fine to link to this general criticism from any existing specific criticism discussed in individual articles. How about I restore my edits to the firefly article, and add an introductory sentence to the "criticism" section that links to List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#Criticism of the metaphor methodology? —Psychonaut (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, but I suggest repeating this recommendation on each article's respective talk pages and gather comments for a couple of days

Well, rather than having separate discussions on each talk page, I'll direct everyone to an omnibus discussion at Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense Michaelmalak (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Apache Hadoop: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. I reverted your revert because the edit summary indicated that Vageli m had a conflict of interest base on his personal information base on a web link. However, there was nothing to indicate a COI & your actions may have been "outing" an editor. Peaceray (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Mike V • Talk 16:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graph database

I mentioned you in relation to the edit warring by Tmobii at Graph database - link here -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Michaelmalak. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of My Edit to "Alliance Defending Freedom"

Michealmalek-

The following is a reply to your recent removal of the revision of the Alliance Defending Freedom page.

The link to the revisions in question is enclosed below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alliance_Defending_Freedom&type=revision&diff=766558500&oldid=766557069

The reason I reach out to you is because I do not see how this revision is justified. I have a legitimate interest in discussing the removal of my edit. As the section (line 11) involving the mission statement was grammatical, removing it violates traditional grammar rules, which state that direct quotations (which the mission statement is) must be enclosed in quotations.

As for line 30, the article in question actually has nothing to do with the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADF, and is instead an assault on the Christian faith and the Conservative movement. Therefore, if any edit is to be made, would it not be removing the information that has no valid citation to begin with?

-AAE

AnimosityAnimalEdits (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only objection in the combined edit was "as well as various other groups". The existing cite is a primary source for SPLC, which is fine, but covers only SPLC. A reliable secondary source is needed to justify the claim that it is the opinion of groups (plural) other than SPLC. Michaelmalak (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Michaelmalak. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of retailers affected by the retail apocalypse

Howdy. I was looking at your AfC submission at Draft:List of retailers affected by the retail apocalypse and i had some issues i thought you should address first.

№ 1, if you look at the references, you see a couple that are not complete (i.e. "Gymboree"). Please complete these citations so there aren't big red errors.

№ 2, personally i'd like citations on every entry. I don't think i'm the only editor who feels this way. It's not a reason to reject the article, but unsourced entries will likely be removed by other editors.

Otherwise looking very good. You're nearly there! Nessie (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of retailers affected by the retail apocalypse has been accepted

List of retailers affected by the retail apocalypse, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SeraphWiki (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Michaelmalak. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation article

Hello Michael. I understand that you disagree with my removal of the content about monetarist explanation of the recent inflation. However, once content has been challenged by reversion, as I have done, the next step should be for editors to discuss the content and associated concerns on the article talk page. Your edit summary called the text a "no-brainer" and though you may not have inteneded it, that comes off as dismissive rather than collaborative with respect to the issues I mentioned in my edit summary. Please review WP:BRD and please self-revert and join me and others on the article talk page, where I hope you will detail your views. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you're doing the right thing, and I think you're on the right track here. It's difficult to find the correct mix of sources the people around here support, but for this kind of article, they definitely exist. Fephisto (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edit

Hi Michaelmalak,

I noticed that you reverted an edit I made to the Fred Fish article. It was a simple edit to add a comma after the year (2007) in a date reference that used the long date format (April 20, 2007). You commented that "the comma before a preposition is grammatically incorrect as there are not two separate clauses"

From a purely grammatical standpoint, your rationale is, of course, reasonable. The MOS, however, stipulates that there should be a comma after the year when using that date format because the last element is treated as parenthetical. This pattern is fairly common throughout the MOS (e.g., MOS:GEOCOMMA), although there can be some edge cases (e.g., the year is not considered parenthetical with the day month year style used outside the U.S.). I don't know why.

Please take a look at these two items in the MOS:

1. MOS:YEAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Dates,_months,_and_years

The second general use row shows the long date format with the example March 12, 2005. It is noted that a comma follows the year unless other punctuation obviates it and also shows a dash following the year to illustrate that additional scenario.

2. MOS:DATECOMMA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Commas

With October 1, 2011, as the example, you can see where it is noted that the comma is required to treat the last item as parenthetical unless, again, followed by other punctuation.

I recommend that when reverting an edit which cites MOS items specifically that you should first, ideally, make sure that you have a detailed understanding of the style guidance that has been cited. Seemingly simple things like how commas are used can be surprising. Then, I recommend that you comment specifically in the revision why you believe the MOS applies differently. Or ask if you have any questions. Reverting based on experience/expertise from elsewhere (e.g., copyediting, other styles like APA) can easily result in a disconnect like this.

Lastly, and this is just my opinion, it's best not to revert edits made by other editors, especially technical writing matters, for any type of edit that you haven't already done yourself many times and/or otherwise know inside and out from a Wikipedia-specific standpoint.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Edward Bednar (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edit

Greetings.

The phrase used by G. W. Bush is often and commonly attributed to the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655.

This is an error and is not correct.

The only direct (non-secondary) evidence linking Bush and Iran Air Flight 655 comes from the Newsweek magazine. The following articles such as "The Essay: Rally Round the Flag, Boys" by the Times merely built on it.

However, the primary source -- Newsweek's "Perspectives" section, where the quote was first published, is a satirical section of the magazine. It mixes cartoons and various quotes. The satire was that his phrase, while widely used during the presidential campaign, does not sound so good when used in the context of a tragedy, such as a plane crash.

The facts are that Bush spoke to Republican leaders on August 5, 1988. He used that phrase. During his entire speech, which was recorded by C-SPAN, there was no mention of Iran Air Flight 655.

The Newsweek published the quote in its satirical "Perspectives" section on August 15, 1988, while attributing it to a shooting down of the Iranian airliner.

"The Essay: Rally Round the Flag, Boys" was published almost a month later on September 12, 1988 and again attributes the phrase to Bush without any context or reference.

Consider this: if this phrase had actually been used by G. W. Bush in connection with the downing of Iran Air Flight 655, it would be on the front page of every magazine, especially those critical of him.

Therefore, I humbly revert your edit, No RS given that the quote attribution was a "mistake". The reasoning is provided above. 108.160.192.255 (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Generation Jones

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Generation Jones, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Large language model

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Large language model, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Sincerely thank you for your help on the television program “Mork and Mindy.” I imagined the language was initially written as it *was* a tv program as it has been over for 40 years. Sorry if this isn’t a place for giving thanks. Have a nice day! AtomBasedAdam (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cheer0000

Hello, Michaelmalak,

While your warnings were justified, I just wanted to point out that you posted them on this editor's User page, not their User talk page. I recommend using Twinkle to post warnings, tag pages for all types of deletion, tag articles, etc. It's a very helpful tool and it remembers all of the templates you might need so you don't have to searching for them. It's very handy. Thanks for your report on AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]