User talk:TonyIsTheWoman

Scully Effect vandalism revert

Hi there!

You've reverted an edit of mine here. Would you mind explaining why you did that, and why you called my edit vandalism? I've read both of the cited sources and they are both tabloid-like publications; not only that, the first one only makes a one sentence remark at the end of the article mentioning the Scully Effect as it is not the actual subject of the article, and I find it hard to consider a sidenote-like mention in a pop-culture magazine substantial evidence for a sociological phenomenon's existence. The second cited source is even worse, it's practically just a character study of Scully, and the only factual information it contains is that the actor playing Scully said that the production team received letters from people who said they were inspired by Scully.

So, my questions are:

1. How do you consider either of those two articles an appropriate source for the statement in the WP article?
2. If you do not, could you please readd the citation needed tag in place of the citations?
3. If you don't want to do that since I didn't convince you, what's the appropriate action for me to take if I still wish to remove the citations? I'm not well versed in the ways of Wikipedia bureaucracy, and I'm not sure how to bring this up as a topic of discussion before more users so that we can agree on a decision.

Thanks! — Underyx (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey!

I appreciate you reading the sources and explaining your edits, instead of merely leaving a hasty, snarky remark in the edit summary. The two first sources are analytic articles in science/culture magazines; they indicate and cite exactly what's stated in the sub-category - the existence of the referred phenomenon and people's awareness of it. The second article indeed doesn't explain the phenomenon in a similar length as does the first article, therefor it's a secondary source and not a stand alone.

Moreover, in addition to these articles, the sub-category sources an actual academic study about the subject, an article in which the actor talks about it and an article where a scientist addresses the phenomenon - more than sufficient for a single paragraph addressing the phenomenon, as it's not that common that you find actual academic studies and scientists' citations as refs on WP culture/entertainment article. The academic article and the other sources could be used as multi refs and also placed in the sentence above, however it may appear redundant and current (single) use of sources appears adequate.

TNX for your time. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Gillian Anderson - Films Key table revert

Hi there,

I see you've reverted my edit here. I removed the Key table because it is not standard, provides nothing over using the Notes column, and makes the list of Films harder to read (particularly on mobile) as the reader has to refer back to a separate table. Additionally, the "Indicates a film that has not yet released" is redundant as Viceroy's House is in Post-production (as it states in the Notes column) which necessarily implies that it has not yet released. Can you tell me why you want to keep the Key table? Because I can't see any reason for it. - Henrym (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Henrym,

The specific key table wasn't invented for that article, nor was it first used there; it has been used on 'featured' lists (best lists Wiki has to offer).--TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to some specifically? Key tables certainly have their uses, but not when each key is only used once, and not when there's already a Notes column which can be used - as on every other filmography I've seen - for the purpose.

Looking through some other filmographies linked to by the Featured lists page (selected randomly I swear!): Amy Adams, James Franco, James Cameron, Nicole Kidman; none of these lists use a key table, but instead use the Notes column for exactly the same purpose. - Henrym (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Here, for example. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dana Scully

I see you've been doing a lot of work on Gillian Anderon's article, and that for Dana Scully too. A while back, a few users starting working on a draft of the Scully article in a sandbox in my userspace, here; I don't know if it's much use to you but if anything in that version is worth incorporating into what you're working on, feel free to steal it as I'm not sure anyone else is actively following up on that draft. GRAPPLE ^X 12:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

TNX for bringing that to my attention. I'll make sure to check it out, when I'll have a chance. :) --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lisa Kristine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeffrey Brown. 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) 10:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm Wtwilson3. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Craig Ferguson. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 11:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Helen Mirren in Caligula

My reason for undoing your edit was WP:CENSOR, and so i provided refs to show that she did appear in Caligula (film). I have seen the film and in my opinion (and it will always been an opinion) Caligula is more pornographic than it is erotic, it was after all produced by Bob Guccione, the founder of Penthouse magazine. In retrospect I don't think Mirren's performace was notable except hat it was her choice to appear in a semi-pornographic/erotic movie and so I think the placing of the sentence about her appearring in Caligula is WP:UNDUE, I think i will move the comment down more into the body of the article. Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Good call. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Helena Bonham Carter lead section

Hello. It seems like you don't know so much about this. The section was similiarly used in Cate Blanchett, too. There is no problem with using this type. Your edit has undone because there wasn't good reason. Have a nice day. Sebastian James (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, dude. The point of editing is to actually improve existing content. What's applicable in one case, isn't necessarily applicable in another. I appreciate your input. Have a lovely day too, buddy. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TonyIsTheWoman. 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)

Isabelle Huppert

Hi, no offence was meant with my altering of the content that you added. The page I mentioned does in fact mention avoiding "puffery" terms such as "legendary", "great", "acclaimed" etc.. which is why I removed "garnered acclaim", nothing to do with your assertion that "I don't like it".

As the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main article, that means anything in the lead should also appear in the main article, and before my edit the critics' choice & Independent spirit nominations did not appear in the main article, so my edit was consistent with that policy. I personally don't think that critics' choice or Independent spirit nominations are that notable (compared to the more established Golden Globes) but in the coming weeks she may (hopefully) receive BAFTA Cesar & Oscar nominations, so the critics' choice & Independent noms would be redundant to the lead anyway. I also have reasonable sight and I'm not that old!!, so with respect, there's no need to capitalise words for me. L1975p (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey @L1975p: I do apologise if my edit summary seemed like it was lacking courtesy and I certainly meant no disrespect by capitalising words - I promise! I'm aware of WP:WORDS and agree that puffery and weasel words ("major", "one of his best", etc) should be avoided. However, "received critical acclaim" is a standard and acceptable manner of phrasing; syntax that is accepted not only on wp:Good articles, but on wp:Featured articles as well.

I also agree that before adding data to lead, it should be elaborated enough in the article, according to Wiki's policy. Thus, I didn't object when you removed the list of directors from lead, despite the fact that I do find it quite informative actually, given her repertoire. The article is very short at this point and we should be careful when adding major data to lead.

You've reduced her Molière Award nods in one of your recent edits, here. I'm sure it was not intentional, but we all could be more careful with our edits.

I certainly agree that not every award, nomination and mention on critics list worthy of mention; I do try to keep it concise and clean as possible. I agree - for example - that the Gotham Award should not be included in the lead, but it is of course a matter of POV. However, I do think that the lead is currently quite clean and doesn't contain redundant data. We should, of course, prevent the awards and nod mentions from becoming a long ass list, if/when(?) she'll continue to receive accolades for the 2 roles.

@ BAFTA - she's not eligible this year with Elle, but she just might get one for Things to Come (just received a London Critics' nod). ;) --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for the reply, and yes we could all (including you) be more careful with our edits, and again you're right it was not intentional of me to reduce her Moliere nominations (especially since I was the one who added them to the lead in the first place in 2014). Six became five when I removed the (very) long list of International directors she's worked with that was added to the lead by an IP. Also, I have no issue with the list of directors she's worked with being added, but that list does not belong in the lead, so it's up to the IP who added them (or you if you want that info included) to include that list in the main article.

I do still think it's best to avoid terms such as "acclaim", especially when it comes to an actress such as Huppert, who has probably been acclaimed for half the films she's made. Why only say she garnered acclaim for her 2016 films? (recent bias?), why not also say she was acclaimed for The Lacemaker (BAFTA) or La Ceremonie (Cesar) or La Pianiste (various) etc... or don't the BAFTA, Cesar, Cannes, Venice wins point to her acclaim?. Encyclopedia's deal in facts. Facts are she is French, she is an actor/actress, & she has won awards. I think that mentioning those awards make potentially POV terms such as acclaim, redundant. L1975p (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think we could incorporate directors' list in the article.

I reckon it was phrased as "international critical acclaim" [sic], but got lost in the numerous recent edits. I think that one might be more fitting, actually. We're only in the middle of the awards season and the mentioned film is already her most awarded film performance. I would not mention the long list of awards and nominations in the lead, or even in the article, that's why I believe that the current phrasing is concise enough. If you'd agree, I shall add the international part. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. Yeah I think (for now) it's OK as it stands. As you say, we're only part way through awards season so it will probably change. Elle has got her American acclaim, though she did have American attention before (for the The Piano Teacher she was 2nd with the LA critics & National Society) but she's always had International acclaim. She has been one of the most "Internationally acclaimed" actresses since the 70's, with a BAFTA (Britain) & two Venice wins (Italy) pointing to this. The truth is this is the year she seems to be getting a real Oscar push (particular American acclaim rather than international) as one of the best actresses not to have been previously nominated.L1975p (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure it will look different in the end of this award season. With the constant daily updates, rephrasing of the lead could be a real bitch. Therefore, I hope to touch it as less as possible.

Don't want to jinx anything, so I'll refrain from Oscar-talk; only say that I think it's gonna be between her and Portman. Anyway, have a good evening! (Just boldly assuming that you're from the UK) ;) --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Chelsea Handler

Hello TonyIsTheWoman, I was wondering if you could explain to me why you have removed my revision in the Chelsea Handler entry about her being anti-Trump and moving to Spain. I had it documented as I'm sure you saw. I know it's not the most flattering thing to write about her, but it is factual. The Lena Dunham entry has her thoughts about moving over the Trump election, and that seems to have held. Thanks! Asc85 (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Asc85:! When adding data, we must check its notability and remember What Wikipedia is not, as we can't have third of a section (Personal life, in this case) dedicated to the subject. Following WP:BLP is crucial, as we ought to add data in a moderated and responsible way. Right now there's a mention of her being critical of Trump and supporting Clinton - which seems more than suffice. I would agree that a person actually making a relocation is worth of mentioning and even elaborating about, in moderate manner of course.TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Viceroy's House (film)

Look at the poster and the official leading cast order in it. Please do not revert this correction. It's so sad that when someone wants to make a correction to an article, some editors accuse us of promotion. :( 103.255.115.252 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I can agree that current lead with both Qureshi and Gambon seems inclusive and one that fully represents the main cast. Really no reason to be upset about. Cheers! TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. :) 103.255.115.252 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The Reception of the film was deeply polarizing. To be fair to the film and director; actual quotes were used, rather than summarizing their conclusions. This resulted in some stilted language, but the alternative unfair treatment of the film. The refs were as accurate as possible with the hope of avoiding broken links. I hope this serves the purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.14.13.130 (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

TNX for the message. Please refill the added refs, adding wikilinks and keep it as encyclopedic as possible. Dot goes before the refs. I trust that you'll bring it to the level it needs to be. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Honours.

When is an honor notable? FHM is more notable than her being influential? P091093 (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @P091093: and welcome to Wikipedia! It's not about "being influential", but about adding data that's notable enough for Wikipedia. We must remember what Wikipedia is not; and it's not our blog, as we can't add every single mentioned list just because we want to. As well as remember to keep it clean and concise as possible when doing so. The mention list of 500 is most certainly not notable enough for addition. The FHM example you mentioned IS notable enough for some to add it as lede even, but I would avoid in doing so. Furthermore, the article and the section in question could use some trimming, for it to follow Wiki's MOS and article size guideline.--TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The Fall revert

Hello! Please forgive me if I am not completely familiar with Wikipedia procedures, as I'm fairly new to this. So I hope this is the right place to respond to your message. I am confused by your reversion from Milton to Eliot in explaining the title of The Fall (here). I'm not sure this is really up for debate: the Eliot poem you mention, though it appears in the show, does not contain the phrase "The Fall," and seems mostly like an incidental detail; meanwhile the whole show is infused with Milton (the episode titles; the title card appears to be a detail from one of Gustave Doré's woodcuts for Paradise Lost). I do not believe my edit is "unconstructive" (unless that's a particular piece of Wikipedia jargon that I don't understand), but rather changes an unsubstantiated and rather farfetched interpretation to one that is just more obvious and has much better evidence.

Perhaps, if viewers cannot agree, then the article should not claim to interpret the show's title. But, again, I wouldn't have thought it would be up for debate or obscure until I read this article. Can you offer an explanation? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.215.122 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, anon. You were warned since you twice removed several references from the mentioned article, in addition to adding unreferenced content. I did, however, overlook your first revision of material. Please refrain from removing references and established content from articles in the future. If you wish to elaborate and reference the titles of the episodes, please do so in the Etymology section, but only with the addition of its relevant refs. I assume good faith instead of vandal activity, but do refrain from such actions in the future. Also, edit summary is helpful. Thank you. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! Thanks for responding. I'm a little confused here—isn't the point of wikipedia that people make articles better by editing them? Your response to me seems to suggest that "established content" is more important than true facts (or facts as true as we can know them), and that to improve content is a kind of "vandalism." Am I mistaken about how wikipedia works? If I am, please tell me. The "established content" on the page is likely wrong, and its "references" are specious. I am sorry I didn't cite any articles, and I would be happy to do so if I am permitted to the correct the error on the page. Additionally, I changed the title of the "Etymology" section because it does not refer to etymologies, which are word origins. The etymology of "Stella" is the Latin word for "star," not a brand of guitar. The guitar brand would be the "character name source" (or some such phrase). If a word is being used in an incorrect way, it should be corrected, right? Thanks again.

Gabriel

The purpose of Wikipedia is to improve articles by providing a reliable source to the added content. Wiki is not our blog and we can't add and remove content just because we feel like it. Etymology section is a common section in wiki articles; origin of names, titles and their formation & meanings are explained and elaborated. Furthermore, see my previous reply about adding content. Productive editing, Gabriel. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I didn't make the change because I "felt like it"; I made the change because the page was wrong, and there is a better version. Are you the author of the incorrect information I removed? If so, I'd like to discuss the merits of the change. If not, may I please remove the incorrect information and replace it with properly cited, correct information without your obstruction? Thank you, Gabriel.

First of all, you still need to sign every time you post on a discussion page. You can see in the history page that the edit was made by other editors and it includes few of the several cites to back up the content. As I mentioned above, if you have anything vital to add, do so in its correct placing by providing reliable sources. If you continue your disruptive editing and removing content, you'll be warned again until your editing rights are revoked. Since this has become repetitive, it will be the last time that I'll remind you of that. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicelebs.com is not a reliable source

Hi TonyIsTheWoman. I'm in the process of removing ethnicelebs.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk)

No problem. Thanks for the message. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Julie Walters

Re your comment here, I apologize -- it seemed like a lot more than just 3. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers! TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Please explain how I am "disruptive editing"? There was incorrect information on the page (there is no evidence whatsoever that Gillian Anderson is British and you have failed to provide a single citation saying as much) so I fixed it and even added citations to show that the info was originally wrong. How is that in any way against Wikipedia rules? Yet, you keep reversing my edits and it seems that you are just ignoring correct information due to some weird bias or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8100:39CB:8916:FF59:8B10:2BA1 (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all you need to sign you messages and logging from different IPs won't help, as all of them will be banned. See WP:SOCK. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, this isn't the way. Subject's national identity have long been established - for that, you can go through the page's history of the recent years. And, yes, national identity, which isn't the same as citizenship. And by national identity, we mean upbringing, background long-lasting residency and of course the way the subject self-describes. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Gillian Anderson

I appreciate the frustration in trying to keep an article in good condition despite the best efforts of those who don't want to follow guidelines, believe me. But you've gone past three reverts on this one tonight and it would be a good idea to step away for a bit. You can come back later, when hopefully reasoned discussion will have sunk in--and if it hasn't, you don't want to be the one getting caught up in a block as it wouldn't be right. GRAPPLE ^X 23:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Doesn't seem like it's bound to happen here. Perhaps a 'Temporary page protection' could resolve the matter. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Isabelle Huppert and works list

Hello TonyIsTheWoman. I see you reverted two of my edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isabelle_Huppert_on_screen_and_stage&oldid=792922807, citing WP:CRYSTAL saying there shouldn't be pre-production films in tables. That policy is about articles in their own right. Wikipedia:Notability (films) specifically says "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material" (and not in its own article), which is exactly what I did, with a reference to an industry paper.

You also undid my change to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isabelle_Huppert&oldid=792922493 saying there was something wrong with the syntax in "X won international acclaim". Is that actually what you meant?

Can I ask what made you make these changes? Many thanks, Jonathan. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Jonathan. I reverted one of your edits on the mentioned page per WP:CRYSTAL, as we do not add pre-production films in tables. "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material", means exactly that; info on future projects can be detailed and sourced on the subject's page in the Career section (not table). Pls see WP:NFF as well.

As for the second Q - I merely changed one word in the lede, due to its overuse, as previous phrasing appears more eloquent. TNX for you message. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for your response. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see any guidance or policy in WP:CRYSTAL or WP:NFF about not putting pre-production films in tables, only that they don't normally deserve their own articles. Would you be able to point me at it? Many thanks, Jonathan. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS per mentioned guidelines. To challenge this and for further explanations feel free seeking administrator's advice or at WP:FILM. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Miriam Moygoyles page

I was not vandalizing her page I was clearly pointing out it was a tv programe where she took part in a part of a british tv series where actors and actresses would consider retiring their views on which destinations they would consider,if you read Jan Leemings page it clearly states it there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox actor

Hello TITW. I wanted to let you know that template:Infobox actor no longer exists. It was merged into template:Infobox person many years ago (at least 7 and maybe 9 or 10) and if you click on the first you will be redirected to the latter. While your changes don't hurt anything they are WP:NOTBROKEN situation. There are some editors who don't like that so I thought I would make you aware of it to try to avoid any problems. Thanks for your time and for your editing here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 14:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

TNX for the note, MarnetteD. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TonyIsTheWoman. 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)

Explanation

You undid an edit I made, without giving any reason.[1] Exactly what use do you think a link to Spanish-language Wikipedia articles is, for the average reader of the English-language Wikipedia? Boredkarla (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Jason Jones edit

Hi, I know that the show is still airing, but that's made clear by "Since 2016." Saying "Since 2016, Jason Jones stars in" isn't the correct grammatical tense. "Has starred" can refer to action that is still occurring, as long as it is preceded by a statement such as "since [date]." If there's an official Wikipedia policy that says otherwise, then that's my error and I apologize. Packer1028 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Song

[2] - because you showed up somehow on my watchlist, and I like the username. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TonyIsTheWoman. 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)

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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Bedelia Du Maurier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bedelia Du Maurier, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedelia Du Maurier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)