1996Larry

1996Larry, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 1996Larry! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Biddy White Lennon

Hey there - you keep removing the age which has 2 references to back it up and replacing it with an age but no citation. Do you have a citation for her being in her twenties when she started on the Riordans? Because there are references for her being 18 when she started there. Please go to the talk page to discuss or I will have to revert your entry. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 20:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You are still making the change without leaving any reason for making the change. Can you please explain? ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 22:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Perfect (Ed Sheeran song).

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. irma.ie does not credit Beyoncé. Her name is not written there. Your assertion that Ireland combined the chart entries when the source you're using doesn't back up your claim is WP:OR. Ss112 17:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply: I had to edit, because both versions reached Number 1 in Ireland combined, and Beyonce's name should be said on the IRMA website. - 1996Larry

But it isn't, so that's original research. Unless IRMA's website says her name, we cannot invent a credit that does not exist. Same for ARIA. The news article says Beyonce's version helped the song reach number one. She still is not credited on https://www.ariacharts.com.au/charts/singles-chart Ss112 07:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Read what I said above. Stop edit warring once you have been reverted. Take it to the talk page per WP:BRD. Ss112 09:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Perfect (Ed Sheeran song). Ss112 09:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply: My sincere apologies, Wikipedia, but please don't ever block me from editing. I didn't know I was vandalising the page you mentioned above. I felt I was adding the correct information in. - 1996Larry

Nobody said you were vandalising. The warning was not for vandalism. You can disrupt a page by continuing to restore disputed changes without vandalising. Ss112 09:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply: I understand, Wikipedia, I'll try not to be disruptive ever again.

So much for that... Why then did you add an invented chart peak for "What Is Love?" to the Howard Jones discography page in this edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Jones_discography&type=revision&diff=815727854&oldid=798246160 ? After checking the reference, and irishcharts.ie to see if it had re-entered the chart (it hasn't), you changed a valid and referenced chart peak to a fictitious peak. This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Howard Jones discography, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nqr9 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kid Creole and the Coconuts discography, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nqr9 (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply: Sorry, I should be more careful.

How did you add false chart peaks to the articles linked above? Where did you source them from? They are not on the irishcharts.ie page. This looks like you are inventing chart positions.Nqr9 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Larry. I realize you are new but you need to be very careful when adding material to articles. If inaccurate claims are made, especially if done frequently, and no source can be provided people are going to suspect vandalism. That always ends badly. Please do not add anything that you can't provide a reliable source for if it's challenged. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A quick note

Hi Larry. Thanks for your contributions to the project. As Ss112 noted above you need to be sure that any claim of fact you are adding to an article is backed by a reliable secondary source. Personal knowledge and hearsay don't count. Also if you get into a disagreement with someone over what belongs in an article this is almost always best resolved in a talk page discussion. WP:DR has useful tips for resolving these kinds of disagreements. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again for your work here and best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think Ss112 realized you are a newer editor here. We generally try not to throw down the sharply worded warning templates right off the bat with newer editors. Unfortunately we do get more experienced editors, who should know better, that edit war and post material that is not adequately backed by reliable sources, and this is especially a problem on music related articles. Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines because we are a community of millions of users with hundreds of thousands editing with at least some degree of regularity. But there is a learning curve and it can take time. In the meanwhile as I wrote above, feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions or concerns. I am an administrator here and my job is to help. I don't think you got a proper welcome message which has lots of useful tips and links so I will post that below, albeit somewhat belatedly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for the information- 1996Larry

Welcome!

Hello, 1996Larry! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top 10 singles in 1980, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blondie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits under name and IP address

Hey there - you appear to be editing as both logged in so your own name appears and logged out so that the IP address 92.61.202.127 appears, as per the comments on the Anthony Cronin page. Is that you? ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 20:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply: Anthony Cronin was born in 1928, not 1923. Sources which give his birth year as 1923 are incorrect. 1928 is his correct year of birth. I had to undo the last edit of the page, which gave his birth year as 1923. This page should be semi-protected to prevent vandalism once his year of birth is 1928. - 1996Larry

By editing like this it looks like there are 2 editors involved so people will not realise you are reverting the same information so many times. Meanwhile Wikipedia lives on citations. You can not keep making changes without adding a citation - if the sources say 1923 then that is what Wikipedia should say unless you can prove otherwise. This isn't a place you can add information just because you believe you know better than everyone else. It's a place where evidence is considered the dominant concept. You have been asked multiple times to stop making changes without giving any citation. You will start to get treated like a vandal if you don't start listening. Being a new editor is not an excuse for continually refusing to follow the protocols of Wikipedia. Take a look at the pages above given in the welcome. Read them. Understand them. Then please start to follow them. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 13:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply: The sources which say 1923 is his year of birth are incorrect, every source from Ireland gives his birth year as 1928.

Hi Larry. If you are changing information that is sourced (that is to say there is a citation to a reliable source or your edit is challenged then you need to WP:CITE a reliable source of your own that supports your claim. Original research, including personal knowledge is not acceptable. You have asserted that all of the sources in Ireland support 1928. Please provide one or more specific references that can be verified. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top 10 singles in 1979, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cool for Cats and Blondie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Lists of UK top 10 singles

I recommend that you finish lists such as List of UK top 10 singles in 1977 and List of UK top 10 singles in 1978 before putting them in the main space of Wikipedia. I have moved them to drafts where you can work on them until they are ready. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks, I'll get them finished as soon as possible. - 1996Larry

Hi, I moved more of the draft top ten lists you've created to your user space as they are not ready for main space. You can move them back when you are finished with them. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks very much, and I hope to get them all completed very soon. - 1996Larry

Why don't you work on one year at a time, finish it, then move to the next? It would be so much more of a benefit to readers who come across these. I mean, how about finishing List of UK top 10 singles in 1970 because it looks horrible. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply: I’ve just started to fix the 1970 page up, but it’s important for me to get every other year finished as well. Anyway, I’ll stay on track.

Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Focus on quality not rushing to get every year an article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of UK top 10 singles in 1977 has been accepted

List of UK top 10 singles in 1977, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply: My pleasure. Hope the rest of the 1970s may be finished by the end of the year. - 1996Larry

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of UK top 10 singles in 1978 has been accepted

List of UK top 10 singles in 1978, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks.- 1996Larry

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top 10 singles in 1979, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Knock on Wood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of UK top 10 singles in 1973 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to And I Love You So

List of UK top 10 singles in 1975 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Three Steps to Heaven

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top 10 singles in 1972, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Willy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of UK top 10 singles in 1967 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Happy Jack and Engelbert Humperdinck

List of UK top 10 singles in 1968 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jackie Lee

List of UK top 10 singles in 1970 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to It's All in the Game

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Top 10 singles articles

Hi, great work on the top 10 singles articles, - project I have been trying to progress with for a while (I was responsible for creating most of the pre-existing ones and improved the 2000s articles to their current standard). They are really coming along well. I just wanted to ask whether you could make sure you use "sortname" for all "The" artists when creating the pages, they should all be sorted by the name after "the". Thanks and keep up the great collaborative work. 109.174.173.230 (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you so much. For some artists I have to use "The" and cannot use "sortname". I'll keep working very hard in the meantime. - 1996Larry

Yeah that makes sense, maybe we should create redirects for artists who don't qualify for an article where possible or create stubs for consistency of sorting, I'll look into it.

One query I have that you may be able to input, in 1952 and 1953 there was only a top 12 (with a few songs tied some weeks) so we have an article for top 12 for these years. A top 20 came into place in October 1954, so how would I handle that year. I skipped over it and started on 1955 for now but do I do the top 12 until October and then change to a top 10 with sufficient notes explaining the situation? 03md 11:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply: I'm not to sure how you'll be able to handle 1954, but no need to be panicking about what Way to do it. - 1996Larry

Thanks, I'all cross that bridge when I come to it. If there's no easy way of doing it I might stick to top 12 until the end of the year and start with top 10 only from 1955 with relevant notes explains the situation. BTW I'm going to create a table in my user space where we can update the progress on articles, I'll post you a link when it's up. 03md 13:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks. - 1996Larry

Hi mate, you'be probably seen that I've done the best job I can with 1954 (only needs images and a multiple entries section). Could you give it a look over. I've included top 12s up Until the end of September and then changed to a top 10 with notes (only one single where it spent 2 weeks at number 12 but one after the cut off date). Also notes on songs which returned to number 11 or 12 before the end of the year. 03md 17:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Satisfied so far with the table, and I was wondering if you could divide the 1954 singles section in half, with the first half featuring the top 12 hits of Jan-Oct 1954 and the second half listing the top 10 hits of Oct-Dec 1954. - 1996Larry

Thankyou, how does it look now? I've kept it as a single table but done the divide we use for different years. 03md 21:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply: In my opinion, it looks much better. I did a little bit of tiding up, and now it's up to Wikipedia to have their say. - 1996Larry -

Hi, I need your opinion on an issue regarding the official best-selling single of a couple of years. I realise its down to when the cut off date is for sales. In 1955, Wikipedia says it was "Rose Marie" by Slim Whitman while http://www.everyhit.com/chart1.html (which is usually reliable) gives it as "Give Me Your Word" by Tennessee Ernie Ford. In 1958 a similar situation - Wikipedia lists "Jailhouse Rock" by Elvis while the other source says the double-A side "All I Have to Do Is Dream"/"Claudette" by The Everly Brothers. Jailhouse Rock isn't even in the top 10 according to that other website. 03md 13:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply: The everyhit.com website is not always reliable, the Official Charts Company website has all the accurate information. - 1996Larry

Do you know if there is an official list for each year because Wikipedia only has the best-seller for each year unlike recent years. Its only those two years where I've found a difference between the two listings.

Reply: If I knew everything about the charts, I would be able to solve your question. - 1996Larry

What was your source for the end of year best-sellers you added for 1962 and the 1950s? The official charts website only lists end of year charts back to 2005. Just trying to cross-check to make sure it is all accurate. Great work on the articles. 03md 19:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply: No clue, 03md. - 1996Larry

Could you do me a favour? On the articles for 50s and 60s which are pretty much there with the odd addition, could you go through the notes and put them in the right order going doing the page. There are some pages where the last added notes are at the top of the article because I'be thought of something else that needs clarifying. Would be good to have that part consistent like the rest. I will make sure the note style itself is consistent at some point as well, ie "Figure includes [X] top 10 hits with the group..." etc..03md 14:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply: 03md, no need to panic, as everything is OK with all these pages. On the 1962 page, to make yourself less pressurised, I have added all the top 3 hits of the year. - 1996Larry

Thankyou. I know that it's all ok, just wanted to get the notes section reading A to Z down the page. I'm focusing on the other tables so just thought I'd ask if you'd mind tidying that up. If you look at 1957, the note for Reet Petite in chart debuts is Note P rather than Note A, that's what I mean03md 15:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply: 03md, I wouldn’t chance tidying it up, as I feel that the note for Reet Petite is fine as it is. It would be unwise sometimes to ask someone to tidy a section up, as they feel it is a waste of time. - 1996Larry

No worries 03md 16:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

List of UK top 10 singles in yyyy

Hi. When you move an article from User:1996Larry/List of UK top 10 singles in yyyy please remember to remove the 1996Larry/ from the title. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks. - 1996Larry

I just moved User:List of UK top 10 singles in 1962 back to User:1996Larry/List of UK top 10 singles in 1962 as there is no such person as User:List of UK top 10 singles in 1962 and I wasn't sure if you had finished editing it yet. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply: This page will be edited by another user before long. - 1996Larry

Blank information

Can you please stop displaying blank information on the lists of top 10 songs you are working on? This is completely useless to readers of these articles unless there is actually information about the topic. So if Chart Debuts is just an empty table, keep it hidden until you have completed it. This is a very good compromise because you can come back to it anytime you want and unhide it when it is complete. Please think of the readers of these articles first. Thank you. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, there is another user who is working on these pages with me, and he is currently compiling the list of UK Top 10 debutants of 1960 and 1961. I'm sure he knows that you're hiding the blank information on this page until it is filled in, and I appreciate you hiding it, but I sometimes don’t like blank information being hidden. - 1996Larry

It's a disservice to readers. It's one thing to be expanding existing information but it's quite another to actually display empty information like this:

achieved their first top 10 single in 1963, either as a lead or featured artist. Of these, went on to record another hit single that year:. had other entries in their breakthrough year.

I mean, how would that make sense to anyone coming across this page? Please keep meaningless statements like this hidden from viewing. Work on it in the background or, better yet, in your sandbox and publish it when it is ready. Also, you should sign your posts using four tildes like this (~~~~). Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Chart position of "Take Good Care of My Baby" in Ireland

I was wondering where you had gotten the info that "Take Good Care of My Baby" reached No. 2 in Ireland, because that conflicts with the cited source.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply: The Irish Charts were published in the Evening Herald in 1961, so that's why I have it there. - 1996Larry

Do you have the info for the issue of The Evening Herald that the chart appeared, so that the reference can be changed?--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply: It's in the book "Complete Guide to Ireland's Top Ten Hits 1954-79: The Definitive Listing of Ireland's Top Ten Hits 1954 - 1979" by Eddie Kelly.- 1996Larry

Okay, thanks.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Hello, I'm LongLiveMusic. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Goodbye Jimmy, Goodbye, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. LongLiveMusic (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks. - 1996Larry

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top 10 singles in 2018, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page One Kiss (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top 10 singles in 1975, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Way Out West (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top 10 singles in 1968, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Ryan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s

Hi 1996Larry, can you take a look at the article's side captions please, as some of them are too long, poorly written or simply irrelevant to the table (WP:Caption). I've also found this chart record broken by Drake for inclusion. Cheers, -Theo Mandela (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of UK top 10 singles in 1975 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Smokie

List of UK top 10 singles in 2000 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Santana

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

User:List of UK top 12 singles in yyyy

Please don't create user pages for user that don't exist. Either create them at draft space or in your user space. Things like User:List of UK top 12 singles in 1952 are just going to be deleted. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply: CambridgeBayWeather, I am editing the 1952, 1953 and 1954 pages, as I consider it more appropriate for the number 11 and 12 singles from these years to be removed.:

Then do it properly. Remove the 11 and 12 then move the page to List of UK top 10 singles in yyyy but not to User:List of UK top 12 singles in yyyy. If you make any more disruptive moves you will be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply: CambridgeBayWeather, please don't attempt to block my page, I am not making any kind of vandalism. - 1996Larry

It's not vandalism but disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour and update the entries by artist and chart debuts tables for 1952, 1953 and 1954, switching the entries to the correct order (where you’ve removed singles and moved into correct charting order in main table, it’s obviously affected the chart debuts). For example Winifred Atwell needs to be in Chart Debuts for 1953. 03md 14:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply: OK, 03md. I'll do my best. - 1996Larry

Thanks, I’ve been trying but it’s getting confusing with all the changes! Also there might be a few who have been removed from those years who had their first top 10 hit later in the 1950s/early 1960s 03md 14:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing {{underconstruction}}

 Note: Removing {{underconstruction}} tag as List of UK top 10 singles in 1997 has not been edited for 3 days – Waddie96 (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Top 10 albums

Thanks for your help once again with these. Just a question, how do we handle things like Michael Buble's Christmas album, which re-enters most years across December/January. Do we put the peak for that year (as I have done in the 2014 article) or all weeks up to that date. Similar problem with Ellie Goulding's Halcyon (entered in 2012, peaked in 2014), Ben Howard's Every Kingdom (entered in 2011, peaked in 2013) and Olly Murs' Right Place Right Time (re-entered several times between 2012 and 2014) I have found so far. --03md 20:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Yes, 03md. If a mistake ever happens, I'll correct it. - 1996Larry

October 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of UK top 10 singles in 2018, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Magnolia677, there is no need for reliable sources in this article. That's why I had to revert to the old edit before you removed it. - 1996Larry

As creator of the Kodak Black article, I get notified every time a link is made to that article. I noticed that each time Kodak Black is added to List of UK top 10 singles in 2018, there is no source supporting the edit, so I delete it. Then, either you, or IP editors registered to the same place in England, revert my edit. I know that on some articles, a consensus has been reached that sources do not need to be added, so long as the edit is sourced on a target article. Has a consensus been reach to do that on List of UK top 10 singles in 2018? If so, could you please point me to that consensus so I can stop reverting your unsourced edits, along with the IP address edits. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Magnolia677, a consensus has already been reached that sources do not need to be added on List of UK top 10 singles in 2018. Your reversal of my edits has made me very frustrated. - 1996Larry

Please point out where that consensus was established. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply: I can't say for sure, as I did not create that page. Anyway, I'll take your advice and be more careful when editing. We should all be very careful when editing pages on Wikipedia. - 1996Larry

If you cannot point to the consensus you claim exists, you will need to refrain from the edits in dispute until you remember where the consensus was established, or you reach a consensus with a talk page discussion. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of UK top 10 singles in 1991. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Magnolia677, please don't block me from editing. I have the right to add material to Wikipedia, whether it is unsourced or not. - 1996Larry

You have no "right" to do anything on this privately run website. Editing is a privilege that can be revoked, and I will do so if you continue to add unsourced information(or cannot point to what you claim permits you to). 331dot (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: 331dot, can you advise me on how to become an auto-confirmed user on Wikipedia? - 1996Larry

You are already autoconfirmed(account is at least four days old and has at least 10 edits). Autoconfirmed or not, you still can't post unsourced information. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: 331dot, i want you to advise me on how to add sources to a Wikipedia page, as I am having trouble doing so on the page "List of UK top 10 singles in 2018". - 1996Larry

You may find information on citing sources at WP:CITE. Please make sure that your sources are independent and reliable. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Magnolia677, please stop harassing me about unsourced material. If I make edits to a Wikipedia page, please don't reverse them. I get very irritated when people reverse my edits. - 1996Larry

November 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of UK top 10 singles in 1966. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

You mentioned on Magnolia677's talk page that you don't need to provide sources for the list of top ten albums and singles pages because they are complete and accurate. Well, where are you getting this information? A website, a book, a magazine? Those are sources and you need to cite where you found this info. You can't keep it to yourself and you can't expect readers of Wikipedia to just believe you. Read WP:CITE to learn more, but the main reference templates you may be looking for are {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}. They all basically work the same.

Also, when signing your posts, you just need to use 4 tildes (like this: ~~~~); no need to type out your user name. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You must have reliable sources for any content you add to an article. It is simply incorrect as you stated here that you don't. You will need to indicate that you understand that you need sources and you are able to add them in order to be unblocked. Any reviewer who is convinced of this may unblock you without consulting me further. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

1996Larry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not making disruptive edits, I am making proper edits, and there is no reason why I should be blocked. I believe that it was wrong to have me blocked as I was making proper edits. I am not the sort of person who vandalises pages. I need to correct mistakes. That is my aim on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Given your insistence that you need not change how you edit and that unsourced editing is fine, I cannot unblock you. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

1996Larry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been editing pages for a long time on Wikipedia, and I have include sources on the odd occasion. Many users like 03md have commended me for helping them with creating pages on Wikipedia. All of sudden a guy called Magnolia677 tells me I am consistently disruptive at editing. He is talking absolute nonsense. I need to be unblocked and not be bothered by another user warning me about my edits. I am an editor with good faith and I want to correct mistakes. I also want to be advised on how to edit pages without being blocked.

Decline reason:

"The odd occasion" is not an adequate approach to providing sources for your edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

1996Larry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe it was wrong to block me, as I was making fair edits, even if I did not include sources. My block should be reversed as the user Magnolia677 persistently reversed my edits on the Lists of UK top 10 singles pages from 1966 and 2018. He consistently advised me to include sources, but neither the user 03md nor myself included sources on the Lists of UK top 10 singles pages. These sources were put in by other users such as Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, who followed Magnolia677's advice. I feel that the user 331dot blocking me was wrong and unfair, because that could be a violation of Wikipedia's policy. Harassing fellow Wikipedia users about their unsourced edits, in my opinion, is like being trolled on social media. We have to put an end to this once and for all. We all need to have respect for Wikipedia editors, even if they do not add sources.

Decline reason:

You're supposed to source your edits. PhilKnight (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• As you are refusing to listen and openly refusing to follow Wikipedia's requirement for sourcing, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page to prevent any further waste of time. Please use the remainder of the block period to rethink your willingness to follow Wikipedia policy, and be warned that any further addition of unsourced content after the block expires is likely to result in a longer, possibly indefinite, block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

1996Larry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #23137 was submitted on Nov 05, 2018 07:10:26. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Actually, having just seen your UTRS unblock request in which you explicitly reiterate your refusal to provide sources for your contributions, I have now upped your block to indefinite. You do not get to choose to ignore the parts of Wikipedia policy you dislike or find inconvenient, and you will not be unblocked without a commitment to provide sources for your edits. You can provide that commitment in your next UTRS request, as your current one is sure to be declined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:Verfiability states In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. This is a core policy. Affirming that you will henceforth cite your edits is a requirement for you to be unblocked. Endorse indefinite block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

1996Larry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #23142 was submitted on Nov 05, 2018 14:37:49. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Second chance

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

• Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
• Read our guide to improving articles
• Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
• If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
  1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
  2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
     • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
     • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
     • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
     • do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
  3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
  4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
  5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Save.
• Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
• When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
  • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you.

Could you please help me out here? I don't understand what you have sent me here. I have Asperger's Syndrome and I am very confused as to what I have done to cause me to be blocked indefinately. I sincerely apologise if I did something wrong, but it wasn't intentional. I really enjoy editing pages on Wikipedia and I would like if you could unblock me. Please help me. Thank you very much, looking forward to hearing from you soon.

It appears to have been thoroughly explained above. I would followthe guidance from the several unblock requests. Praxidicae (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Simply said, the instructions above are a fairly detailed recipe for how you can demonstrate your ability to make constructive edits to Wikipedia. Since one of the complaints about your editing was making changes without providing sources, you have a chance to show that you know how to make changes with proper sources. It's a test, both to demonstrate your competency and to gauge the intensity of your desire to once again be able to edit Wikipedia.

What will probably work best for you is to find a recent, but not brand new, magazine article about a person or other subject you are interested in and choose a significant fact from that article to add to the subject's page.

I'm going to leave the help me template active for now. You can continue to ask for help, but don't act completely helpless. Make at least a first step, even if it may be a misstep, so we can get a better idea of what's blocking you. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Would allowing the user to edit such drafts as Draft:List of UK top 10 albums in 2015 be acceptable to show he comprehends what needs to be done and that he can do so properly? This is the type of work that the editor has focused on, and perhaps he can demonstrate his comprehension and commitment to improve through such draft space articles (or move them to his userspace/sandbox). He would not be allowed to move such pages into mainspace or work on any other articles beyond the proposal above. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In response to your email about the Beyonce edits you've proposed: I question whether that site can be considered a reliable source. It's definitely a source and better than the previous absence of a source. Technically, you appear to have followed the instructions to the letter, so everything else that you've done here looks acceptable. But I'm not an admin and I'm not sure if this one demonstration will be sufficient to convince an admin that an unblock is the right action. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: No worries, jmcgnh, I will do another edit on a different article excerpt, and this time, I will include more sources. - 1996Larry.

Déjá Vu (Beyoncé song)

"Déjà Vu" is a song by American singer Beyoncé, featuring vocals by rapper Jay-Z. It was produced by Rodney "Darkchild" Jerkins and Beyoncé for her second solo album, B'Day (2006). "Déjà Vu" is an R&B song, which incorporates elements of the 1970s funk and soul music. Its music is largely based on live instrumentation, including bass guitar, hi-hat, horns, except Roland TR-808 drum machine, which is a non-live instrument. The song's title and lyrics refer to a woman being constantly reminded of a past lover.

"Déjà Vu" was released as the album's lead single to US radio stations on June 24, 2006. The song received generally mixed critical reviews. Many critics noted the similarities of "Déjà Vu" with Beyoncé's own 2003 song "Crazy in Love". Critics commended the assertiveness and the sensuality with which Beyoncé sings the lyrics and compared her vocal delivery to that of Tina Turner in the late 1980s. "Déjà Vu" and its Freemasons club remix version received three nominations at Best Remixed Recording, Non-Classical at the 2007 Grammy Awards. It was recognized as the Best Song of 2006 at the Music of Black Origin (MOBO) Awards.

Commercially, "Déjà Vu" peaked at number four on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. It topped the Hot Dance Club Play chart, the Hot Dance Singles Sales chart, and the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart. The song was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). "Déjà Vu" peaked at number one on the UK Singles Chart and generally reached the top 20 in Europe. The song's accompanying music video was directed by Sophie Muller. About 5,000 fans petitioned online for a re-shoot of the video, complaining about, amongst other factors, the lack of theme, the wardrobe choice, and the seemingly sexual interactions between Beyoncé and Jay-Z.

References

Help me!

{{help me}}

Can you please unblock my account from Wikipedia? You may know that I did not include sources in my edits, and I sincerly apologise for that. I have made a commitment to including sources in my Wikipedia edits when I do get unblocked.

1996Larry

Hi 1996Larry, per your UTRS appeal, please follow the procedures found at {{2nd chance}}. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Kevin, the information in {{2nd chance}} is very complicated to me, as I have Asperger's syndrome, and I might need someone else to give me some help. - 1996Larry

I don't respond to emails about matters that should be discussed here. You can't be unblocked until you can demonstrate that you understand how to add sources to articles. Is there someone on your end that can assist you in understanding the instructions above? (they can't edit for you or otherwise use this account) 331dot (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: 331dot, the good news is I have just given a demonstration of adding sources to articles. I have added a citation to an excerpt from the page "Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)", using proper dates and web adressess.

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

1996Larry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #23163 was submitted on Nov 06, 2018 17:57:15. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions above. No need to open any further UTRS tickets as you have talk page access. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Have they met you conditions for unblock?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Leonard Enright#Personal life

Outside of his sporting life Enright worked as a caretaker at Mary Immaculate College. He was married to Birdie and had three sons and a daughter.

References

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

1996Larry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked as I have accepted full responsibitly for what I have done on Wikipedia. My block was not in error, and I know that I was blocked for a good reason. I now understand that the reason why I was blocked was because of my repeated refusal to include sources in my Wikipedia edits and I apologise sincerely for that. I now accept that what I have done was not morally right and that the administrator who blocked me was being fair and meant well. I now intend to change my actions and commit to using sources in my future Wikipedia edits. I have done some editing demonstrations on my talk page, taking excerpts from two different Wikipedia articles which lack a reliable source. I used at least one or two sources in both excerpts and made sure that they were entireably reliable.

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline; duplicate unblock request. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I have no objection to an unblock if a reviewer sees merit in one. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for telling me, 331dot. Hope I get a big approval from the reviewer. - 1996Larry

• Comment - @331dot, Dlohcierekim, TheSandDoctor, and Jmcgnh: In 1996Larry's review (above) of Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song), the source 1996Larry cited appears to have little relation to the text it is intended to support. As well, in 1996Larry's review (above) of Leonard Enright, the text in the existing Wikipedia article reads (unsourced) "Outside of his sporting life Enright worked with Mary immaculate college. He was married to Birdie and had three sons and a daughter." 1996Larry located two sources to support the text (Enright died a few days ago and the UK papers are filled with obituaries). Also, Enright didn't work "with" Mary Immaculate College (as benefactor or reverend), he work "for" them (as a caretaker). I'm not sure how these two edits demonstrate competence. I'm also concerned about a new user, User:Poimoi, who has made just one edit here. It is the same edit I kept reverting when 1996Larry kept adding it prior to his block (along with a host of IP addresses from the same location in England). The edit summary was "The page has been out of date for so many weeks when so many people rely on it. It's a shame. Respect the truth, please leave the edits". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Magnolia677, I've done as best as I can on editing these excerpts, and I've used the best sources possible. I've just fixed up the Leonard Enright excerpt, putting in that he "worked as a caretaker in Mary Immaculate College", which is mentioned in one of the excerpt's sources. I'll try and do another excerpt, and this time I'll include more than two sources. In relation to Poimoi, he needs to learn that he cannot reverse edits like I used to do. He can learn from my mistakes. - 1996Larry

I would ask if you could accept the idea that "the best sources possible" might not be good enough, or might not say what you think they say? 331dot (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: 331dot, I do accept the idea that "the best sources possible" might not be good enough. However, these sources I used were not unreliable and told the truth. I'll use proper sources in my future Wikipedia edits. - 1996Larry

• Please stop emailing me about this matter. As the administrator who blocked you, I prefer to leave this for someone else to review. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: No worries, 331dot. I'll be much more careful editing Wikipedia pages in the future.

As you disregarded my request that you not email me, I have removed your ability to send email. It will be restored if and when the block is removed. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: No problem, 331dot. I'm not angry at you for removing my ability to send email. I'll keep in touch if there's anything you want to remind me about. - 1996Larry

Eastside (song)

"Eastside" is a song by American music producer Benny Blanco and American singers Halsey and Khalid. The song was released on July 12, 2018 as Blanco's debut single. The single has peaked at number 18 on the Billboard Hot 100. Outside of the United States, it reached number one in the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and Singapore, and number two in Australia and Denmark.

References

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

1996Larry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked as I have accepted full responsibitly for what I have done on Wikipedia. My block was not in error, and I know that I was blocked for a good reason. I now understand that the reason why I was blocked was because of my repeated refusal to include sources in my Wikipedia edits and I apologise sincerely for that. I now accept that what I have done was not morally right and that the administrator who blocked me was being fair and meant well. I now intend to change my actions and commit to using sources in my future Wikipedia edits. I have done some editing demonstrations on my talk page, taking excerpts from three different Wikipedia articles which lack a reliable source. I used at least one or two sources in all excerpts and made sure that they were entireably reliable. Once again, I apologise for my repeated disruptive editing on Wikipedia. My mission is to improve several Wikipeida articles which need reliable sources.

Decline reason:

Where is your citation that the single reached number two in Australia and Denmark? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please heed 331dot's advice and be patient. Your request is already in the queue. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks, Starcheerspeaksnews. - 1996Larry

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 1996Larry. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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 2018 election voter message

Hello, 1996Larry. 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: Thanks very much for sending this message. Unfortunately, I am currently blocked from editing Wikipedia, so I won't chance voting this time. - 1996Larry

Tears (Ken Dodd song)

"Tears" ("Tears for Souvenirs") is a song written by lyricist Frank Capano and composer Billy Uhr, and was first recorded by Rudy Vallee in 1929. It was made famous in a version recorded by Ken Dodd, released as a single in 1965. It reached No. 1 in the UK Singles Chart for five weeks and became the UK's best-selling single of 1965, as well as the UK's third-biggest selling single of the 1960s. The song also reached No. 1 in the Irish Singles Chart.

References

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

1996Larry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked as I have accepted full responsibility for what I have done on Wikipedia. My block was not in error, and I know that I was blocked for a good reason. I now understand that the reason why I was blocked was because of my repeated refusal to include sources in my Wikipedia edits and I apologize sincerely for that. In my last edit, an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on Ken Dodd's song "Tears", I gave the source for its chart position in Ireland. I decided to improve my commitment to including sources in my edits after I forgot to include the sources for the Australian and Danish chart positions in my edit on an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on Benny Blanco's "Eastside", which is the reason why my last unblock request was denied, and I accept full responsibility for not including them.

Accept reason:

The above text looks properly sourced to me. I believe this fulfills TheSandDoctor's second chance offer, and blocking admin 331dot has stated above that they have no objection. -- Scott (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Scott Burley: Sounds good to me. Welcome back 1996Larry, if you ever have any questions, please feel free to reach out. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of UK top-ten singles in 1980. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply: My apologies, Magnolia677. I promise to adhere to your advice from now on. Would you try and edit the pages yourself? - 1996Larry

You have demonsrated that you are capable of properly sourcing your edits. There is no reason for you not to. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks, 331dot. Could you assist me in completing the UK top ten single and album pages and advise me what sources to include? - 1996Larry

I am not knowledgeable in the history of the UK music charts or music, nor do I know appropriate sources to use. If you don't have appropriate sources for your edits, you should not make the edits, pure and simple. I presume you are getting this information from somewhere; if you need assistance in adding it to an article, ask on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of UK top 10 albums in 2015

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, List of UK top 10 albums in 2015, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

List of UK top 10 albums in 2015 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of UK top 10 albums in 2015, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It appears to still be in draft form and needs clean up and expansion. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Polyamorph (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of UK top-ten singles in 2018. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Magnolia677, the page List of UK top-ten singles in 2018 does cite some sources, mainly from the Official Charts Company, which is why I edited it. I have made a commitment to including sources in my Wikipedia edits. Pages that have not been edited for a long time should be updated regularly. I get angry when my edits are reversed. Please don't warn me again. - 1996Larry

Your latest edit to that article added Kodak Black. Could you please tell me where this is sourced in the article? The link to the Official Chart Company does not cover 2018. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Magnolia677, the Kodak Black entry is sourced at the Official Charts website, as well as his Wikipedia discography. Please don't reverse my edits again. I am editing with good faith, and I can tell you that I never add any false information to any Wikipedia page. - 1996Larry

"The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL." Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Magnolia677, I want you to help me update the page List of UK top-ten singles in 2018. You may not have a good knowlege of UK chart history like I do, but I want you to find some sources that may support this page. It cannot just be left alone. - 1996Larry

Larry, you have now be warned twice for not providing sources, the same exact reason that you were blocked. If you continue, you will be blocked indefinitely because you are showing you do not understand why you were blocked in the first place. Rule of thumb: if you want to add something but cannot provide a reliable source for it, do not add the information until you do, even if you know it is correct. There is no deadline, so don't try to rush. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

February 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of UK top-ten albums in 2011, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cass County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 1993, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Ball (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of UK top-ten albums in 1994 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to New Order and Michael Ball

List of UK top-ten albums in 1997 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy Soul

List of UK top-ten albums in 1999 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Another Level

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BTS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 1971, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Every Good Boy Deserves Favour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of UK top 10 albums in 2016

Hello, 1996Larry. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of UK top 10 albums in 2016".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 17:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of UK top 10 albums in 2017

Hello, 1996Larry. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of UK top 10 albums in 2017".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 17:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of UK top 10 albums in 2000

Hello, 1996Larry. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of UK top 10 albums in 2000".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 17:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of UK top 10 albums in 1999

Hello, 1996Larry. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of UK top 10 albums in 1999".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 17:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of UK top 10 albums in 2001

Hello, 1996Larry. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of UK top 10 albums in 2001".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 08:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of UK top 10 albums in 2015

Hello, 1996Larry. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of UK top 10 albums in 2015".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 12:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

List of UK top-ten singles in 2018

With this edit you deleted the source to support this information. What is now the source to support it? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Hello again, Magnolia677, I have re-added the source I removed earlier from the page List of UK top-ten singles in 2018. I apologise for initially removing it, as I believed that there was a sufficient source to support the information. - 1996Larry

A page you started (List of UK top-ten albums in 1982) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of UK top-ten albums in 1982.

User:Girth Summit while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Girth Summit}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of UK top-ten albums in 1981 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dead Ringer, The Beat and Ghost in the Machine

List of UK top-ten albums in 1982 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ghost in the Machine

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten singles in 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halsey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten singles in 2003, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Boys of Summer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please don't use "fix typo" in your edit summaries when you are doing much more than fixing typos. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for reminding me, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars}. - 1996Larry

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of 2010s deaths in rock and roll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Berman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Artists with most top 10 albums

Hi Mate, hope you’re well. Could you help me out with my current project, List of artists with the most UK top-ten albums, I have made a good start and obviously if you spot I have made any mistakes you can correct them, and add artists to the table. Please add a reference from the Official Charts website each time.

The minimum for the table is 10 top 10s, like for the top ten singles page, and individual acts get a spot if they have appeared on albums with more than one band or as a solo artist (e.g. Gem Archer of Oasis, Beady Eye and Noel Gallagher’s High Flying Birds).

I have a question mark over Lindsey Buckingham, who was on some Fleetwood Mac albums but trying to work out which ones, as well as solo work, and also Christine McVie is included in the personnel section on a couple of their early albums but not officially credited, I have included those within the figures for now. 03md 11:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Hello again, 03md. I'm more interested in updating the UK top-ten singles and albums pages from down through the years.

By the way, I was wondering if it would be possible for us to change the peak dates of the top-ten singles and albums pages from "week ending" to "week starting", as "week starting" would be the actual date the song entered the top-ten.

Example: 4th January 1975 (week ending), 29th December 1974 (week starting)

We already know that the consensus is that we should use the dates given by the Official Charts which are the week ending dates, but I would much prefer if the week starting dates were used to give the exact date when the songs and albums first entered the top-ten. Besides, the Offical Charts are not always 100% accurate online.

I have no problem at all with the week ending dates on Wikipedia, but I prefer the week starting dates.

Looking forward to hearing from you again very soon, 03md. - 1996Larry 11:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

TBH the consensus has been reached, and it would mess up a lot of pages if we started changing it to week-starting. I know the OCC sometimes get things wrong but the week ending is their policy. I would focus on finishing the last few albums chart pages from the 1950s and making improvements that need to be made to others, like adding entries by artist and chart debuts. 03md 22:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Hello again, 03md. I don't disagree with you about the fact that week ending is the policy of the OCC and also the fact that changing to week starting would mess up the pages, but I would much prefer if week starting was included instead of week ending. I'm glad though that you are focusing on finishing the last few albums chart pages from the 1950s and making improvements that need to be made to others, like adding entries by artist and chart debuts.

Looking forward to hearing from you again very soon, 03md. - 1996Larry 06:19, 9 September 2019 (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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten singles in 1955, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mambo Italiano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of 2020s deaths in rock and roll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Parker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Blinding Lights. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ss112 01:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for your advice, Ss112. - 1996Larry, 08:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

XXXX in film articles

Larry, there are a couple of problems with your edits on these articles.

1. Some of the older charts, such as 1967 in film have a rental chart. Box-office rental is a different metric to box-office gross. Rentals were the primary metric prior to the 1980s and unfortunately box-office grosses are not available for all older films, but rentals are and hence why they are used on pre-1980 lists. We have to take care that rental charts are not misrepresented as box-office charts.
2. The other problem is the replacement of "domestic" charts with "worldwide" charts for the 1970s and 1980s. The reason domestic charts are used for this era is because a complete set of worldwide grosses are not available, If you look at the 1977 chart you will see that BOM only has worldwide grosses for three films; it doesn't even a foreign gross for Smokey and the Bandit which was a huge global hit at the time. Mixing worldwide and domestic grosses is nonsensical, and misleading. BOM only has full worldwide charts from 1988 onwards so please don't replace the domestic charts prior to 1988 with worldwide charts.

Betty Logan (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for telling me, Betty Logan. I'll be very careful when making edits on the film pages from now on. - 1996Larry, 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome, 1996Larry. I appreciate you are only trying to improve the articles and you've done quite a bit of good work. Betty Logan (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1945 in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Lost Weekend (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Release dates

Hi, please note that only the earliest release date is used in film infoboxes otherwise there would be dates from many countries, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks, Atlantic306. - 1996Larry

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aitch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1932 in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shanghai Express (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1984 in film (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Buena Vista

1986 in film (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Buena Vista

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of 2014 box office number-one films in the United Kingdom

added links pointing to The Railway Man, Into the Storm, The Quiet Ones and A Walk Among the Tombstones

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of 2011 box office number-one films in the United Kingdom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Apollo 18 and Delhi Belly.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten singles in 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drake.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten singles in 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Woolford.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

WARNING

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Tenet (film), you may be blocked from editing.  AmblinX  11:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amy MacDonald.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Come Back, Little Sheba (1953 film)

Hi, I'm in the process of expanding this article. The film was pre-released (not premiered) on December 23, 1952 in New York City and on December 25, 1952 in Los Angeles. Then it was copyright in February 1953 and officially released in March 1953. The point of the pre-release was to make it eligible for Academy Award and other awards consideration for the 1952 calendar year, and by the time it opened in March, it had already won a bunch of awards. Still the copyright date is 1953, and that's what the page name and categories should say. Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Hello there, Yoninhah. The film's copyright date is actually 1952. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi-i9IT_kPI. - 1996Larry 19:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, look at that. So why does AFI list it as 1953? And why does the man who testified before the United States Senate, Monopoly Subcommittee of the Select Committee on Small Business, emphasize that it was pre-released, not premiered in 1952? Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Yoninhah, the AFI website is not always accurate. The IMDB website, in my opinion is a much more accurate website. - 1996Larry 20:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanations. Now one more question: Why are you disambiguating with the studio name? Why not return to Come Back, Little Sheba (1952 film)? Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Yoninhah, Wikipedia won't let me return to Come Back, Little Sheba (1952 film), because a redirect already exists and it cannot be deleted automatically. - 1996Larry 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You could ask for an uncontroversial technical move at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial technical requests. Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for your advice, Yoninhah. - 1996Larry 21:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Greatest Show on Earth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2020 (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) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Last Christmas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Band Aid.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Richard Beymer, you may be blocked from editing. Largoplazo (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Understood, Largoplazo. – 1996Larry, 13:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 1996Larry reported by Largoplazo. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks, ~ ToBeFree - 1996Larry, 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

List of UK top-ten singles in 2021

Hi 1996Larry, I hope you're well. Could you please explain why you add non-existent peaks of songs to List of UK top-ten singles in 2021? I have just reverted your recent addition, and it's not the first time you've done so. Please could you kindly not add peaks of songs which have yet to chart, and wait for the official chart update on Fridays? Even if there is a chance they could chart. This is a violation of of one of Wikipedia's core guidelines, WP:V, and is also misleading. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. AshMusique (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Hello there, AshMusique. Thanks for reminding me about add non-existent peaks of songs to List of UK top-ten singles in 2021. I'll remember not to do it again. Thank you. - 1996Larry (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of UK top-ten singles in 2021

Hello, 1996Larry. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of UK top-ten singles in 2021, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 2021, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page My Bloody Valentine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of UK top-ten singles in 2021

Hello, 1996Larry. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of UK top-ten singles in 2021".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 1960, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Come Back to Sorrento.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten singles in 2010, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In My Head.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2021 (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) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 2022, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gunna.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten singles in 2022, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Encanto.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 2022, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Morrison.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten singles in 1958, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maybe Baby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation may be confused with vandalism. Thank you.

Please don't use generic edit summaries like "Updated page". Use the edit summary to say what the edit you are making is for and why. 71.62.227.79 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have added a reference on the Dermot O'Neill page. 1996Larry (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this would be very helpful. Just saying "Updated page" really tells us nothing. Please be more specific. Addypreston (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

1948 in Film

Why did you remove The Red Shoes as the top grossing film released in 1948? Among available references, the one that was already cited on that page was the Finzer book, but you just deleted all of that entirely from the list a few days ago. What's more, you then proceeded to cite that same Finzer book and same page as the source for earnings for The Paleface, a few spots lower on the list. This is wildly inconsistent.

You also changed Cass Timberlane from 1947 to 1948, though Cass Timberlane opened in NYC on November 6, 1947. Although its national release was not until January, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences rules it's considered a 1947 release.

You should not be making haphazard and arbitrary edits like this. I am still finding numerous references that you cited repeatedly over the past two years to the Variety Oct 1990 "All-Time Film Rental Champs" article, (all saying page M-150, which is just the letters "Cal" to "Clo" in middle of the article), to movies that are not even in that list! You need to go back and clean up your edits. You can't just make up sources for your numbers and leave a mess in your wake. Addypreston (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, Addypreston. I have just re-added The Red Shoes to the highest-grossing movies list of 1948. Whenever I make mistakes in my edits, I usually clean them up. Whenever I add a film's gross in, I always include a reference, but sometimes, the gross may not always match that reference, and I apologise for that. I'll try not to make mistakes like that again. Anyway, Addypreston, keep up the good work. 1996Larry (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If the gross does not match the reference you cite, you should use neither. It makes no sense to give a statistic and cite a source for it that statistic that is false. If you add data, give your exact source so that it can be confirmed by anyone wishing to do so. If you can't provide a reliable source, DON'T add the data. That's where you're running into trouble. Just don't do it.

Likewise, it's shaky to use sources like that Fragias Kindle book, since its sources are not given and not verifiable. The Hollywood Story book by Finler and other similar books are okay when nothing else is available, since at least they name what sources they use for their data, although not on an item-by-item basis. But I think it's better to even verify which source they are using and use that, if available. The Joan of Arc movie that you removed from the 1948 is a good example of why. The Finzer book uses the $4.1m domestic estimates from Variety and Box Office Review, but the RKO ledger shows what is likely the more accurate $2.5m in domestic and $3.5m in foreign receipts. Addypreston (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I added a web-linked Variety reference to the 4 movies that also referenced the Finler book on that 1948 in Film page. Although Variety updated some of its estimates over the years, this 1954 list should be useful. Because of the revised estimates over the years, I usually consider the later lists like the 1990 one to be more accurate. The downside is that those later issues are not available in archive form on the web, so unless you have the issue or access to one of the few libraries that have it in microfiche archives, it's more difficult to pull up a copy to find the actual reference. Addypreston (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, Addypreston. Keep up the good work and enjoy the rest of your week. 1996Larry (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Larry, you always need to bear in mind that the contemporary Variety rentals were often estimated; in the instances where they were provided by the studio they were often inflated to generate good publicity. They are better than nothing but many of the ledgers from that period are in archives and we can source the exact amounts (which is probably why you are finding the numbers don't always match up). You have the Eddie Mannix ledger for MGM, the Schaeffer ledger for Warner, and ledgers are also available for RKO and Fox. If the gross is sourced to a ledger (or a text that sources a ledger, such as Jewell for RKO) please don't replace it with a Variety estimate. You have done a lot of valuable work on these articles over the years and that is very welcome, the charts are in better shape than they used to be, so thank you for all your effort. If you ever need a second opinion you are always welcome to drop me a line. Betty Logan (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for giving me a compliment, Betty. Chat to you again soon. 1996Larry (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

1996Larry, at 8:29 on July 21, just 3 hours after this previous conversation, you posted that SAME incorrect Variety link for the October 1990 list in the narrative for It Happened One Night. (1) The link is INCORRECT, but you've insisted on pasting it into movies over and over for the past two years when you have nothing better to use, and (2) that list you cited is NOT of Initial Release rental numbers, as you chose to state in that article. It is a list of cumulative rental receipts through that publication date (1990). WHY do you keep using that link when you've already been told several times that it is incorrect? If you don't have access to the source material, DON'T cite it as your source! Addypreston (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, Addypreston. I didn't realise at the time I edited the article that the 1990 Variety list contained cumulative rental receipts, and not initial release numbers. I'll remember to always use correct sources whenever I am editing. 1996Larry (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Addypreston: Can you please clarify what you mean by "incorrect"? Does the source have incorrect figures, or are they just cumulative? I agree it's problematic to misrepresent cumulative totals as initial release totals (especially in articles such as 1934 in film where the chart order can become distorted by later release grosses) but I don't see the harm in recording the cumulative total in the film article provided it is not misrepresented as a lifetime total. Most film articles include lifetime totals where they are known. Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Three issues: an incorrect citation, an incorrect statement in the article regarding the citation, and the deletion of a previous and valid statement and citation.

A valid citation stating that it was "Columbia's biggest hit until the 1980's" was deleted entirely and replaced with a statement saying "During its inital release, the film earned $1,366,000 ..." That statement was accompanied by a citation to page M150 of the Oct 15, 1990 issue of Variety magazine. This same link to page M150 has popped up in numerous articles I've seen in the last month or two. I have this Variety article, which is an alphabetical list that spans pages M-140 to M-196. Page M-150 has only movies starting with "Cal" to "Clo". That part of "incorrect" in this case is minor, since the earnings number quoted from this list indeed matched, just on an entirely different page.

The problem is that half the time I've found this exact citation for page M150 pasted into articles, the movie in question is NOT even in this article's list. In other words the citation is entirely false in those cases, and I've repeatedly found myself cleaning it up. Just two days ago I deleted the same citation from 1941's Road to Zanzibar and Nothing But the Truth (irony noted) because those movies are NOT in that Variety list and the numbers given could not be backed up. And in every case I've found, this specific "M150" Variety link was posted by 1996Larry. You can find discussion between us on this issue on the AddyPreston talk page in a conversation originated by 1996Larry where I'd been helping him out, but this issue arose on July 9 when I was surprised to realize he was the one who'd posted all those incorrect M150 citations I'd been finding.

The other incorrect part is that the number was stated to be from "During its initial release...", which is NOT accurate at all regarding this Variety list that gives cumulative domestic rental earnings. If he does not have access to this article at all, he should not be using it as a citation. It appears it is being used as a "generic" citation pasted in when nothing else can be found. And the fact that a valid citation was deleted entirely to make room for this incorrect statement makes matters even worse. Even if the new information was correct, it could easily have been worked in alongside the previous statement and citation. I see no need to delete previous valid information. Addypreston (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

There are obviously several issues that are feeding into each other. I addressed one of them above: I don't think the inclusion of cumulative totals is a problem provided they are presented in the correct context. As for the issue regarding sourced information being deleted, this seems to be a very specific complaint and the appropriate way of dealing with this would be to restore the information if you think its removal is unwarranted, or start a discussion on the article talk page if you want to discuss the matter. Larry could have a good reason for removing this claim, although he really should have provided a reason for removing sourced content. For the remaining issue, perhaps Larry could confirm whether he actually has access to this particular source? If he does not then I would remind Larry of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, in that you should only attribute information to a source if you have actually consulted the source yourself. Betty Logan (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

1996Larry, that was wise to edit The Lives of a Bengal Lancer back to the previous box office reference. I went in and added the actual Variety domestic rentals from the 1990 list, which was $1m. I also deleted several sentences in the box office section that were added in January 2019 by an anonymous user, with all kinds of wacky box office links (Mannix, RKO, Warner, Quigley) that had nothing at all to do with this movie (a Paramount feature). Weird.

You should re-check Adventures of Marco Polo, as that one is not in the 1990 Variety list at all. Addypreston (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You should also check 1935 in Film, as the Variety 1990 figure for Lives of a Bengal Lancer is just $1m, not $1.5m. I do not have the Welky book, so it's only an assumption at this point that the $1.5m figure quoted there is for worldwide receipts. I do have that Sedgwick list, and it does indeed show it as the highest grossing 1935 film in the U.K. in that list (#1 and #3 were the 1936 features Modern Times and Mutiny on the Bounty), so those receipts could well account for the difference.

In my data, I have Bengal Lancer down closer to #30 in the U.S. for the 1935 releases. I'm not real comfortable getting into the top 10 lists of each year quite yet, as I do have films in my list that *might* be in the top 10, but I consider the sources insufficient to make that conclusion. That's why I'm spending a lot of my "rabbit hole" time these days trying to find corroboration. For 1935, The Bride of Frankenstein is one that *might* be in the top 10 but there's insufficient data at least in what I've found so far. Ignoring Bride, if Bengal Lancer slips out of the list, then The Littlest Rebel bumps up to #10. Variety Oct 1990 has that one at $1.431m (page M-170). Addypreston (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for replying to me, Addypreston. I just felt like re-editing the "Lives of a Bengal Lancer" page, as I felt that some of the information put down recently was incorrect. Anyway, keep up the good work and enjoy the rest of your week. 1996Larry (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

1938 in Film: If I Were King is not in the 1990 Variety list. I'm still trying to find a good source on Paramount movies from that era. Let me know if you come across anything.

However, these 1938 films ARE in the Variety list and if that list is accurate they would show in your top 10. All five of these appear in the list with exactly $2 million as the estimate for domestic rentals. I wish we had better sources.

The Buccaneer

That Certain Age

Three Loves Has Nancy

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer

Men with Wings

I haven't checked the Wikipedia pages of these yet, but if any show promising box office sources other than this, let me know.

Here's a generic citation you can use to cover that entire Oct 1990 article/list (enclose it in double braces and ref /ref)

cite magazine|date=October 15, 1990|title=All Time Film Rental Champs|magazine=Variety|issn=0042-2738|pages=M140-M196|first=Lawrence|last=Cohn

Catch up to you later. Addypreston (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Addypreston, thanks very much for replying to me. "Three Loves Has Nancy" was released by MGM, so you could probably locate the domestic, foreign and worldwide rentals for that movie using the Eddie Mannix Ledger. 1996Larry (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. That one is not in the Mannix ledger copy I have, which is the appendix from the Glancy article in the Historical Journal of Film, Radio, TV. The actual Mannix ledger in the Margaret Herrick library has more than what is listed in the Glancy document. The ledger supposedly goes through 1962, but Glancy's appendix ends at 1948. I imagine that any omissions before 1948, if there are any, would be those of less significance. I've heard that access to the actual physical documents is a bit tricky. Addypreston (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Addypreston. If you ever do come across films in top 10 grossing films of the year lists that have the 1990 Variety "All Time Film Rental Champs" list reference but are actually not in that list, you can remind me about it and I'll remove them from those lists. Thanks again for replying to me. 1996Larry (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what to make of the fact that Variety in Oct 1990 does have each of the five movies above at $2 million domestic rentals, which would put them in positions 6-10 on your chart. Two are from Paramount, one from Universal, that one from MGM that's not in the Mannix list, and Tom Sawyer from United Artists. There's a UA book by Balio that might have the answer to that last one. The ones you do have in positions 6-10 are all under $2 million, but their numbers are from the actual studio ledgers. Do we go with Variety's numbers for Universal, Paramount, etc., where we have nothing better? Addypreston (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

1996Larry, for The Plainsman (1936) you cited "Birchard 2004" as your source for budget and gross. What is that? It appears to be a citation for a book that is not in the references to that page. Addypreston (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

1937, you added Thin Ice to the top 10, with the correct citation that Variety 1990 has it at 1.59m.

BUT, the same issue of Variety also has:

Lost Horizon at 3.5m

The Hurricane at 3.2m

The Prisoner of Zenda at 2.5m

and the following all at 2m:

Waikiki Wedding

A Star is Born (you have that cited incorrectly as 1.8m from the same issue)

Topper

Nothing Sacred

Elephant Boy

Back to the question a few comments up.... lacking any better source, do we use the Variety numbers or not? And if yes, using the 1.59m they have for Thin Ice doesn't make sense to use over the other movies where they have much higher estimates, unless we have valid data somewhere that shows those other numbers as being incorrect. Addypreston (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Addypreston, thanks again for reminding me about the 1937 films in the Variety 1990 list. Just to remind you that the book "Female Celebrity and Ageing: Back in the Spotlight" by Deborah Jermyn gives the domestic gross for The Prisoner of Zenda as $1,250,000. As I said, I'll remove any films from the top 10 grossing films of the year lists that have the 1990 Variety "All Time Film Rental Champs" list reference but are actually not in that list. Keep up the good work. 1996Larry (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have access to that book, "Female Celebrity and Ageing: Back in the Spotlight"? They will usually give the sources they used for information like that in their own bibliography. I don't see that reference of $1,250,000 anywhere that I can find. Is there a reference elsewhere to that particular book? Addypreston (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Addypreston, you can find "Female Celebrity and Ageing: Back in the Spotlight" on Google Books. The reference to the film making $1,250,000 is on page 20. Anyway, thanks again for replying to me. Hope to chat with you again soon. 1996Larry (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Um, 1996Larry, you have to read more carefully than that! The exact quote from the book is "Colman received a base salary of $150,000, plus a 10% cut of any profits from the film after it grossed $1,250,000." In other words, if the film grossed $2,250,000 (I made that up as an example), Colman would receive $150,000 plus 10% of the $1 million above $1,250,000... which means she'd be paid $250,000 total. The quote is about her contract and has nothing to do with what the actual gross for the film was.

I thought maybe you found a quote from elsewhere in the book than what's available in that sample. Apparently not. Addypreston (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The Selznick book says the budget was $1,250,000. Is that what you were thinking of? Addypreston (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Not too sure, Addypreston. Anyway, thanks again for getting in touch. Keep up the good work. 1996Larry (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

1996Larry, The General premiered in December 1926 in the U.S. December 25 and 26, from what I see. Addypreston (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You're actually right there, Addypreston, because, according to IMDB, the film opened in El Paso on Christmas Day, and in Bridgeport, Connecticut the following day. It didn't open in New York until 5th February 1927. Thanks again for reminding me. 1996Larry (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking at IMDB, which has this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017925/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_rdat

I'll check that Meade book though. It's on Hoopla. Addypreston (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's possible that IMDB is incorrect, so let's check that reference first before you change it back. Addypreston (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, 1996Larry, I've got the eBook and the scoop. At least according to this book, which goes into much detail, IMDB appears to be wrong. That's not too much of a surprise, as it's not unusual to find mistakes on that site. IMDB is good but not perfect.

According to the Meade book, The General did indeed have "its first screening" on Dec 31, 1926 at two theaters in Tokyo, which is why technically it is called a 1926 film. The American premiere was supposed to be January 22, 1927, but it was delayed due to the other film Flesh and the Devil being held over. It opened in New York on February 5, 1927, and subsequently was considered a flop. "The General seemed to be the Heaven's Gate of the twenties."

According to Meade, The General cost over $750,000 and its domestic gross was $474,264. "The picture would not show a profit until it was rediscovered some three decades later."

Unless some reference is found to back up the Texas/Connecticut openings in IMDB, I think this book appears to be a much better source. Addypreston (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree with you there, Addypreston. As I've already mentioned, if you come across films in top 10 grossing films of the year lists that have the "All Time Film Rental Champs" reference but are actually not in that list, you can message me about it and I'll remove them from those lists. 1996Larry (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In 1927 in Film, you only have a partial citation to the Meade book. That reference is to the bibliography at the bottom of The General Wikipedia page. So you either should copy that bibliography reference, or (better), convert that citation to a book citation since it's the only spot where it's referenced on that page.

HOWEVER... You actually should delete The General from the 1927 list, as according to my spreadsheet there are 12 movies in the Eddie Mannix MGM ledger that grossed more than The General and are not on your list. I'll pull up the actual references and try to get those numbers for you in the next hour or so. Addypreston (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Addypreston. Chat to you again soon. 1996Larry (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Check the Wikipedia pages I edited for Love (1927), which grossed $946,000 domestic, and The Student Prince of Old Heidelberg, which grossed $894,000 domestic. Both from the Mannix ledger. The other ones I have are all less that $700,000 gross, which although more than The General would not make your list.

I'm still not comfortable editing those year in film lists myself, as I don't have sufficient data for a definitive top ten. But you can copy the Mannix citations off either of the above pages. It's 2 citations, since the actual ledger is in a separate document containing the appendix to Glancy's article.

London After Midnight is also in the Mannix ledger, with the $721,000 you have already, so you can add the Mannix citations there if you want.

The King of Kings is in the Oct 1990 Variety list with $2.6 million as its estimated domestic gross. Lucas's Blockbusting has it at $2.7 million. Addypreston (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for replying to me, Addypreston. Chat to you again some other time. 1996Larry (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding 1928 in Film, 1996Larry, you should go back in the edit history and look at your very first revision from June 15, 2020, when you actually had strong citations and accurate numbers. Compare that to what you have now. Other than the addition of Lilac Time, your list and citations were much better back then. Could this be the same case with some of the other years? Addypreston (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, Addypreston. Like I've said many times, feel free to remind me of any films that I've added to top 10 grossing films of the year lists that have the Variety 1990 reference, but are actually not in the Variety 1990 list, and I'll remove those films from those top 10 grossers lists. 1996Larry (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

1928, The Circus. You had the correct amount in June 2020 when you edited the page, but somewhere along the line you changed it and botched the citation, using that one that you've randomly used when you had nothing else. Addypreston (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Addypreston, that $3.8 million gross for The Circus was actually its worldwide gross, taken from the June 21 1932 edition of Variety. I got the $1.2 million domestic gross from the unreliable Leonidas Fragias ebook and added the 1990 Variety reference. If the reference does not match the gross, I'll remove it from the 1928 top 10 grossers list. Could you tell me how much The Circus actually grossed in U.S. and Canada rentals in 1928? 1996Larry (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I should add that the 3.8 million number only appears in the June 21, 1932 issue of Variety ('Big Silent Grosses'). There *may* be later reliable sources that give a different number. One thing that calls that number into question is that movie's omission from the Oct 1990 Variety list. Addypreston (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that The Circus is not in the 1990 Variety list, Addypreston. I'll remove it from the 1928 grossers list straight away and instead add On Trial. 1996Larry (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I've got several more books arriving this week. I will make sure The Circus is on my watch list for other sources. I just saw this morning that June 2020 is when you changed all the year in film box office headings from "Worldwide Rental" to "Box Office Gross Rental". Actually "Box Office Gross Rental" is much less specific, as it doesn't specify either worldwide or domestic, so it just leaves readers to guess.

I saw that you went as far as 1987, changing those later years from "Domestic Gross" to "Box Office Gross". That change also makes the numbers that follow more vague than they were. 1988 and later they are all "Worldwide Gross". I think the more specific terms are better, since the reader then knows exactly what they are looking at. Whether worldwide or domestic is more useful, I can't say. And it's difficult when some films have only one of those two numbers available. Maybe separate columns for worldwide and domestic, leaving one column blank if that number's not available? That might solve a lot of problems. Addypreston (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again, Addypreston. You have been a great help to me in fixing up the top 10 grossers lists on the film pages. Feel free at any time to remind me of films that I've added to these top 10 grossers lists that are actually not in the Variety 1990 list, and I'll remove those films from the top 10 grossers lists. 1996Larry (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

One Hour With You (1932) is not in the Variety 1990 list but you posted it as such. Addypreston (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet another: Belle of the Nineties (1934) Addypreston (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, Addypreston. I'll remove these films from these lists now. 1996Larry (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Done that, Addypreston. Perhaps you could check the top 10 grossers lists on the film pages from the 1940s and see if I have included films with the 1990 Variety reference but are actually not in the 1990 Variety list. Reply to me whenever you get a chance. 1996Larry (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Might be a few days before I get to those 1940s lists, but I'll try to look over those when I get a chance. I was cleaning up some 1930s data in my own database. Have three books arriving today, hopefully with some helpful details. Addypreston (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Addypreston. I myself will check the 1920s lists to see if there are any movies with the 1990 Variety reference that are not in the "All Time Film Rental Champs" list. 1996Larry (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As you should. With all due respect 1996Larry, YOU are the one who has been sprinkling random citations haphazardly around Wikipedia for the past two years, using them whether you know they are valid or not. I keep stumbling on instances randomly while looking up various movies and finding they are your edits. There are thousands of movies on this site. I'm not going to waste my time hunting through those thousands of movies just looking for ones that you falsely edited!

It is entirely improper for you to be using citations like that Variety list that you don't have; I've seen that again just weeks ago you've edited some of those same incorrect citations (adding "US and Canada"), knowing that when you posted them earlier they were just something you'd randomly chosen. And now you expect others to clean them up for you? I see that you were blocked from editing Wikipedia once before for just this type of thing with music pages. I suggest that it's YOUR responsibility to go back through your own editing history or whatever list you used to choose those movies and remove all those false citations that you yourself posted. It's not my place nor anyone else's to sit around and clean up your mess.

I'll let you know when I stumble on one of them here or there, as I've been doing. But it seems clear that I'm just hitting the tip of an iceberg, and the iceberg is YOUR problem to fix. Addypreston (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That said, I've seen that you are doing a lot of good work with your editing too, and I will help as much as possible when I have time to do so. If you are unsure whether certain movies are on that Oct 1990 Variety list, you can send me lists of title/year and I can check and let you know whether they are on it and the correct page citation to use. It may sometimes take a few days, but I can do a dozen or two at a time.

In the meantime, what do you think of the idea of adding a column to those tables in the "year in film" pages? Use the headings "Domestic Rentals" and "Worldwide Rentals", since we have both for many of the movies, and just leave one column blank when we just have one number or the other? I see that there was just some editing back and forth on It Happened One Night for exactly that lack of clarity. Should we try mocking it up on one of the years to see how it looks and works? Is that something you'd like to try? Or shall I try the mock-up? Addypreston (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Addypreston, I wouldn't like to mock-up if I were you, but thanks again for replying to me. Keep up the good work. 1996Larry (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Addypreston, here are the films still on the top 10 grossers lists that I want you to let me know if they are on the 1990 Variety list or not:

1919 - Male and Female

1920 - Over the Hill to the Poorhouse, The Mark of Zorro

1921 - Orphans of the Storm, Little Lord Fauntleroy

1922 - Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood, When Knighthood Was in Flower

1923 - Scaramouche, Little Old New York

1924 - Monsieur Beaucaire, The Iron Horse

1925 – Don Q - Son of Zorro, Little Annie Rooney, Madame Sans-Gêne

1926 – Old Ironsides, The Black Pirate, The Cohens and the Kellys

1929 – Welcome Danger

1940 – North West Mounted Police

1941 – In The Navy 1996Larry (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

1919 Male and Female... 1.2m p. M-170

1920 Mark of Zorro 2.5m p.M-172

1921 Orphans... 1.8m p. M-176

(the Little Lord Fauntleroy in the list is dated 1936)

1923 "Robin Hood" (starring Douglas Fairbanks) 2.5m p. M-182

1923 Scaramouche $1m p.M-182

1924 Monsieur... $3.5m p M-172

1925 Don Q... $2m p. M-154

1926 Black Pirate 2m p.M-146

1940 Northwest Mounted... 2.5m p.M-176

1941 In the Navy 2m p. M-166

The others are not in the list.... Addypreston (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, Addypreston. I'll start editing the film lists right now. 1996Larry (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Addypreston, do you have any idea if the films The Son of the Sheik (1926) and Buck Privates (1941) are in the 1990 Variety list? Reply to me whenever you get a chance. 1996Larry (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Son of the Sheik $2m p.M-186

Buck Privates $2m p.M-148 Addypreston (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again, Addypreston. Son of the Sheik and Buck Privates were re-released in 1937 and 1948, respectively, according to IMDB, so they would have reached their $2 million grosses by then. 1996Larry (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Springtime in the Rockies 1942 is not in the 1990 Variety list. Your "Revision as of 11:54, 31 August 2020" deleted the Solomon book citation which was accurate and replaced it with the Variety citation that does not exist. You should switch it back to the Solomon citation. Addypreston (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

(Solomon has 3.5m) Addypreston (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Addypreston. I will switch it back right now. 1996Larry (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Addypreston, are there are other films from 1932 in the 1990 Variety list? As you known, I already have The Sign of the Cross and A Farewell to Arms in the 1932 top 10 grossers list. 1996Larry (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to remind you as well, the Variety 1990 list gives the grosses for Cecil B. DeMille's films The Buccaneer and North West Mounted Police as $2 million and $2.5 million, respectively, but the book Cecil B. DeMille's Hollywood by Robert Birchard does not actually give the grosses for either film. Now that is puzzling. 1996Larry (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I see several films from 1932 in that list, but I've got the Mannix ledger down as my primary source for a bunch of them. Besides Farewell to Arms, I also have The Big Broadcast and Shanghai Express at $1m with Variety as my primary source, which is probably that 1990 issue, but could be from earlier issues. I can check if you need a citation. Also have Back Street at $900,000 from Variety, but that's most likely from a different issue.

Regarding DeMille, not puzzling, as the accounting notes used in the Birchard book were from DeMille's secretary and those notes only went from 1925 to 1928. There were a few numbers from later movies in the text that were from other sources, but a lot of gaps. Addypreston (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Just checked from my own curiosity. All 3 of those movies, The Big Broadcast (1m), Shanghai Express (1m), and Back Street (0.9m) are from the Oct 1990 Variety issue. Back Street is one of the few exceptions where they listed something at under $1 million, but there's another 1961 Back Street at $3m, so it may have been to avoid misinterpretation. Addypreston (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Two thumbs up on changing the headings to "Domestic Rentals"! Well done. Addypreston (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Addypreston. George Lucas' Blockbusting book says that Shanghai Express earned $1.5 million in worldwide rentals, while the website pre-code.com gives its domestic earnings as $800,000. 1996Larry (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Blockbusting on p.164 has Shanghai Express with "Domestic Box Office Revenues" at $1.8m. (They also adjust it to 2005 dollars for comparison, but I omitted that here.) Note that the 1.8m is their adjustment from rentals to "Box Office". They explain in the beginning of the book that from 1930 into the 80's they use a fixed ratio of 45-55%, with 45% being the rental fee to the distributor. So that translates to $810,000 in rentals (45% of 1.8m), which corresponds to that pre-code website you also mention. In the narrative on p.165, Blockbusting also states the $1.5 million in worldwide rentals, which implies about $700,000 foreign. That's in the right ballpark when you compare it to the domestic/foreign ratio from some of the ledgers of the time (Mannix, Schaefer...). Addypreston (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, Addypreston. Anyway, keep up the good work and enjoy the rest of your weekend. 1996Larry (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Addypreston, I was wondering if you could locate the foreign and total worldwide rentals for The Fighting 69th. I believe the domestic rentals it earned were $1,822,000. 1996Larry (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Schaefer ledger has dom 1.822m + foreign 491,000 = total 2.313m for The Fighting Sixty-Ninth (1939-1940 release year) Addypreston (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again, Addypreston. Any idea if there are other films from 1934 in the 1990 Variety list? I've got all the 1934 films with reliable references in the top 10 grossers list of that year so far. 1996Larry (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

And, I was wondering if you could locate the domestic rentals for the 1943 film Hitler's Children. Make sure to reply to me whenever you get a chance. 1996Larry (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 2022, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aitch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 2022, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Get Rollin'.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

CS1 error on 1961 in film

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1961 in film, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (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) 12:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 2023, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Birdy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Australian charts

I have never once seen you update Australian chart peaks on here... can I ask why you immediately updated the number one the minute the charts were released? [1] It would have gotten done within the next few minutes. Not saying you did anything wrong, but you don't need to rush to do it when you don't ordinarily touch Australian chart information. Ss112 07:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, Ss112. I wouldn't normally update Australian chart peaks unless I come across information on the website. Thanks for getting in contact with me anyway. 1996Larry (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

List of UK top-ten singles in 2023

Hi 1996Larry. I can see someone's discussed this with you previously, but why are you updating this page before the UK chart is announced on a Friday afternoon (e.g., adding new entries to the top 10)? While there are chart updates published, this is all just speculation (i.e., not fact) until the official chart is announced on a Friday. AlligatorSky (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, AlligatorSky. Thanks very much for reminding me about updating the List of UK top-ten singles in 2023 page. In future, I'll only update the page after the chart is announced every Friday. 1996Larry (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. You said that you were going to stop updating the page before the chart was announced on a Friday (as it's not fact until then), but you're still editing the page with speculative updates... AlligatorSky (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@AlligatorSky My apologies, AlligatorSky. It looks more than likely Kenya Grace will go to number-one on Friday, but as for the other songs, where they may end up, I don't know. Thanks for getting in touch. Kind regards. 1996Larry (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

But why add songs to this page at all (and update the other tables on the page accordingly) before the chart is announced on a Friday? The page should reflect fact, and you are presumably updating this based on information from midweek chart information; which is all subject to change until the chart is published on a Friday. AlligatorSky (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@AlligatorSky You're right there, AlligatorSky. No one can be sure where songs will exactly end up until the chart is announced. From now on, I'll only edit the top ten singles page AFTER the chart is announced on Fridays, and I'll keep my promise. 1996Larry (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are you still doing it? AlligatorSky (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

AlligatorSky, "All I Want For Christmas Is You" and "Last Christmas" usually re-enter the top 10 in the first week of December, but as for the other Xmas hits, no one knows where they are going to end up. Songs usually get into the top 10 nowadays because of streaming. If a song was number-one on iTunes, but not in the Spotify charts at all, I wouldn't add it to the 2023 top-ten singles page. I am so sorry if I didn't keep my promise to you. Besides, most of the top 10 singles from this period of late 2023 will almost certainly re-enter the top 10 in the second week of 2024. New Christmas releases generally don't chart as high as the classics do. From today, I'll keep my promise and will only edit the top 10 singles pages after 5:45pm every Friday. 1996Larry (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You're still doing it now, please stop. AlligatorSky (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@AlligatorSky Yes, AlligatorSky. I AM still doing it. Thanks for getting in touch. 1996Larry (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Why though, when you've repeatedly said you're going to stop? AlligatorSky (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Editing pages on Wikipedia is, for me, like an addiction, AlligatorSky. It's not always easy to keep your promises. The reality is, it's not every week that songs enter the top 10. Anyway, thanks for messaging me back. Sorry if I let it slip too often when editing. 1996Larry (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of UK top-ten albums in 2023, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Order.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)