User talk:Finlay McWalter/archive13

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good Job

Thanks for this [1] Malaylampur (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

I removed this link entirely; didn't belong anywhere in the article and was definitely spam. Nate • (chatter) 22:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was pondering doing the same. If he'd added it in more places then I'd definitely have done so. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 08:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Debbie McGee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page One-liner. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

We177

It was a temporary exhibition. I would assume they hold one but I can't be sure.©Geni (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Apology

I'm really sorry. It was a gag for my friend and I was going to change it back once he saw it. I had no intention of causing anyone any trouble, but I now see the error of my ways. Thank you, it won't happen again. Whitest of Rice (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ramal Cosntitucion - Talca

Thanks for your help in improving the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.20.240 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Collapse tags

I don't understand, what am I doing wrong with the collapse tags, and how do I do it right? When I look at the page after I put the tags on, I don't see the problem you are saying it causes - ie I see only the off-topic conversation collapsed, everything that comes after {{Collapse bottom}} appears perfectly normally to me. This conversation definitely needs to be collapsed, The ANI report was on Hullabaloo and his editing of Erpert's comments in Erpert's filing for a request for closure of an AfD, and Hullabaloo violating AGF by accusing Erpert of "canvassing" in his filing of the request for closure. The conversation I hatted was an accusation that a User named Unscintillating was canvassing in a completely different Afd. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Hullabaloo or Erpert, or Hullabaloo's actions in the request for closure, therefore it was completely off-topic and therefore collapsing all the comments was the best idea. If someone wants to accuse Unscintillating of canvassing, they should do so in a separate report. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. When I looked at the page post your edit, most of it was gone - which is usually a symptom either of someone nesting hat/hab tags, or of someone simply not closing one. But looking at the stored version, that's not the case. It may be (as does sometimes happen) that the javascript which does hatting wasn't served (to me, presumably) leading to the appearance of the snafu. I've reverted myself, so hopefully things should look as you expect. I've no opinion as to the appropriateness of whether or what should be hatted in this case. I'm sorry for the cock-up. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)