Dickclarkfan1

Welcome!

Hello, Dickclarkfan1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Eccleston and my user page

Hello. I'm sorry that you seem to have taken offence to my removal of your edit to Christopher Eccleston. However, the fact is that Christopher Eccleston had made the decision to leave Doctor Who before the first episode of the new series even aired, which means that the show's popularity cannot have been a factor in his decision to leave. Furthermore, even if this had been the case, without a citation from an interview with Eccleston or some other notable person, any discussion of his reasons for leaving the programme is purely speculative, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and we can report speculative theories only if they've been published in a notable secondary source. In the context of Doctor Who, this would mean the British press, fan magazines like Doctor Who Magazine or SFX, or (in some, limited cases) reliable fan websites such as Outpost Gallifrey (the site itself, not its forum). If you can provide such a citation, please feel free to restore the deleted text.

I should also mention that the attitude you've displayed in your edit to my user page is not particularly helpful. First of all, it's considered somewhat rude to write messages on another user's page; if you wish to communicate, please use the user talk page. It's also considered rude to type in ALL CAPITALS — this is usually interpreted as shouting. Wikipedia has a policy of civility. If you have a disagreement with another user, the appropriate course of action is a polite note on the user's talk page, not a shouted command on their user page. Your edits to my user page and Arwel Parry's could be interpreted as vandalism. Please do not do this again.

Finally, I'd like to draw your attention to the notice at the bottom of the page every time you make an edit: it says, in bold letters, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you wish to participate in it it is necessary to have give-and-take with other users. This means that no one user owns a page or any part thereof; pages are edited by consensus. I notice that when you reinserted your comment on Christopher Eccleston, another user removed it. This may suggest that there is a consensus not to include speculation about his motives for leaving Doctor Who. However, if you feel that you are being persecuted, you may bring the issue up on the talk page. I promise that if there is a consensus supporting your addition, I will respect it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong impression about the role of administrators on Wikipedia. Administrators are not a different class of editor, with the sole responsibility of removing vandalism. We are editors, just like every other user, except with a few additional tools at our disposal. Administrators are expected and encouraged to continue the normal work of editors, in addition to fighting vandals and cleaning up after them. Please read Wikipedia:Administrators.

When I removed your addition to the Eccleston article, it was not in my role as an administrator. I did not use the administrator's revert (which generates an automatic script, "Reverted edits by User:soandso to last version by User:suchandsuch"). I removed the comments, with an explanation of my reasoning in the edit summary. If I had used the administrator's rollback revert, you might have an argument for saying that I was abusing my role, since the rollback tool is intended for vandalism. However, I did not treat your edit as vandalism — I treated it as a good-faith edit which was, unfortunately, neither accurate nor verifiable (to the best of my knowledge). Saying, "If I edit something in an article or create an article, its contents are ALWAYS validated by one sourse [sic] or fans" is not good enough, I'm afraid. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, and the burden of proof is on the editor who adds information to show a citation supporting it if it is challenged. If you do have a source for your edit, please provide it.

As for the content of the edit, it is true that the news of Eccleston's departure was not leaked until after "Rose" aired. However, the decision for him to leave was made earlier, and I believe he had even filmed his last scene by the time the programme aired. If you doubt my information, we can discuss this at Talk:Christopher Eccleston; indeed, I encourage you to do this. There are many editors who are very knowledgeable about Doctor Who, and I'm sure any of them will be able to clarify the chronology for you.

Finally, I hope that you understand that my removal of your addition was not personal. It was about the information, not you. Please try to keep cool. I did not "do something to your work without telling you". I used the edit summary to explain my reasons, which is widely considered an appropriate course of action. It was not necessary or appropriate for you to take umbrage — I did not attack you, and did nothing inappropriate. I hope that if you feel the need to continue this discussion, either on our talk pages or at Talk:Christopher Eccleston, you will remain civil and cool. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll "take it to [my] superiors"? Who would that be — the arbitration committee? Because I can guarantee the ArbCom would laugh at this case. I will continue to use my judgement about edits, just as any Wikipedia editor does. And I will respect the policies on consensus and verifiability. (By the way, have you read any of the links I've provided here? I'm not just spouting my own opinions. Everything I've said here is backed up by Wikipedia policy.)

I'm not sure what "blog" you're referring to, but I never claimed to be a Doctor Who expert, just a reasonably knowledgeable fan. It was not my intent to damage your "creditbility" [sic], just to make sure that the article contains verifiable and accurate information. If you are concerned about the article, discuss it on the article's talk page. If you are concerned about my behavior, you may bring it up with other administrators at the administrators' noticeboard. However, I will ignore any further "warnings" on my talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You can sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes, like this:~~~~. The system software will automatically convert it to a signature and timestamp.

If you look at my contributions you will see that I have been editing Doctor Who articles on Wikipedia for some time. I won't go out of my way to check up on your edits, but I will not alter my watchlist or editing habits just because your nose is out of joint. Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've just read your comment on my talk page. I have to say that I fully endorse Josiah's comments. In the case of my reversion, firstly, please note that I did not use any Admin functions to remove your edit, I made the same sort of edit as any other Wikipedia user can. Secondly, saying "Many US fans of Doctor Who believe..." is inherently unverifiable and should be removed - how many is "many"? Thirdly, one of my cousins has been involved in the Welsh television industry for nearly forty years, latterly owning her own production company - I dare say that she is much better informed about what went on at BBC Wales than you are. -- Arwel (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if your cousin is Prime Minister Tony Blair himself. For all you know, I may have someone on the inside that actually WORKS on the show. So I think that trumps your "cousin" extremely. BTW, my counterpart in Canada is an expert on Canadian and British TV, who is this "cousin" of yours and what is the name of her production company? Dickclarkfan1 15:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to produce verifiable information about what you are trying to put in an article - that's for you to produce. "For all I know..." about you - precisely, I know damn all about you because you have totally failed to provide any information about yourself whatsoever on your user page, and could be anyone from a high-school fan to Walter Cronkite (though I suspect you are nearer the former); I will not give much more weight to the opinions of a "red link" user than I would to an anonymous IP address. Why should I defend myself against your claimed experience? You say you write for a living, but from the experience of what you have written on various peoples' and articles' talk pages in the last 24 hours you seem to specialise in producing words which do not exist in the English language, e.g. "creditbility" and "sourse", and to be unable to produce a coherent argument beyond "don't touch what I have written because I am always right" — nobody, not even the Pope these days, claims to be infallible and I point out the notice which appears below the edit box every time you edit: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". If you are unable to follow the rules of Wikipedia, including verifiability, civilty, and no personal attacks, then I suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for you. As to who my cousin is, since she's not agreed to be dragged into a Wikipedia argument then I'll not name her, but she certainly exists and has been producing programmes for Welsh TV since the 1970s, and the company is still active in the Welsh "fflics" even though it was recently bought out by another group. -- Arwel (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words, her company was on the verge of being bankrupt, and she had to sell to save her arse. Good, then I don't have to worry about writing her arse to see if you're telling the truth. As for what I share about myself, you haven't EARNED the right to be privy to my life. All you need to know is that i'm one of the top people of what I do. And quite a few of the other top people have read your little remarks, and they are pissed as well now, AT YOU, NOT ME.

The moral of the story: Don't edit something that is true, if you don't want a fight. Dickclarkfan1 04:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oooh! Scary! Grow up. You have only proven that you know absolutely nothing of which you write. My cousin is now very well set up for her old age, since she's already old enough to qualify for a free bus pass. Meanwhile your credibility (and certainly not "creditbility") is zero. I will not waste any more time talking to a brick wall, other than to copy this to your talk page so the others can see what an idiot you are. This correspondence is closed. -- 07:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Stay Cool, please

In your comments on Josiah Rowe's Talk Page you appear to have left some vaguely threatening and discourteous messages. These are contrary to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia, and I would urge you to read the official policies on Civility and No Personal Attacks. Additionally, take a look at "Staying cool when the editing gets hot". Please understand that many other editors have felt as you, that their additions weren't being given appropriate consideration. I can assure you that is not the case here; Josiah is a scrupulously considerate editor. Your contributions are definitely worthwhile and appreciated; and along with all the thousands of other editors here everyday, are adding to the cumulative good. Likewise, Josiah is attempting to make whatever information that's on Wikipedia the most accurate it can be, and that might include editing certain articles or sections you have written. You may wish to take a breather and re-read what you've said to Josiah, and consider an apology for what is perhaps a misunderstanding.

Finally, do note that blanking your Talk Page, while not against policy, is generally frowned upon, as it makes it appear you wish to hide a discussion. Thus, three editors (myself included) have reverted the blanking. The appropriate means to move legitimate conversations would be to archive them. Please see: How to archive a talk page—Leflyman^Talk 10:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Its also frowned upon, and pisses off a lot of people, when someone edits your work, when you know its accurate - you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claim. Over the years there have been plenty of things that I have believed with utmost surety to be true and then discovered that I was completely wrong about. Wikipedia cannot accept anyone's speculation without something to back it up. Also please realise that your work (and everyone's) work WILL almost certaimly be edited mercilessly at some point and that this is something you just have to get used to. Jooler 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• As Jooler mentioned, when a controversy arises, Wikipedia required proof of assertions— even if you know what you write to be accurate. Take a look at Verifiability and Citing Sources. Thanks, and good luck. —Leflyman^Talk 18:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

At 04:43 (UTC), you wrote the following at User talk:Arwel Parry:

"The moral of the story: Don't edit something that is true, if you don't want a fight."

It is clear that you have not read, or at least have not understood, Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'll draw your attention to one section in particular: Verifiability, not truth. In that section, the criterion is clearly explained:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

The material you added to Christopher Eccleston did not seem verifiable, so it was removed. If you have a reliable source for that information, please add it and/or discuss it at Talk:Christopher Eccleston. However, this continual bickering with other editors is not productive. We're all here to build an encyclopedia, not to fight or to establish dominance. So why don't we drop the posturing and get back to work?

You have explained your opinion of the edit adequately. If you wish to discuss it with other editors, please do so at Talk:Christopher Eccleston. If you are unhappy with the behavior of any of the editors who have tried to explain Wikipedia policy to you, you may complain at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If your only reason for continuing to comment on this matter is a bruised ego, I suggest that you get over it. Arwel and I have explained that the edit was not about you, but about the article and Wikipedia policies. If you cannot abide by those policies (including Wikipedia:Civility) you may not wish to continue contributing.

Finally, I am obliged to point out one more policy to you: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, in particular the section on user pages. Although the 3RR policy is not usually enforced regarding edits to one's own user page, the policy also states:

"It is usually considered bad form to remove comments (other than personal attacks) from your Talk page except to archive them."

The comments on this page do not constitute personal attacks. Please do not continue to remove them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Blanking

Please stop blanking your talk page. Since you are currently engaged in a dispute with other editors, the presence of those comments is necessary so that others are aware of the controversy. I don't know the content of the dispute, I have been watching your talk page since I welcomed you a month ago. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you should probably try to be more civil with other editors. We're all working on this encyclopedia together. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia:Talk page#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?, which makes it clear that talk page blanking is discouraged. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the same as the legal community. The distinction between legal/illegal outside of wikipedia is not the same as "allowed by the rules"/"against the rules" on wikipedia. \"Rules" insofar as they exist on wikipedia are reflective of community attitudes that are well established. You say that you are entitled to violate wikipedia's social norms because those norms are not codified into rules, but this is to misunderstand the process of wikipedia. Community practice is a stronger constraint than the rules, not the other way round. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Regarding this edit: [1]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page and/or replace it with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete the RollerJam page?

You wrote: "That page didn't violate ANY copywrites. Those rules were the offical rules of RollerJam, and were taken from RollerJam's website, when it was still available. I happened to have printed the rules out and typed them up for the article. I don't like someone coming in and deleting my work when I know I was not violating any copywrites. And that geocities page you quoted in the delete, is a Fan page, it not protected by any copywrite laws. Dickclarkfan1 02:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)"

As you admitted, you copied the rules from RollerJam's website. That is a copyright violation. And fan pages, and indeed any written copy anywhere on the web, are indeed protected by copyright. It didn't matter to me if your text was copied from the RollerJam website or a fan site, either way it is a copyright violation and not allowed at Wikipedia. For more info, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on copyright--it doesn't matter if RollerJam doesn't exist anymore, their copyright stands. And I'm not responsible for the copyright violation by the fan website, only for Wikipedia not publishing copyright violations. Finally, the Roller Derby article does not violate copyright as long as the text of the article isn't copied from elsewhere b/c no one can copyright an idea or name (that would be the realm of patents and trademarks).--Alabamaboy 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

citation tag

I actually didn't see a problem with the specific sentence on the Bob Wise that you wrote but later removed. I have moved the citation needed tag to the exact point that could use a source. Its good to see another editor interested in WV topics. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

PS - Good catch on the Cecil Underwood page. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'll do an archive search of the DM next time I'm at the library. The citation tag will remind me. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 00:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? (game show)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Stop removing stuff from Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? (game show). Mr.T99 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Gallop Racer

I've reverted your removal of the {{unreferenced}} tag on this article, because it still does not have any references. Cheers Kevin 05:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you would. The article is unbiased, I created it, I searched the content honestly, checked it many time for flaws, so I don't see the problem Dickclarkfan1 05:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy that all article content must be verified by reference to reliable sources. If you created and researched it then there should be no problem adding references to it. Cheers Kevin 05:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and found heaps of good references so if I get time tonight I'll start. Kevin 06:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added one citation, and removed the tag. Cheers Kevin 23:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of current NASCAR races

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of current NASCAR races, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current NASCAR races. Thank you. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 15:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpage edits

Don't edit other people's userpages without their consent - it's considered disruptive. If you want to leave a message for a user use their talk page. Hut 8.5 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki - the whole point is that people can change other people's work. They are generally expected to cite some reason if asked, but this user did. Hut 8.5 21:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kumite

As Hut8.5 noted above, please use my talk page to contact me, and refrain from vague threats. The article was redirected because it is based on a fictional movie. I did not nominate it for deletion because some of the content was salvagable. I understand as the author you feel inclined to keep the article as is, but if you look at the page Kumite is redirected to (List of fictional martial arts), then you will see how unncessary it is to create a page for an isolated event within a fictional universe. If you can prove its verifiability, i'm happy to look at a sandbox with you to recreate the article. Also, please note the Kumite tournament is mentioned on Kumite, which is a section you may wish to add to. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Carmen Sandiego

But why do you think this is bad on the Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego? page:

One reason fans of the original World didn't like the Time version as much was the elimination of Greg Lee, Rockapella and much of the comedy and skits that made the World edition very popular.

Just be real calm and not so darn strong to me, because you're dealing with someone who has autism. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't know

Dickclarkfan1 (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Marilena Carpathia

I have nominated Marilena Carpathia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilena Carpathia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ridernyc (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article The Day the Music Died, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. That story about Dion has been added--and removed--from this page at least once. Unless I'm missing something, it can't be true: that 1947 Bonanza was a four-place aircraft; he would have had no place to sit! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Dion DiMucci

Actually that story IS true, and is printed in Dion's own autobiography, and is also listed under his own personal entry on wikipedia as well as the entry for Dion and The Belmonts.

The point of editing Wikipedia is to improve it; introducing factual errors does not help. I can write an autobiography that says I cured the common cold but that doesn't make it so.

Hopefully, we're all trying to do the same thing here so, if you will please help me to understand where the fifth person was to sit in a four-place airplane, I'm willing to discuss it. Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 07:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please reply here, so we can keep the discussion in one piece. I'll be watching the page. Thank you! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 07:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dion DiMucci never mentions in his autobiography exactly when during that day, he was approached to join the flight. He DOES however mentions that he was indeed approached to join the flight, and refused because he couldn't bring himself to pay the $36 cost of the flight.

Your statement saying that Dion couldn't be on a plane that only seats three passengers, in addition to the pilot, is correct. However, we know for fact, by Dion's own admission, that he was asked did he want a seat on that plane.

Based on Dion's own statement, we can assume that Buddy Holly's original plan was for all three headliners to join Buddy on the flight. If the above is indeed true, then we can assume that Dion was the first headliner approached to join the flight. When Dion refused, then Buddy changed the plan, and chose to take his bandmates on the flight instead. Dickclarkfan1 (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know it's true because we weren't there. Nevertheless, if we are to take Dion's word at face value, the text in this article needs to be reworked so it doesn't sound like, just before the flight took off--with four people in the plane--someone asked Dion to get on board.

If you can figure how to word it so it addresses this issue, I think I can live with it, although it would be interesting for any other interested party to weigh in here. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 08:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how about this:

"Dion DiMucci of Dion and the Belmonts was approached to join the flight as well, however, it is unknown when during that day or night, Dion was approached. Dion decided that he could not afford the $36 cost of the flight because this was the same monthly rent his parents paid for his childhood apartment, and Dion decided he couldn't justify the indulgence." Dickclarkfan1 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that sounds pretty good; I'd suggest a slightly different wording:

Dion DiMucci of Dion and the Belmonts was approached to join the flight, although it is unclear exactly when he was asked. Dion decided that, since the $36 cost of the flight was the same as the monthly rent his parents paid for his childhood apartment, he couldn't justify the indulgence.

I think that flows a little more smoothly. What do you think? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 09:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll buy that Dickclarkfan1 (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm fine with it, too. Sounds like we're in agreement. Cool! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 10:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of the Minor Edit flag

Hi, sorry to keep bothering you but I wanted to ask that you use the "minor edit" checkbox more sparingly in the future. In the article, The_Day_the_Music_Died, you made five "minor" edits, at least three of which don't meet the "minor" test.

The guidelines (from WP:MINOR) are (emphasis added):

A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions: typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m).

By contrast, a major edit is one that should be reviewed for its acceptability to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit concerns a single word; for example, the addition or removal of "not", which can change the meaning of a sentence, is a major edit.

The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If there is any chance that another editor might dispute a change, it is best not to mark the edit as minor.

A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor edits.

Thank you for your help with this! (If you wish to reply to me, please do so here--I'll be watching the page.) — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 07:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a mistake on my part. I add something to an article, and then realize when I save it, that I need to add something else to it. I don't mean to do edit after edit, but when your memory runs like mine, you tend to forget certain things, when you're writing. Dickclarkfan1 (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dickclarkfan1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Knock Out (tabletop game)

The article Knock Out (tabletop game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this board game passes WP:GNG.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)