User talk:Chie one
|This is Chie one's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Chie one.|
- 1 Hi Chie one! Drop by the Teahouse anytime!
- 2 Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
- 3 Disambiguation link notification for April 29
- 4 Adele
- 5 1974 FIFA World Cup Final
- 6 Alan Turing
- 7 Opinion requested
- 8 STOP removing content from Julie Andrews' page
- 9 Adele again
- 10 Chaplin v. Keaton
- 11 November 2013
- 12 Disambiguation link notification for November 23
- 13 Disambiguation link notification for December 3
- 14 Talkback
- 15 Handel in place of Purcell
- 16 Performing Arts/Folklore
- 17 BAFTA
- 18 Disambiguation link notification for May 26
- 19 Greetings and Salutations
- 20 Please check your facts
- 21 Disambiguation link notification for October 4
- 22 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 23 Disambiguation link notification for September 7
- 24 Blocked for sockpuppetry
- 25 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hi Chie one! Drop by the Teahouse anytime!
Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!
J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Message sent with Global message delivery.
Hi. When you recently edited Culture of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amplification (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi, How you doing today? I noticed you reverted an edit to BLP of Adele. I am not the editor who made the change that you reverted. However, I am in the opinion that the edit you reverted was actually a constructive and previously referenced and included genre in the article in question. You may reference citation 103, regarding grammy awards won by this artist. The award in question is pop/rock artist. It is included under the heading 21. This brings me to my question...if Adele is NOT a pop artist, as per your revert and "correction"....Are we to surmise that you claim that she is a rock artist? Please address this question and please cite some reference that reliable and verifiable. It would also be constructive if you would review the article completely making changes which are correct, accurate, constructive and are in agreeance with your recent change. Your assistance and discussion of your opinion would be greatly appreciated. I will await your response and will continue to monitor this article, its talk page and any edits that are made daily. Thank you.22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for adding some references to the 1974 FIFA World Cup Final article. For future reference, though, you might want to try not beginning your edit from an old version of the article. I've restored the content you accidentally deleted, so no need to worry this time, but just make sure you're more careful in the future. – PeeJay 00:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Since I know that you edit the areas in question, I would like to point you to a open RfC that I think your opinion would be helpful I honestly do not think this is considered canvassing, I hope. Thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 17:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
STOP removing content from Julie Andrews' page
You are removing the sentences that cover the prime years of Andrews' career. I have reverted you 2 or 3 times. If you do this again I will report you to the noticeboard.Shipofcool (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Chaplin v. Keaton
With all due respect, "listening to Kermode" is not quite as good as reading multiple books on Chaplin. The fact that Keaton is more popular with film audiences today (note I didn't say "more famous" - that's irrelevant, since even if everyone's heard of Chaplin not many of them have seen his films) is acknowledged in all 4 of those Chaplin books that were referenced. The comment was well sourced, and to books that in theory should be biased towards Chaplin! I'm biased towards Chaplin myself (I love both him and Keaton, but CC is tops for me) but can still accept that his popularity has generally fallen behind Buster's... --Loeba (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, can you please explain why you think Mark Kermode's opinion on Chaplin is more accurate than for example Brownlow's (read up on him if you are unfamiliar with his work, he is considered to be the leading expert when it comes to especially silent film) or Schickel's (again, he is much more of an authority on film history than Kermode) research? And also, please give us a source where Kermode even talks about this. We cannot base edits on Wikipedia on what you say you have heard, I'm sure you're aware of that.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zinedine Zidane may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Éder Aleixo de Assis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free-kick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Culture of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Ramsey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Handel in place of Purcell
Would you be in favour of swapping Handel in place of Purcell? If so, please could you make the change? If not I can do it, but it'd probably look better if you were the one to make the change, given all of my previous revisions. :)
What I meant was that I understand the Royal Albert Hall photo is linked to the Performing Arts section, but it's displaying entirely within the folklore section at the moment. Take a look. The replacement photo was suitable for the folklore section. Merry Christmas!
I'm not sure you're understanding the point I'm trying to make. Have a look at where the image of the Royal Albert Hall is located. Despite the fact that it has been coded to display in the Performing Arts section, the reality is that it's displaying in the Folklore section (which it shouldn't be doing). As the Royal Albert Hall photograph isn't necessarily of massive importance to the page (though if you feel differently I'm happy to accept that), my proposal was to replace it with a photo that fits nicely into the Folklore section (the fairy portrait).
I realise that, ideally, the fairy photo should be coded into the folklore section and not the Performing Arts section, but if we do this, it's going to cause formatting issues further down the page (it will push several images downwards, and into the wrong section).
So once more, would you be okay with replacing the RAH photo with the fairy photo, to correct this issue?
Interesting, then it must just be my monitor. Merry Christmas!
Actually they are separate categories hence why they have separate pages on Wikipedia and that is the way it will stay. If you want to see the nominees and winners for the defunct category of Best British Actress see the page BAFTA Award for Best British Actress. HesioneHushabye (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Um no I will request that YOU are blocked. The BAFTA page YOU are vandalizing has been that way for over a year and there is no need to change it just because you feel the Best British and Best Foreign Awards should be on the same page. The format used on the page is the same you will find on every 'Best Actress' page on Wikipedia including Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role etc. HesioneHushabye (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
yeah and you apparently can't read because it fully explained at the top of the BAFTA Best Actress page to potential readers quite clearly that the nominees and winners listed from 1952-1968 were called " Best Foreign " and that there is a different page for winners of "Best British Actress" = it's not that complicated to keep the pages separate as they will stay.
The Best Actress page doesn't have to look like the Best Actor page. it looks like every other Best Actress page on Wikipedia. The nominees and winners for Best British Actress are listed on their own page, and if you took the time to read what is listed at the top of the page, all of this is clearly explained and simple to follow, as users and readers have thought so and kept it that way since I made it that way a long, long time ago. The page is now protected so you can no longer change things. Move on, and happy editing :) HesioneHushabye (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
it's funny how you are saying the nominees and winners are not included at all, when they very well are, on their own page! and it's noted at the top of the Best Actress page that the nominees and winners from 1952-1967 are the "Best Foreign" Nominees and Winners, a mere title of a category that is all lead actress performances. Your mere wish to have both categories on one page and have it look like the Best Actor page is silly and cosmetic and not needed when the separate page BAFTA Award for Best British Actress already exists. HesioneHushabye (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Your reasoning makes no sense. it's purely cosmetic. Having them separate makes the page cleaner and less confusing and it's all outlined at the top of the page. The information on the BAFTA site and what's on the page are infact the same. Your whining about the pages being separate is silly and no other users or editors have complained since I created the new pages and tables a long time ago. The nominees for "Best British Actress" are clearly less relevant and less known than the ones nominated for Best Foreign Actress HesioneHushabye (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Olympic Stadium (Tokyo), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Greetings and Salutations
I'd just like to let you know you do a good job here on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work!
Please check your facts
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Culture of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carter. 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.
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I recently updated the economy section of London with recent stats from reliable and multiple sources. May I ask which part was not formatted properly as you have removed the entire para while I sourced pretty much all of what I wrote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciybersal (talk • contribs) 21:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Culture of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Band Aid. 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.
Blocked for sockpuppetry
|This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chie one. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text