Welcome to my talk page. Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started. If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page and do not post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page. To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.

CuriousEric is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

MoS doesn't say that this is preferred, and the fact that many similar articles perpetrate certain practices is no argument that they should not be changed. The problem with the construction you have reverted to is that it stresses "the present", which is a moving target and looks more exposed when, say, Clapton retires and the fact is not immediately recorded in this construction. At least "Since 1963" is less forthright in its construction of "the present", even if it may need to be updated just the same. Tony (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the matter at MoS talk. Tony (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:OTHERDATE does say the form "1996–present" is preferred in infoboxes." When Clapton retires, "Since 1963" is just as inaccurate as "1963–present", and I expect it will be corrected in short order. I've also posted my comments below at MoS talk:

The word "present" is a moving target, but I expect it would get corrected promptly as soon as it becomes incorrect. It's slightly easier to edit "1996–present" to "1996–2009", than "Since 1996" to "1996–2006". Another reason I support the form "1996–present" for infoboxes is purely asthetic. If an artist has two or more ranges of "Years active" (such as Deep Purple), the form "1996–present" lines up nicer with the preceding line containing specific years:

1968–1976

1984–present

Since infoboxes are basically a summary of data, they need not be made into proper English such as "Since 1996". From a technical viewpoint, ranges of data are typically given as minimum-to-maximum, and "1996–present" (or even "1996–") falls into that format. Many infoboxes follow the current recommendation of "1996–present". If it changes, there would be a lot of editing to do. CuriousEric (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper English: no, but where there's a chance to save space by substituting proper English, why would you object? "Since 1996" is 10 characters; "1996–present" is 12.

On another matter, I note that you've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimi_Hendrix&diff=310293651&oldid=310167059 linked "Scandinavia" and "Germany". Please see WP:LINK concerning common geographical names. The question is whether these links, which dilute the many high-value links (to people, songs, albums, etc) are likely to be clicked on at all, and whether they would assist the reader. Tony (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TONY. Saving space is only important when not outweighed by other factors (which I've mentioned earlier). I have never seen a situation (such as within an infobox) where "1963–present" was too wide and caused a problem. I'm from the US, and didn't recall the exact location (and countries) of "Scandinavia", so I thought the link was useful. WP:LINK does recommend linking to "articles about geographic places that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers". A link to "Germany" could be questioned, but it wasn't linked earlier, and was relevent to his touring. Links to countries seem to be common in Wikipedia. Many articles about artists link to American, even though most readers probably know the location. As long as the "Germany" link didn't contribute to a "sea of blue", I thought it could be helpful. Personally I would rather leave (or add) a link that might be helpful to someone, as long as it doesn't seem to be overlinking. CuriousEric (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lee Dorman (broadcaster) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP that does not show encyclopedic notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod)) will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-09t18:05z 18:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeandré. I have no personal interest in the Lee Dorman (broadcaster) page. His information was inappropriate for the page of Lee Dorman (bassist of Iron Butterfly), so I moved it to his own page so it would not be lost. Would you mind notifying the user Leeudorman (talk) who originally added the Lee Dorman (broadcaster) information. Thanks. CuriousEric (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this edit? Each and every one of them is unsourced and the one about US is sourced in article. Certifications doesnot imply the album has sold that much. Please see FA articles on singles and albums. I'm going to revert such changes and expect that you don't do them. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision comment "removing sales" does not provide any reason. The "Sales/shipments" figures appear to be based on the certifications and multiplier for that particular country, which are sourced. Since the thresholds for similarly named certification in different countries vary, it is useful to see the sales numbers the certifications represent. The article Music recording sales certifications does state the awards are "based on the total units sold to retailers", hence the heading "Sales/shipments". Has there been any discussion or consensus about removing sales/shipments figures? Could you please refrain from deleting these figures until there is a discussion? CuriousEric (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate your reason for changing date formats here? Is "British date format for British artist" a Wikipedia policy, or did it simply seem common sense to you to change them? Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The date formats differ between American and British English. Wikipedia policy is use the date format that is strongly tied to the subject of the article, see WP:DATE. Since Black Sabbath is an English band, articles pertaining to Black Sabbath should use British formats for dates, and also the British spelling of words (colour not color, etc.). British date formats were already used in many Black Sabbath articles. I was following policy and making them all consistent. The formats for accessdate values can be one of several, including American, British, and yyyy-mm-dd. I changed the American format dates to whichever was mostly used in the article, British or yyyy-mm-dd. CuriousEric (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DATE gives a reason for changing the format, then immediately gives a reason for not changing the format, so I decided to ask you what your reason was. So, these changes reflect your understanding that "articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country" includes articles on citizens of one or another country and their organizations (or, if you prefer, "citisens" and "organisations")? Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. British date formats are also used for Eric Clapton, George Harrison, The Beatles, and The Rolling Stones for example. Consistency is also desirable. Since the British date format was used for the more popular Black Sabbath albums, it should be used for all of them. CuriousEric (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand what you're doing. Thanks for explaining, and have a happy New Year. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you too. CuriousEric (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've undone one of my edits. What section would you put this info in, then? Realistically, unless it's actually noted in some already published source by, say, a music critic, the only way to confirm this kind of information is to listen to both songs. It may be too much to ask of the rank & file, but collectors with copies of both albums, like myself, can confirm. Nonetheless, this kind of info is interesting to serious music aficionados (I've been at it for 35 years), and IMHO a place needs to be made for it. Pzzp (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably referring to the edit here. No offense intended, but the article is about the band Styx, not about the song "Suite Madame Blue". Your edit also falls under the category of original research which is against Wikipedia policy. CuriousEric (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I actually prefer to see a "-" to a "&ndash ;". Think about new users, they would be very confused looking at the code. But this is not really a big deal for me, I only change it 'cause I have a handy script. Happy New Year to you too.—indopug (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested an unofficial and preliminary article assessment; which is why all the images got initially erased - thanks for fighting for the ones that stayed! The only way to get this article raised is through extensive inline citations, from reliable sources. Until then, the article risks periodic butchering, esp. with images and uncited material. The whole article is basically uncited, so there's a rough road ahead... Doc9871 (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Happy New Year! CuriousEric (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check the newest "argument" on my talk page, where an editor named "Floydian" is desperately trying to rid the page of the newest image, claiming WP:NFCC policy number 3 (a). Basically, we have one image of The Doors, and no more are necessary. (Sigh)... Doc9871 (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse. Apparently, the "Image Police" have been sent out after a feverish rally, raping and pillaging articles of their images. Now, File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg is under assault at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_5. If you're available to vote, make your voice heard, so as to keep as many appropriate historic images of The Doors on WP as feasible! Your help is greatly appreciated for the common understanding of all WP viewers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed my vote, "keep". Thanks for the heads-up. CuriousEric (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping keep WP a site that improves with age... Doc9871 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your support on the Jim & Pam image! Sooooo tired of seeing deletionist admin editors using the same weak comments to delete images, especially those of deceased individuals. The rules (especially NFCC #8 are so vague - this is what allows this sort of ridiculous and subjective reasoning for image deletion. Anyway, thanks again, and if you want to see another interesting argument I brought up against the "image-killer horde", see the discussion [[1]] of File:Young Jim.jpg regarding whether or not it's appropriate to show Jim before he was famous(!) Doc9871 (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ...And thank you yet again for supporting the Jim Morrison image! Your vote locked the "No consensus", and it was great to see you back! When I saw the deletion discussion was closed and that you had weighed in, I was pleasantly surprised. I've "calmed down" my rhetoric since my last post above, but this is a perfect case where fair-use is preferable to a drawing. Every few months, someone who seeks out FU images for their destruction will pick on Jim, and I won't allow it because there exists the NFCC. If it were no free images, period, I could understand. Anyhoo, thanks again for sticking up for Jim, and keeping the article in better shape. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm just glad I saw it in time. I haven't been editing much lately. CuriousEric (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [2] and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a tough decision, but I went with Support of "the". CuriousEric^Talk 07:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The preference isn't very important to me. If it goes away, that's fine. CuriousEric 00:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Heh! Imagine if there wasn't even a "the" in the band's name and the band had the pluralization. It hopefully wouldn't get as far as it has...[3] ;> Doc talk 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I voted: Support. Minimizing unneeded use of "the/The Beatles" is fine, but it should not be done by twisting the language to avoid it. I'm concerned that if we don't specifically require an uppercase (or lowercase) T mid-sentence, editors will change the case back and forth citing one reason or another. CuriousEric 01:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Yello - Eccentrix Remixes CD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale has been added and image is used. CuriousEric 19:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Yello - Essential CD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale has been added and image is used. CuriousEric 19:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stepping in to prevent an edit war between myself and Daisyabigael. Spidey104 14:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. CuriousEric 16:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion occuring here involving debate about whether or not the Beatles were "active" during 1994-1996. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a vote taking place here and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy allows us to link to legal streamed copies of albums. It would be useful to draw up a guideline on how and when to link to such albums; however, there is concern that it may not be appropriate as the music would not be available in all parts of the world. Is the benefit of having access to the music for most users outweighed by the fact that some users will follow a link to find the music is not playable in their region? Your view would be helpful at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to contribute to a discussion on this article's talk page - your views, either way, would be appreciated.--Patthedog (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left my response on the talk page. CuriousEric 04:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jon Lord - To Notice Such Things CD cover.jpg. However, it needs some more work before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

1. Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.
2. Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added licensing info. CuriousEric 21:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jon Lord - Pictured Within CD cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added licensing info. CuriousEric 19:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Robby Krieger - Versions CD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found and uploaded a better image for the Versions album, showing the original cover. "Robby Krieger - Versions CD cover.jpg" was for a "2 LPs on 1 CD" album and can be deleted. CuriousEric 21:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you make a bold edit that is subsequently reverted, it's up to you to gain consensus for those edits to be made, whether those edits are an addition or a removal as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Wikipedia does not favour one or the other; editors removing content are not required to gain consensus for removal unless the removal of content that was already in the article. The content that I removed was added to the article in the edit immediately prior to the edit in which I removed it, and it had previously been removed by other editors, so it was up to that editor to gain consensus to add the content, which he chose not to do. Since you've now restored it, it's up to you to gain consensus for its restoration. I am aware that this content was previously in the article, but that doesn't justify its retention now. It's been out of the article for sometime now, having been opposed by at least three established editors, including one administrator,[4][5][6] and only 2 editors have attempted to restore it. Since the content has effectively been absent from the article since at least 10 October (more than two months and 238 edits ago), consensus is required to restore it, not remove it again. While discussion to that effect is underway, the status quo reigns, and since the content has been out of the article for more than 2 months, the status quo has to be the edit prior to the restoration of the content. I have now started a discussion regarding this at Talk:How I Met Your Mother#Websites. Your participation in this discussion is encouraged. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit on 9 October 2012 was removal of content already in the article since 1 April 2009, and that removal was reverted on the same day. The subsequent removal on 9 October 2012 should not have been done, that removal should have required consensus. The content has been absent for only 2 months, but has been present for over 3 1/2 years. I have left my comments on the Talk page. CuriousEric 03:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they are notable, but the article has to give evidence of this from multiple reliable independent sources. You didn't add any. Deb (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let the articles stand so I and other authors have the opportunity to add references. There is no urgency to remove the articles. As WP:NM states "Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." CuriousEric 01:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that I haven't deleted the article, only redirected pending the addition of references. There is no urgency to create the article. If you are not yet ready to add the references, you should keep the article in your sandbox until it meets the criteria for inclusion. Deb (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Robin Trower - Beyond the Mist CD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Commas are used to separate parts of geographical references, such as city and state (Dallas, Texas) or city and country (Kampala, Uganda). Additionally, most style manuals, including The Chicago Manual of Style[12] and the AP Stylebook,[13] recommend that the second element be treated as a parenthetical, requiring a second comma after: "The plane landed in Kampala, Uganda, that evening.""^[1]

Consciouslee (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Consciouslee, thanks for the education on the issue, it now makes sense. Your link to Top 5 Comma Errors was helpful, particularly the comment "the commas set off the state, because the state is merely a detail about the city". The Wikipedia Manual of Style also agrees with it per WP:COMMA. Although Wikipedia does not always follow the Chicago Manual of Style or AP Stylebook when there is an overriding guidline, for example Wikipedia uses punctuation outside of quotes per WP:LQ. CuriousEric 16:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? The criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a good example of this? I had a look around and noticed Monty Python and the Holy Grail has one in the infobox, but it would be helpful if I had a better example, because I can bet you this here cheese sandwich that somebody will pull this up if we ever get Abbey Road in a state suitable for FAC. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous links to Pound sterling, although they may not all be a link from "£". A few that I checked, with the link from "£" are Concorde, Dylan Thomas, John Cleese, John Major, and John Hancock. Now, a link from a single "£" is barely noticeable, unless one is curious and waves the mouse over it. It seems pretty harmless to leave it linked. CuriousEric 18:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a flick through that list, which is how I found the Holy Grail link. You'd have thought the link would be harmless, but the counterargument I've heard is that it's an "Easter Egg" link. Unless you have a browser that can tell you the link when you hover your mouse over it (which you can't with a mobile browser), you won't know where it takes you. Here, perhaps? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the three Canada-only releases to the list, and changed the title of the header. There was some talk of actually making the article about the North American releases instead of just the US, so that's a step in that direction. If you'd like, you could update the chronologies at the individual album articles for consistency. Cheers. Radiopathy •talk• 00:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea @Radiopathy! I've merged the Canada-only releases into The Beatles North American chronology. CuriousEric 01:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Beatles (album), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that The Beatles sold for over £19,000? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Beatles (album). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be UTC included if most other derailment/accident articles do not include it? Most only include the local time. --WikiWinters (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily saying there should be UTC time included, but the UTC time was removed, and the 'UTC date' was not. It seemed like if the time was removed so should the date. CuriousEric 03:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I merely skipped over the date. I would've removed it, too, if I had seen it, but unfortunately I was not paying attention. Thanks for the quick response. --WikiWinters (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I also thought I'd give others a chance to consider removing UTC completely (or not). CuriousEric 14:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Curious Eric -- I just spent about an hour copy-editing Hedy Lamarr. When I went to save my edits, I saw there was an edit conflict. Then I looked to see what edits had been made, and I saw that you had made a few edits to links. I'm wondering whether you would mind if I save my version, which would mean that you would have to go back in and make your edits again. It would take me a long time to go through the entire article and re-do all my copy-edits. I await word from you. Corinne (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corinne. I'm sorry, but I would mind if my edits got removed. This has also happened to me many times as well on pages that are actively edited, in which case I needed to redo my edits. The lesson I learned is to make small changes which can be saved quickly. And also to make edits within a section, instead of to the whole article (this minimizes the chance of a conflicting edit). Perhaps you can leave the page in your browser that shows your differences, and start a new edit in another browser window/tab, and migrate the changes there a few at a time. Others may have also made edits during this time as well. CuriousEric 19:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eric -- I'm sorry; I hadn't received an answer from you, and so I saved all my changes before I saw your comment. I hope you will understand that it would be more difficult for me to re-do all the changes I made than for you, just this once. I should have put the "GOCE Working" template at the top of the article first. You're right; I should have saved only a few edits at a time. As a member of GOCE who regularly copy-edits articles at the request of editors, I'm used to copy-editing entire articles at once with no interruption. Corinne (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Also see User talk:Rothorpe#Hedy Lamarr re the next edit after yours. Corinne (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corinne. I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable, so I reverted your edit. I'm not about to redo my 14 legitimate edits. And 2 others also made edits. Your edits do not appear to be as extensive as mine, and mine were saved first. Sorry. CuriousEric 20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CuriousEric. I don't have an issue at all or object to your edit. From a language point, I would love to hear your thinking on what either option says/ means to you. I earn my bread and butter from language, so I am always keen to hear how others perceive things. As a case in point, would you beleive that Portuguese and Brazilians speak the same language, but we use "this" and "that" differently? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabriel. The original use of "besides" meant "in addition to", but there was nothing which follows in the sentence that was "in addition to" the cubs. Perhaps this definition at dictionary.com can help. CuriousEric 02:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CuriousEric. 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)[reply]

You do not need to fix those, they are not broken, they will automatically redirect to the correct page--Stemoc 23:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are broken, but only for mobile users. Please see the description on the template talk page. CuriousEric 00:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CuriousEric. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your edit in Chicxulub impactor to avoid undue precision in a range with a large uncertainty. There were two ways of doing it, the way I did it, ((convert|10|to|15|km|0)), which specifies to use whole numbers only, or ((convert|10|to|15|km|sigfig=1)), which specifies the number of significant digits to use. If that had been in meters, for example, specifying ((convert|10000|to|15000|m|0)) would have used whole numbers and given very undue precision, so in that case I would have wanted to use the sigfig parameter.

I will comment, however, that not everything needs unit conversions. The Chicxulub crater is in a country where everything is measured in meters, and it's discussed in scientific publications, where everything is done in SI units. Converting to miles is only useful for people who don't have a feel for the length of a kilometer, but they are getting fewer and fewer as time goes by. It's a tradeoff between making the article accessible to a dwindling population vs. making it more ponderous by adding alternative presentations of the same data. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 17:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CuriousEric. 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]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For doing some great, painstaking copyediting on the Trump–Russia dossier article. Keep up the good work! -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BullRangifer. And I haven't even finished reading/editing the article yet! -- CuriousEric 12:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing good work. Thanks! -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this process, you may discover inaccuracies, so please ping me. We don't want any inaccuracies or misuse of sources. This article is meticulously referenced and has been worked over by many good editors, but no article here is perfect; there is always room for improvement. When you are about to take a break, please ping me. I'd like to do some work on references, and I don't want a lot of edit conflicts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you seem to be taking a break, so I'll do it now. Please give me an hour or so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You probably noticed that I was done with the changes I needed to make. I'm really anal about precise references and have maintained a uniform format which seems to work quite well. There are few articles which are so thoroughly and carefully referenced, and that is largely because the article is extremely controversial and has been the scene of some "bloody" battles. Now it seems to be quite stable, and good references serve well to keep it that way.

Your work is really good! So far you've stuck with copy-editing of the "safe type", IOW, you have not made any serious content changes. You have been doing the "up close and personal", nitty-gritty detail work. Now I'd appreciate it if you also stepped back and looked at the article as a whole. Do you see any weaknesses or areas for improvement? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BullRangifer. I read the article to learn more about the subject, and haven't quite finished reading it yet. It is well written and has an amazing amount of sourced detail. I have limited time to work on Wikipedia, so I may not have ideas on areas for improvement, but if I do I'll make a suggestion. CuriousEric 13:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. Your work is much appreciated. Lots of people have contributed to that article as it's an extremely notable (and infamous!) document. Because it's so controversial, and literally everyone has written about it, the documentation of the smallest detail must be thorough. The danger for editors who have spent a lot of time there is myopia. We may miss areas that need improvement, so new eyes are always welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your ongoing sorting of the Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients. It is a tireless undertaking and your consistent work on it has not gone unnoticed. Cheers! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the award El Cid! I'm getting close to finishing, and can see the light at the end of the tunnel. CuriousEric 15:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. As explained at WP:SIGFONT:

<font>...</font> tags were deprecated in HTML4 and are entirely obsolete in HTML5. This means that the popular browsers may drop support for them at some point. Wikipedia is already preparing for this by delinting code project-wide through Linter. When support finally is dropped, the tags will be ignored in all signatures; any properties such as color and font family will revert to their default values. For this reason, it is recommended that you use <span>...</span> tags and CSS properties instead.

I have prepared a replacement signature string for you. You are encouraged to change

[[User:CuriousEric|<font color="indigo">'''Curious'''</font>]][[User talk:CuriousEric|<font color="darkgreen">'''Eric'''</font>]] : CuriousEric

to

[[User:CuriousEric|<b style="color:indigo">Curious</b>]][[User talk:CuriousEric|<b style="color:darkgreen">Eric</b>]] : CuriousEric

—Anomalocaris (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Anomalocaris for the suggestion and actually showing me the replacement string, it was helpful. CuriousEric 23:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]