User talk:MissTofATX

About Me[edit]

Welcome to my Talk Page...I'm a newer editor. I am more often, than not, a reasonable person, so if you have something to bring to my attention, please do so, and with support for your statements. I will not be bullied here or anywhere else under the Blue Clear Sky (this). Your respectful responses get mine, like in kind. 😊🙌🏼

Why I publish changes in small batches[edit]

My reasoning on publishing smaller batches of edits -vs- larger ones is because of my paranoia (but, I think it's realistic), that something will fritz out before I get to save my work. I'm obsessive-compulsive about saving my work in the digital era, ask anybody I've trained to use Microsoft Excel😜😂. Hopefully, one day wikipedia will have/create a pit-stop save point before you publish all your changes and a visible spell check as you go, God Willin' & the Creek Don't Rise.

Welcome[edit]

Hello, MissTofATX, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XSklzxDark (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

The Bad Seed (1985 film)[edit]

I see you have vastly expanded the plot at The Bad Seed (1985 film), which I am sure was in good faith.
I assume you were unaware of our guideline at WP:FILMPLOT, that plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words, whereas your summary is 1580 words. Many editors would have just reverted your changes and tagged it as WP:PLOTBLOAT, however, the previous plot was too short. I have, therefore, tagged the plot as overlong, to give you, or another editor, the chance to cut it back to between 400 and 700 words. Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed the article down to about 900ish words. I will try again to get it down further. MissTofATX (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Update: I have gotten it down to 837 words. MissTofATX (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actors in plot summaries[edit]

Hi, welcome aboard. Just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia plot summaries do not include the actors' names next to the roles. We have a separate cast section for that. The plot summary should be kept to just the plot, not production details. Thanks. oknazevad (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oknazevad thank you for the feedback. I have edited to remove actors names. Thank you. MissTofATX (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

AFAIK, there is no guideline (certainly not WP:FILMPLOT) stipulating actors' names should not be included in synopses. I don't have any great preference one way or the other, but please stop citing FILMPLOT in the edit comment. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ :@Clarityfiend:, what is AFAIK? for the record, I was actually in the camp of having actors in plots, but, after my edits were reverted multiple times, I got on board with the policy that actors should not be included, and my understanding is that this policy is covered under WP:FILMPLOT and the MoS, which is why I cite that. However, I am a new as an official Wikipedia editor, so I'll call on an experienced editor... @Theoldjacobite: can you review these comments & weigh in? MissTofATX (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly (talk page stalker) – I have always considered it wrong to include actors names in the plot summary, especially so as the usual aim is to condense rather than expand these sections.
They are invariably in a Cast section and, more often than not, in the Lead section too.
AFAIK = as far as I know.

‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 08:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Gareth has it right. Clarityfiend is correct, as well, inasmuch as WP:FILMPLOT does not address this. For a long time, I thought that it did, as well, but it doesn't. To me, it's simply common sense that we don't need the actor's names in the plot and in a cast section. But, different articles handle this differently, which is why discussion and consensus are necessary if there's a disagreement. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Brands[edit]

Hi,

I've reverted your expansion of the list of brands as it is plainly incorrect. While the former Barton Brands company, its portfolio of brands, and its namesake distillery (in lovely Bardstown, Kentucky) are now owned by the Sazerac Company, not all Sazerac Company brands are Barton brands. Indeed, many of the brands you addded were owned by Sazerac long before Sazerac bought Barton, or aren't actually owned by Sazerac at all, just produced or distribited by them under contract. So the list was wrong. The list should include only those brands that were owned by Barton before Sazerac bought them, or are specifically produced at the Barton Distillery. oknazevad (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknavazed - please see my note on the talk page. Thanks! MissTofATX (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Whitewashing Barr[edit]

Goodmorning, Miss T! I see that you are trying to delete everything from the lede on Roseanne Barr to "avoid duplicative material" Did you know that virtually everything in every lede is "duplicative"!? Including the birthday and the name of the BLP!?

The point of the lede is to highlight the most pertinent information about a person. In Roseanne's case, measured by RS coverage, the cancellation of her show for calling a black woman an ape is very pertinent. Purging this material is contrary to policy and will only provoke accusations of bad faith. Steeletrap (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not white washing. I do understand what a lede is. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies and lede for BLP, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons it's supposed to be a brief, concise, summary of the contents of the article. It's not meant to be a detailed regurgitation of everything listed in the article. I did not remove any of the information in the article, so I am not sure what definition of Whitewashing (censorship) you ascribe to. MissTofATX (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Janet Jackson / birthdate[edit]

MissTofATX, you reverted my reversion, saying "Birthdate is allowed to be listed twice. Mos:Biography & BLP". First of all, if you're going to reference a WP page, please give a link to it. The shortcut for that page is MOS:BIO or MOS:BLP. Even better is to put a link to the section of the page you're referring to, if possible. (2) I looked and wasn't able to find anything that says that. I did see a paragraph saying: "Outside of the lead section, birth and death details are not included after a name except in a case of special contextual relevance." --Musdan77 (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to state that there is nothing specifically disallowing it. It's a standard feature of most biographies, including those with "good ratings"/featured articles, such as this one for musician Johnny Cash. I didn't provide links in edit summary because I did not believe they could be clicked on from there.—MissTofATX (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Okay. I guess we both learned something. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we both did learn something. Always a good thing, I think. —Cheers! MissTofATX (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Your help desk question[edit]

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're both a bit confused[edit]

I know we're only relaying the factual part about what Bush said, but we're pinning it to a story that contains Barr's false recollections. So when people open the flashback feature piece instead of the straight news report, they get conflicting stories rather than the simple truth. The UPI story, as well as being the closer source temporally, gives the fuller quote and his follow-up for context.

It's also not filled with irrelevant primary-source anachronistic rants from Barr about Desert Storm, Ninja Turtles and toxic anti-Semitism or similar lengthy nostalgic exposition about '90s pop culture and pre-viral viral video from Geoff Edgers. People looking for a quote shouldn't have to wade through all that to find it, especially if all they eventually find is a single word snipped from it.

Is there something you want people to read in the Washington Post article that UPI didn't cover at the time? If so, can this juicy detail be hosted in the body rather than the lead? Leads are meant to be the more direct and succinct of the two zones. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your message. The reason I thought the WPost article was a better reference was because it contains a bigger picture of comments/or references to comments all-in-one place, from a variety of people, even though it may outwardly appear that it only focuses on Roseanne's memories. People such as Tom Werner/Strasberg, several Padres players, George Bush, George Will, Keith Oberman....covering the reference to fans/the president/players/sports witers ect. I also don't think Roseanne's comments make up the majority of the article. The UPI article does state that sports writers/ect criticized the performance in a general way, but does not say anything specific.

I agree with keeping the lead direct and succint, I did not change any of the wording, and had no plans to change it. I'm not sure what you are referring to as a "lengthy exposistion" on pre-viral video? I do see the one sentence where he called it a "viral moment of a pre-viral age" and included a youtube link to the video of the performance? People looking for the quote would only need to search for the word "Bush" or search for other keywords. MissTofATX (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

I still slightly disagree with your choice, but am glad enough to see a dissenting view based on something fairly understandable that I'll tap out on that alone. There are certainly worse articles about the same thing from the same anniversary. Some even use the same font for their letterhead.

By exposition, I mean like namedropping movies that came out that year. All this scene-setting stuff that both fills word-count quotas and didn't matter at the time. The whole vibe of looking back at anything with a "Boy, things sure have changed, haven't they?" angle just kind of rubs me wrong. But it's mainly the wordiness. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roseanne Barr[edit]

from adamsirius - apologies but I have no idea despite clicking on apparently relevant links how to "talk to" you - you cited I was "vandalising" pages - re the Roseanne Barr furore - her comment was allegedly racist, a damned stupid joke and crass - but no one can say for 100% certainty that Ms Barr **intended** the comment as racist, no matter how it was perceived; no one can deny it was stupid and in bad taste, Ms Barr has even stated so herself, but to label it as directly racist is misleading somewhat and as misguided as some of her comments were. I was attempting to make the article less partisan, more factually objective; this goal seems to have been lost between my ASD, your interpretation of my motives and the current hub-bub regarding her mistakes. Ban me if you like, you're still strictly speaking, inaccurate. I thought (maybe naively) Wikipedia was meant to be an objective, independent, non-partisan voice on the web? regards - Adam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsirius (talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user talk:Adamsirius It was not "allegedly racist" it has been widely acknowledged that it is "racist", and has been discussed on the talk page for consensus. Vandalism on wikipedia is when you deliberately add false information to an article, in this case it's adding the word alleged. In MOS:BLP, (biographies of living people) the rules are strict about including NPOV, giving factual information, no conjecturing/speculating on why the person did or did not do whatever. Therefore, we don't use the article to discuss her intentions and present just the facts. Her political activities are seperate from the Jarrett tweets, thus it is non-partisan. If you want to present a case to change it to "alleged" please do so on the Roseanne Barr talk page. To learn how to use talk pages please see WP:TP MissTofATX (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

user talk: Galobtter...fyi, conversation above. MissTofATX (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Barr again[edit]

The version by User:Thresholy is clearer and more straightforward. For example: it is always better to refer to a person by name, rather than title, so "Trump" is better than "the President". --Orange Mike | Talk 23:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. User:MissTofATX keeps reverting me without explanation. Thresholy (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk:Thresholy I've told you why in the edit summary in every single reversion & on your talk page when I warned you. You have not written any edit summaries to explain your reasoning. I'll agree to use words "Trump called her" but he did not thank her for political commentary, he thanked her for her support. MissTofATX (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Heathers cast[edit]

Greetings and salutations! (Sorry, I've watched Heathers three times this week trying to nail plot points, and I couldn't resist quoting Christian Slater's character.) Anyway, I noticed you'd previously added a more complete cast list, and I wanted to encourage you to restore it, at least partially. Reason: I wanted to add a sentence or two about Miss Flynn, teacher derided as New Age flake by principal, Veronica's parents, and other teachers. But character, who appears in several scenes and has several lines, is nowhere to be found. Not sure about adding minor characters, e.g. teacher who has one line ("I was impressed by Heather's proper use of myriad" [in her suicide note]--character's name is Mrs. Pope, but she is not listed as such in end credits.) So, to be brief: please feel free to restore your previous edit(s) to expand cast list. It makes it more handy when editing film entry to not have to keep consulting IMDb. Thanks! Kinkyturnip (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinkyturnip: Hi there, I appreciate your message. I updated the Heathers cast list when I was brand new here, and was reverted several times for reasons I did not understand at the time. I did like having more cast members, and your points above are great. I think our best bet is to start on the talk page. Maybe you could could create the section and copy paste your reasoning above, I'll go in and confirm i'll re-add those cast members, and then i'll reference the talk page discussion in my edit summary?

I made a case for a character of one of my all time favorite random indie flicks—most likely overdid it—but who doesn't when it's one of your favorite movies, right? But, it didn't turn into a big debate or survey and my changes stuck! 😁....heres the example Talk:Gas Food Lodging#Added Character. Let me know your thoughts on making a statement on talk page, or if you're into it, proceed and tag me, and I'll support& make change. Thank you!MissTofATX (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

So I added a few sentences about Pauline Fleming, the guidance counselor dismissed as a New Age flake, to the plot summary of Heathers. I also added name of actor who portrays character, Penelope Milford, to cast list (Milford already has her own Wiki page). May add line or two about Veronica'a nerdy friend Betty Flynn to plot summary at some point. But I'm tapped out after dozens of edits to Heathers. (Like you, I "edit in small batches". Thanks for your input and advice -- and for vindicating my "small batch" editing style, which drives some contributors nuts -- *corn nuts!*)

Hi @Kinkyturnip:, your revisions for Heathers look good and well explained. Looks like you got it all covered, but let me know if you need me to back up those cast changes. *lol* and you're welcome on the "small batch edits" vindication! Wasn't sure if people ever read those, (I do!) but figured it probably should go high up on mu page. I don't see a big problem if I'm at least including an edit summary, "plot save point" or similar if I'm working in one section of an ariticle at a time. MissTofATX (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Valerie Jarrett tweets and Roseanne cancellation[edit]

Per your recent revert for the spelling of cancelled [1], will you also add an "L" to canceled in this section AND finally link it to the renewal/cancellation section of the show for Roseanne per the 'comical' talk page discussion/request (there is more detailed info about this topic on the show article)? Thanks! 2600:1702:1690:E10:D17:B8A3:FD30:7978 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Later that day, ABC cancelled Roseanne..."

2600:1702:1690:E10:D17:B8A3:FD30:7978 I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me to do? Roseanne Barr's page links to the 'Roseanne' show in the lead? Roseanne Barr's page has the same information as the 'Roseanne' about cancellation and tweet, ect.? MissTofATX (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Wow, omg! I'm not sure why this is so difficult for people to figure out. It was totally missed on the talk page too. Instead i got attitude about the spelling of cancellation. Let me try this one last time... WITHIN the section called "Valerie Jarrett tweets and Roseanne cancellation" (with me so far?) the word 'cancelled' is also spelled canceled. Since you fixed it in the lead, i figured you'd want it to be the same throughout the article. Secondly/finally, LINK/PIPE (whatever you wanna call it) the words "ABC cancelled Roseanne" within that SAME section (again it's the title of this topic on your talk page and the article talk page) to the "Renewal and cancellation" section of the Roseanne show article which IS NOT the same info as on Barr's article. It is MUCH more detailed and linking to the show in the lead is not enough. Someone would have to scroll all the way back up to connect to the show and then scroll all the way down to the cancellation section to read more. This way it's right in the section someone is reading as it relates to that topic in case someone doesn't read the entire article. I hope to God this makes more sense. I even did the work for you by including [ [ Roseanne#Renewal and cancellation|ABC cancelled Roseanne ] ] above so it was easy to do. Maybe more editors need to use Wikipedia on their computers not phones. I won't be back to explain it again on here or the talk page. I'll simply wait until the restriction is lifted (or let me have access to do it myself then restrict the article again after i'm done) or do it from an account when i'm not using an IP. This is SO simple, i can't imagine why NO ONE on the talk page figured it out. Maybe it's because you're all using mobile access apps? 2600:1702:1690:E10:D17:B8A3:FD30:7978 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:TIES, I believe it should be "canceled" and "cancellation". Those are the dominant spellings in the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1702:1690:E10:D17:B8A3:FD30:7978: I'm not sure why you've chosen me as the person to unload this vitriol on. Bless your heart, though! I merely asked you a question. I had nothing to do with the conversation back and forth over the spelling of the words, that got down right nasty—and resulted in you whatever restriction was placed on you.

I did notice the back and forth though, When I look up the word Merriam-Webster dictionary, (I have the real old school hard cover book as well as the app!!—it's really a neat app by the way!) I see "1 cancel verbcan·cel\ˈkan(t)-səl\ can·celed or can·celled; can·cel·ing or can·cel·ling\-s(ə-)liŋ\.

I'm a U.S. citizen and a Native Texan, I've seen it one way or the other a zillion times. It isn't as clear cut of a difference to me then when I see it US VS UK English, for example changing, realization to realisation, or defense vs defence, as mere examples. I did say that I thought the debate was comical, only because of my knowledge of the word—seeing it both ways, as I mentioned above.

So, when I noticed someone new to the article (or so I thought), about to take a deep dive into shark infested waters, I reverted the edit. Could you have not just said, "Since you fixed it in the lead, i figured you'd want it to be the same throughout the article?" —quote from you in the second place?....I'm sorry you've spun your wheels here on my page, IP...trying to instigate some fight with me, being SUPREMELY RUDE. So, In the words of John Wayne in the movie The Cowboys, "Get the hell off my spread, Now!"

MissTofATX (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Copy 'n' paste from User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones[edit]

Acrimony (Film) & and some other film related things[edit]

Hi there, I had normally been approaching TheOldJacobite, as y’all both have vast knowledge of the film projects on wiki. I recently wrote a plot summary for Acrimony Tyler Perry movie, yes, it is too long a little over 800, and I have been working on trimming it back with the help of others. There was an IP user in the past few days and made massive cuts. I have started a conversation on the talk page Talk:Acrimony (film) with the IP and feel I need to get the input of experienced editors if you have a chance to drop by, but also, looked at contribution history of IP, and it appears they are making large cuts on several films (just visually looking; not sure if it’s reasonable or not). And if TheOldJacobite would like to check it out, that would be cool too, I’m editing mobily as well, not sure if there is a way to ping y’all both as a dynamic duo. I hope I’m asking for assistance in an appropriate way, as I’m still learning. Thank you! MissTofATX (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (late)[edit]

Thanks for the post. I gave up on Wikipedia on 10 June, deciding another irregular absence was overdue, so missed your first edit there by a couple of days. Back now, two months later.
Hope all is well with you. Please reply, either here or on my talk. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 11:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Post Script: ... from your User talk ... great sound! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 11:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there :@Gareth Griffith-Jones:Thanks for the response! I'm doing well, how are you? Here in Texas, we are in "Super Summer" season, highs of 100s and lows of upper 70s. I took a hiatus from wikipedia as well, just lost interest for a bit. Thanks for the post with the song! Nifty trick, I'll have to add it to the top. 😊

Best always,

MissTofATX

Hello! Good to hear back from you and to know you are well, as I am too.
I took the liberty of indenting your reply with a colon. Then I add another to my post.
Your Pings do not work. This, {{U|Gareth Griffith-Jones}} will as long as you add the four tildes at the same time before you save. And forget the @. It is redundant in this context.
Please keep in touch. Always glad to help if I can. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 11:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gareth Griffith-Jones great, thank you for suggesting the corrections. Will do from now on. Great to hear you as well. Will definitely be in touch.

MissTofATX (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you. Just to let you know, your Ping worked as expected. Did you read the section below this one? ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 06:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Gareth Griffith-Jones. I did read it, I appreciate your help with the corrections. Glad the pings are working. 😊

MissTofATX (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you approve. Judging from the timestamp of your replies here, would I be correct in assuming you are not too far from the West Coast? Wishing you a lovely weekend, ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 09:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth Griffith-Jones, I'm actually approx. 3,000 miles from the West Coast. I'm on Central Time in Texas, and have not looked into/thought of changing the timestamps or if that's even possible. Our "coast" here is the Gulf of Mexico, which is sometimes referred to as part of the colloquialism, Third Coast. Hope you have a great weekend as well!

MissTofATX (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we are six hours apart, or to put it another way, you are six hours after me in Great Britain.
Noticed you have now added George Straight's link—I'm listening as I type—a great voice and memorable songs. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 13:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's awesome Gareth Griffith-Jones, Hope you're enjoying your afternoon. It's about 9:30 am here & I'm on my first cup of coffee. Glad you enjoy the music. Random fun facts, George Strait is also a native Texan & a big star in Country & Western music. You may enjoy other songs on his channel here. He's known as "the king". MissTofATX (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a coincidence. Since my last post here, I have just watched George Strait on my television. Yesterday evening, Saturday, I recorded on my Virgin Media TiVo box a one hour show on BBC Four—a compilation of C & W music that has previously been in BBC Television programmes over the years—he sang All my Ex's live in Texas and he was referred to as "The King" ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 19:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 14[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angaleena Presley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coal Miner's Daughter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted this and also did a mild copy-edit as shown here. Hope you approve. All the best! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 11:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full edit summary[edit]

To complete what I was trying to say in the edit summary where I reverted just one of the changes you made to Murder of Sherri Rasmussen: "Lead Detective" was a description of his role in the case, not his job title, so capitalization of both words isn't necessary (and if it was his job title/rank, his name would not be set off in commas afterward). Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Til Death Do Us Part[edit]

Hi MissTofATX, were you aware, when you created Til Death Do Us Part (disambiguation), that there was a pre-existing DAB page at Till Death Do Us Part? I don't think that there is any need for 2 nearly identical pages. Would you mind if I changed Til Death Do Us Part (disambiguation) into a redirect to Till Death Do Us Part? I would, of course, make sure that no items are lost in the process. Leschnei (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine. MissTofATX (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, MissTofATX. 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]

Your draft article, Draft:Kidnapping of Rosalynn McGinnis[edit]

Hello, MissTofATX. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kidnapping of Rosalynn McGinnis".

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]