Hello, BarbadosKen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Bernie Sanders. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! User:HopsonRoad 23:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Alison Tyler (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that popped up on the talk page - I'm assuming it it's not you but just wanted to make sure - it's not you, is it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:BarbadosKen reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Keith Ellison. [1] VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith until I see no reason to assume good faith. Your BLP claims are bogus in the face of wide WP:RS coverage. That is why I now assume you are agenda driven. BarbadosKen (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vanessa Delgado, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Vanessa Delgado's 112-day term in the California State Senate will be the shortest tenure since 1903? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vanessa Delgado. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vanessa Delgado), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reordering the cast lists at List of The Big Bang Theory characters. Per WP:TVCAST, which I linked to in my edit summary, "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list" and "recurring and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order in each episode in which they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear." There is no exception for cameos, which are treated as guest stars, to be listed in alphabetical order. If you have a problem with this, please start a discussion at the appropriate MOS talk page. Please also note that, per WP:BRD, when your edits are reverted you should not simply revert the change. Instead you should open a discussion on the article talk page and attempt to gain consensus for your edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are confusing cast with guest appearances. There is the regular cast, and there are guests. The cast is credited every episode. The guests are not. The way you are proposing to list the guests makes no sense, as it is neither chronological nor alphabetical. BarbadosKen (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not correct. Main cast are normally credited in every episode although there are plenty of programs where some main cast are only credited in episodes in which they appear, as are recurring and guest cast. That's why guest are specifically mention in WP:TVCAST. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BarbadosKen. 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 es was not responsive to my concern; I don't want to edit war, but what I said is still a problem and you have not addressed it and therefore compounded it. How about the same text with semicolons rather than line breaks and sub-bullets? jhawkinson (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't fully understand the issue that you bring up. What is wrong with giving prominence/space to what re truly minor details of a single skit? Readers who are interested can read it, and readers who are not interested can skip it. BarbadosKen (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-bullet format allows for the non-interested reader to more easily skip, and for the interested reader to better absorb the information. BarbadosKen (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful for you to respond to my compromise proposal. The problem is that giving inappropriate weight to minor details makes it hard to find the information people are mostly interested in. To give an extreme hypothetical: an encyclopedia article about SNL that spends 80% of its space on the architecture of the 8th floor of 30 Rock is going to make it hard for people to find what they want. The structure of information is important, and there's an implicit link between volume of information and structure. When you use sub-bullets here, you make the information take up 4x as much space. The only other instance of a 2ndary level sub-bullet is in Ep. 1, where it's about something that's pretty significant, that generated a lot of public discussion and even media articles (Kanye West). Not true for the cameo appearances in this intro skit. It may not seem like such a big deal, but as the article gets longer, it becomes more important. Readers can skip the ends of sentences just like they can skip sub-bullets. In fact, arguably more easily -- with a sub-bullet, they need to start reading each one, and with a long sentence, they can just skip rest of the sentence/bullet/paragraph. So I'd say that no, the sub-bullet format does not allow the reader to "more easily skipped," and you haven't made the case for why bullets allow the "reader to better absorb the information." I don't see offhand why that should be true (and, even if it is true, why it's worth the cost here of space here). Again, I suggest flattening it to one line with semicolon separation jhawkinson (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not see your point, and don't think your hypothetical is appropriate. This is an online encyclopedia, not a printed book, so there is no problem with having white space. In fact, putting information into a big long paragraph has a derogatory name within Wikipedia called "WP:Wall of text".

The example you give about "the architecture of the 8th floor of 30 Rock" is inappropriate because this material is irrelevant to the subject (that's why you would just link to the appropriate article). All SNL season articles list appearances by non-cast members. That's the standard.

Having information in bullets is a great way to list information. In this case, since there is a long list of different groups of guests, grouping the different guests into different bullets helps in the organization.

BarbadosKen (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Inappropriate edits at MOS:TV. AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ken when you warn someone about edit warring and your warning is responded to and acked, you can consider the editor warned. Please heed requests to stay off user talk pages. You know where to escalate if needed. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I tried to have a discussion with user:AussieLegend to avoid an edit war. Once the discussion failed, I warned him/her that further edit warring would result in me filing a complaint against him. That apparently set him/her off and he/she characterized my posts to his/her user talk page as harassment. A little ironic, since he/she is harassing me by edit warring with me. BarbadosKen (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But like here you added a warning after the already-warned editor asked you to leave. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also just to make it official (although I want to emphasize the "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." part):

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Where else am I supposed to warn him against edit warring? Up to that point, I was engaging him in a discussion to try to come to an understanding. It was only once he made it clear that he is not interested in reaching an understanding, that I gave him the warning, and since there is no other appropriate place to give the warning, I gave the warning in his user talk page. BarbadosKen (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had already warned! No need to warn any more. Are you asking where to escalate after a warning is unheeded? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Once I warned him, I did not continue to edit his user talk page (except for fixing a spelling error). BarbadosKen (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2018 (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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]