User talk:Alandeus

Hello, Alandeus! helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply ] Getting started Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation User scripts

Hello, I've started discussion about sourcing the filming locations here. Please come by and comment! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually I'll get that right (probably not). Thanks! -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 08:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alandeus. Thanks for the tweaks to the article. I appreciate it. Have a nice day. --

Regarding the number of casualties it's not that I don't have an exact number. It simply does not exist, as the last research on that was done in the cold war times, and because of this did not take into account the victims of the Soviet occupation, and especially in the areas of Poland annexed to Soviet Union after WW2. No other serious research was done since then and the only conclusion so far is that the total number of casualties was higher. We don't know how much higher, hence "about" :) --Lysy^talk 17:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely sorry, I didn't not see that it had been added in precisely the edit before yours. WookMuff (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not believe me, look at the talk page. Besides, Disney/Pixar show deaths all the time, just as long as there's no blood. Take

And just to make sure, check this link. [1]

What I thought was water, I now think could be trees. LoomisSimmons (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Disregard that. It's water, without question. http://i50.tinypic.com/312d2c7.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoomisSimmons (talk • contribs) 04:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dan Quayle! The singular is spelled

Nice you like it (as it seems). Doesn't make it traditional cuisine, unless you want the wikipedia to declare it as such. Still a fast-food staple, invented after WWII. I just checked the article on the currywurst. The only occasion where the claim of "German national dish" was made is a statement by the man who pushed for the museum. It's his baby. Affects his reliability as source, I would assume. The other quote didn't even come from the mentioned source, so I deleted it as invention. Regards (hope you enjoy my hometown - eat one for me, too) --G-41614 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alandeus, I thought this Above Then Beyond thing is interesting and relevant for the article. Where would you put it? --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alandeus, first of all thanks for the additional editing. I forgot to change the ref from German to English. To come to the point: I really don't see any reason why the opening of TCA's outfield to the public and the 65th anniversary of the unconditional surrender should just be coincidentaly on the same. Maybe it hurts to much to see the "gate to freedom" and a symbol of the Berlin Airlift being treated like this. On the other side, if a city government, made of socialists (Die Linke formerly known as SED) and social democrats, acts like this, it is either delibrately or political tactlessnes. To assume that this is just a coincidence leaves me without words. And even if it's a coincide, it still remains a fact that it falls on the same date. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just updated the page. Opening of Tempelhof and end of WW" are purely coincidental - no references were made to this anywhere either. Check dedication of the Documentation Center of the Topography of Terror if you want an anniversary. Alandeus (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Mr. Benson, Ich sehe Sie schreiben ein vorzügliches Deutsch., Das würde es mir ermöglichen auf zwei Sprachen zu antworten, wenn ich diesmal nicht auf Englisch verzichten müßte, da ich sonst wegen der unvermeidlichen Schinpfwörter hier rausfliegen würde.
Ein wenig Recherche im Internet läßt mich glauben, das Sie mindestend 6 Jahre älter sind als ich und kein geborener Berliner oder gar West-Berliner. Das macht das Ganze für mich jetzt verständlicher. Sie können die Emotionen eines geborenen Berliners ja nicht verstehen, selbst wenn Sie wollten.
Ich habe trotzdem einige Fragen, die Sie mir bitte beantworten mögen oder auch nicht:
1. Frage: Muß man unbedingt darauf hingewiesen werden, wenn es Zusammenhänge gibt? Ich glaube nicht.
2. Frage: Wäre es nicht besser gewesen, das "Tempelhofer Feld" am 1. Mai oder am 1. Juni freizugeben, um den geschichtlichen Zusammenhang, denn es ist ja nun mal das selbe Datum, zu vermeiden? Ich glaube, das wäre doch möglich gewesen.
3. Frage: Wenn irgendein Regierender in Washington, sich dazu entschließen würde am 4. Juli das

London Heathrow erst schließen und dann zum verweilen freigeben würde?
Ich bin, wie Sie mit Sicherheit gesehen haben ein geborener Spandauer, aus dem (damaligen) britischen Sektor. Mir tut es höllisch weh, wie ein Symbol meiner Stadt, ein Symbol der Hoffnung, der Freiheit und des Wiederstandes gegenüber der sowjetischen Blockade, so mit Füßen getreten werden kann.
Erlauben Sie mir bitte noch eine abschließende Bemerkung: Mir ist inzwischen völlig egal, was hier in Berlin passiert. Der sogenannte regierende Bürgermeister wird schon seine Gründe haben.
Seit Samstag heißt das Tempelhofer Feld bei mir jedenfalls Klaus-Wowereit-Großpark, zur Erinnerung an die Ruhmestaten des großen Klaus Wowereit und seiner Stadtabwicklungssenatorin (Oh Verzeihung!), ... Stadtentwicklungssenatorin Junge-Reyer.
Ich bitte Sie um Verständnis, das ich emotional extrem verärgert und sauer reagiere. Das ist nichts persönliches. Sie können da ja nichts dafür. Trotzdem ist das Thema für mich hiermit beendet. Jörg, der BajanZindy (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Some need to see conspiracies anywhere. Sorry, Alandeus - just couldn't let him pass. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alandeus,

es tut mir leid, wegen der Sache mit Hertha BSC. Natürlich warst du nicht gemeint und klar ist die Hertha noch offiziell in der 1. Bundesliga. Diese Korrektur wollte ich auch garnicht vornehmen. Hab ich übersehen. Sorry

Verpacker Ing. (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Alandeus,

was die Texte zum Memorial Museums Department betrifft, habe ich die Englische Version im Prinzip nur um Texte ähnlich der deutschen Version Topographie des Terrors (Gedenkstättenreferat) erweitert. Was ist daran falsch? Besten Dank, Franklin.harding (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Harging.
Man sieht, dass die Englische Version im Prinzip nur um Texte ähnlich der deutschen Version Topographie des Terrors (Gedenkstättenreferat) erweitert worden sind. Was daran falsch ist? Hier wird erstens der Inhalt einer externen Website wiedergegeben, wobei insbesonders ein Newsletter und ein Forum ziemlich nebensächlich ist. Zweitens ist das ziemlich viel Selbstbewerbung, was hier fehl am Platz ist. Auf der deutschen Seite gehört das auch gekürzt. Alandeus (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned by name here. Rgrds. —64.85.215.193 (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 64.85.215.193, I left a rebuttal and a clarification there in the comments. Alandeus (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alan Benson!! I still want to include test scores,..etc.

Should we format it together and make the JFKS website look more formal? With an updated school profile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.74.16 (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just noticed your edit at

Ohconfucius: Hope you come back to view this response. The link to

dictionary definition. The reader thus has the opportunity to study the discrepancy, which is almost humorous. Alandeus (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a quick note to say I removed some odd edits to your user page by an IP user, here.  Chzz  ►  09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, my bad. I was editing something completely different, but the profanity filter I've got is hyperactive. It's removed now, so shouldn't cause any more problems. Thanks for the catch. Lolinder (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the editor did not explain their removal is because they have been on a systematic POV run. He is an Israeli who has been trying very hard to remove many references to anything that mentions Palestine. I've been watching this and recently had to revert a removal he made to the Byzantine Empire article. He also likes to mark things as minor in order to try and get around the watchdogs. Just giving you a heads up and clapping at the work you did :). tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the wording I'm having trouble with is the "is". It seems more appropriate to me to discuss when a film was released, not what is or was being done with it. See For the Birds (film), One Man Band (film), and Lifted (2006 film), for example. All of these handle the matter pretty smoothly. The key point, to me, is that it was released along with a feature film, not just that it happened to be shown with one (cf. Knick Knack). As long as "released" is in there somewhere, I'd be happy. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK "co-release inserted" - release with and being short ahead of Cars2 both mentioned now. Alandeus (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That works for now. It still seems like it could be made a little smoother, but it hits all the key points. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bedding will do, in Deaths at the Berlin Wall, but I am just curious where to find "Federdecken", I see "Wäsche" in the first source after the statement. Any specific term in the lead is out of place, bedding fine, as I said, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eiderdown is a featherbed, see also http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=Ci4HO3kMAA&search=eiderdown In German, that is also “Federdecke” – a thick feather-stuffed blanket a panicking old woman might think of jumping onto from her window trying to escape. With a German name, I thought you might know what that is. ;-) Alandeus (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask what it is ;-) I wanted to know in which source I find "Federdecken", because I find "Wäsche" in the first, not looking too closely, admitted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Siekmann’s “Federbetten” (i.e Federdecke) are mentioned in the Welt-Online article [2], which is a reference used in the article about her. Alandeus (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a peaceful rest: what I saw in the article first was eiderdown, even with a link, in German the finest quality of feathers, not appropriate, I thought, and not supported by the 3 sources. I looked for something less specific and found Wäsche in the first source. Then the word Federdecken came up which is no German word at all, so I asked where that was found. Finally we now got to Federbetten in a source, which makes sense, but wasn't supporting the sentence which had the word. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather rude to undo someone without discussion like that. The 'mistake' is in both sources and as it is quoted it should remain. You could argue for a sic but that wouldn't be very useful. violet/riga _^[talk] 12:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chacking and confirming the author's mistake. Alandeus (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gustav Sobottka, I noticed that extra letter too, but took it in stride, since it was a company name. I did try to find confirmation of the company name, but hadn't found any in a quick search. I just went looking again and still found nothing, though I did find out that the documentary's name was only half correct, so I concluded that Barbelsberg is likely a typo. But I think "(sic)" looks like the whole thing is questionable, so I removed it and put that concern in a footnote, where it could be explained a little better, plus I added a wikilink to Babelsberg. Thanks for your input, which prompted me to do the rest. Marrante (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alandeus,

I'm not sure if you have taken notice of the discussion on making a clean cut between the two articles President of Germany and President of Germany (1919–1945) with the former focussing solely on the Bundespräsident since 1949 (here). I had the impression that I had some support for my view there, but maybe I was a bit to hasty with my change. Would you like to share your opinion on the talk page? Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the set-up is that you just put the title of their Wikipedia article in that row that you had trouble. Kingjeff (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but that didn't work! Some template message was always being shown there.

It depends if you linked it yourself. You just put the name of the article without any kind brackets around it. The template does this for the party all by itself. If you need an example, check the North Rhine-Westphalia state election template and you'll see what I'm talking about. Kingjeff (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed back to cèilidh in Scottish country dance as Scottish Gaelic now uses the grave instead of the acute accent used in Irish. A lot of the words are the same and people can go from one to the other without too much work just there's differences like that.

Sure the fact may be "totally unnecessary" (wouldn't that be in the eye of the beholder anyway), but it is included in the sources mentioned; I won't change it back, though. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what's bugging me? The Buddybears, but they are still in the article (and the cityscape) ;). Lectonar (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch! The alien edit had been there for years. [3] I'm embarrassed to say I edited that section without noticing. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --S. Rich (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wondered why the women in Palm_Springs looked so alien... Alandeus (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL -- Come to Palm Springs, California -- they (and the drag queens) look just fine!--S. Rich (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing about editing this page is that I was helping a woman to fill out her application for an absentee ballot online from here in Berlin, Germany and we needed to know the Palm Springs county. So, in a way, this female was an alien after all! Alandeus (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you've bothered with

WP:BRD? No, not recently.Alandeus (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed by your lurch straight towards warring even when you're in the wrong. Read it and don't mindlessly revert in future. -

talk) 16:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No, not wrong; just minding clarity between various sentence sub-clauses.Alandeus (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that's what happens when you copy-and-paste someone else's tag and don't sufficiently engage the brain-clutch. Greetings and thanks from Oz; now on to resolving the edit conflict :-) Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if this was official policy and if there's a policy page you could cite. Thanks. Vranak (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general matter of style. For example in "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White: "Do not spell out dates and other serial numbers ... Exception: When they occur in dialogue, most dates and numbers are best spelled out." Alandeus (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...sorry, the edit summary did not have enough space: the 2012 data were updated from the last official census from 1987 for West Berlin and 1981 for East Berlin by simply adding births, deaths and population movements, which, over the years, introduced massive deviations. The Census from 2011 has the more accurate data. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the older, i.e. 2011, data is more accurate than the "fortgeschriebene" of 2012. Had overlooked that "fortgeschriebene" in the footnote and it is not stated on the actual page refered to, but I suppose it's true. Maybe someone ought to do a "Fortschreibung" for the past yeasr and a half or simply add up how many people are actually registered in the Bezirksämter. I had assumed this latter total was the basis for the Nov. '12 figure. In any case, we'll get back to the 3½ million Berliners one of these days.Alandeus (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good compromise. The modern GAF is universally known as the Luftwaffe. The link issue only creates an anomaly since the author of the a new GAF page created this heading as distinct from the Modern or Post War Luftwaffe, to separate it from the existing entry which concluded its narrative in 1945. There was no particular reason to create a new entry - there could have been a post 1945 section within the original - but having decided to do so the author used a headline term that is virtually never used by anyone else. Leaving the term Lufthansa (sic, you mean Luftwaffe (Alan))as the visible description, but modifying the link to the GAF page, is a neat solution to the issue. Cheers.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 17:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alandeus! We are looking for editors to join the Europeana 1989 challenge, a multilingual Wikipedia Challenge where all of the participants are invited to improve Wikipedia articles related to the European Revolutions of 1989 in their own language. We have selected a short list of topics that may be improved or translated. As you have already edited some of the listed articles, we thought you might be interested, and accept the challenge. Hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kippelboy (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before reverting me it would be better to check the facts first. There is no 3. Bundesliga, never was and SV Babelsberg 03 does not play in the 3. Liga but instead in the league below, the Regionalliga Nordost where it is currently placed 13th without any possibility of promotion back up. As it stands, you reverted me to add incorrect information to the Potsdam article. Calistemon (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not interested in updating Babelsbergs current league on the Potsdam page every time they get relegated or promoted I removed the league altogether which was incorrect in two ways in the first place. If you are willing to update the information whenever necessary, good on you. I'm not. Interested readers can go to the club article and find out more there. Just do me a favour next time, assume good faith and don't just revert without checking facts first, like current league membership. Have a great time, Calistemon (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have, there is no 3. Bundesliga and there never has been. The league you refer to has always been called 3. Liga, nothing ever else. That is a fact. Giving it another name like 3. Bundesliga is incorrect. Calistemon (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard the term 3. Bundesliga used for the league except before it was formed when it was speculated as to what the name is going to be. The website you are quoted is just, by the looks of it, some private guys pet project and by no means official. In all official and reliable publications it is 3. Liga, 3. Bundesliga is completely wrong. The two Bundesligas are professional leagues administrated by the DFL, the 3. Liga is not necessarily fully professional and administrated by the DFB. You are free to use whatever name you wish for the league for yourself but for the purpose of this encyclopaedia only official names or names supported by reliable sources are acceptable. Calistemon (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lompoc, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larkspur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you inserted links to Knaack club, did you notice that the edit before had just removed them? See Talk:West Germany: the usefulness of that article (and its "East" counterpart is debatable ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Pro486. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Pro486 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Alandeus. 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

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]

Hello, Alandeus. 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

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]

Hello, Alandeus. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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

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]

Hello, Alandeus. 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

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]

Hi Alandeus,

• When you came across a new article about a novel obviously set in 1938, you may well have thought "what on earth was this guy thinking when they wrote that it was set in 2018?"
• Looking back on it, *I* wonder what on earth I was thinking when I wrote that it was set in 2018.

Thanks again! Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2022 (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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a polite note to let you know that I undid your reversion to Munich – The Edge of War. Selected is the correct adjective to use in British English. Select only works as an adjective in the senses of 'privileged' or 'high-quality'. DrFrench (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the senses of 'privileged' or 'high-quality' where the ones intended by the author. They are quite appropriate in this case. 'Selected' is actually superfluous. Alandeus (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you undid my change. You previously reverted my change on the basis you believed 'select' to be grammatically correct; giving evidence from an American Dictionary to support this, even though the article is flagged as {{

WP:NPOV

.

It's clear to me that intent was to indicate that the film was only released in a limited number of cinemas, as opposed to being on

general release

. So, have edited the article to say:

… and was released in a limited number of cinemas on 14 January 2022, …

DrFrench (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit with “released in a limited number” is fine. I would just like to add, however that ‘select’ is acceptable for American as well as for British English. Google “select UK stores” for example. Granted, that may be puffery, as you point out, which may have been the intent of the original author. That is covered, though, by your edit. Alandeus (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scope creep was:

While there is no doubt the subject is notable, as far as I can see it is a

WP:SECONDARY

sources. There is two sections which are only partially referenced. They are also excessively wordy and could do with being compressed linguistically, although that wouldn't stop the article being promoted to mainspace. For example, "Pfefferkorn-Niggemeyer family". Folk don't speak like that. They say "the family moved". Find additional refs for those two sections + the life section in particular.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:Elisabeth Niggemeyer
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

scope_creep^Talk 17:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alandeus! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! scope_creepTalk 17:43, 15 June 2023 (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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]