Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to Genealogy Roadshow (U.S. TV series). I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 03:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The InBetween, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — YoungForever ^(talk) 01:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please note that disambiguation pages like Tom Thumb (disambiguation) are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
• Only add an entry if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory
• Do not add articles to acronym or initials disambiguation pages unless the person or entity is widely known by that name (in which case it should be stated in the linked article).

Thank you. Leschnei ( talk) 01:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

There are other "Tom Thumb" entries that themselves 'do not link to articles!!!

However, in some of those entries there are links to related existing articles.

My entry had such a link.

And it was apropos to the "Tom Thumb" calculator in my disambiguation entry.

By your reasoning, the "Tom Thumb" entries in which "Tom Thumb" is not a link should all be removed.

In short, I strongly disagree not only with your logic, but the removal of my entry. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D ( talk) 02:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Your entry linked to Salt Lake City; there is no mention of 'Tom Thumb', 'Summit International Corp', or 'calculator' in that article. If a reader clicked on the link hoping for more information on the calculators, they would be disappointed. That's why it was removed. If the calculator or the company is notable, you could add the information to an existing article or write a new article.

I also removed other articles that didn't mention Tom Thumb. If there are still inappropriate entries on Tom Thumb (disambiguation), feel free to remove them.

Finally, when responding to someone on your talk page, you need to ping them by starting the message with something like {{ping|Leschnei}}. Otherwise they will have no idea that you have responded. I ran across your reply by chance. Leschnei ( talk) 22:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

My apologies about the link, I was probably thinking of another edit/correction I did.

I am also not familiar with this form of communiqué and do not understand the concept of "to ping them."

I have also noticed some changes in what, and how, information is being handled here at Wikipedia. As a result, I am no longer making changes nor edits. And I'm not sure about even doing any "Talk" pages. I've gotten tired about having to haggle over or defrnd corrections/edits. It seems people here are not that concerned about facts nor sentence structure nor grammar. And many arguments on the "Talk" pages also seem more about ego than keeping/making Wikipedia encyclopedic.

Good bye and good riddance. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D ( talk) 23:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ray Danton has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ray Danton was changed by 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.893187 on 2019-10-18T00:24:18+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 00:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I think translations of foreign movie titles should be included in any actors film list. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D ( talk) 00:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Who Do You Think You Are has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Who Do You Think You Are was changed by 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.872598 on 2019-11-04T23:24:14+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 23:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Poydoo ( talk) 01:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Firstly, you ask why your original entry was deleted. I'm guessing it's because they don't like the term "natural causes" for some reason, and I'm speaking from personal experience. You also say that you find it hard to believe that he died from natural causes so young. The best way I can explain it is although it's rare in younger people it can happen at ANY age. It's usually because of a genetic abnormality that is not detected until it's too late i.e. after death (autopsy). Editrite! ( talk) 08:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I know "death" can occur at any age; however, according to medical definitions, "natural causes" is a "manner of death" not a "specific cause." It is also defined as "a result of the aging process" implying 'old age.' And I'm probably not the only one who doesn't consider 38 years of age to be "old age."

If an autopsy finds, like you said, even a "genetic abnormality" as either the cause or being a contributing factor, then that should be listed as COD --- it's more specific and factual.

Also, I, too, speak from personal experience not only based on the deaths of my parents, but also on the fact that my father taught medical and nursing courses at the collegiate level for nearly 25 years.

Plus, it seems to me that Wikipedia has undergone a change this past year (2019). And I don't feel it's a positive change. That's why I stopped editing and only 'do' the "Talk" page. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D ( talk) 09:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Too Many Walls are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD ^v2.0 12:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Barbara Ruick, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A a s i m 04:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I strongly disagree ! ! !

The section title of just "Filmography" strongly indicates, infers, and implies that the titles listed are the only movies/series that Barbara Ruick appeared in.

And that is simply NOT the case ! ! !

Barbara Ruick appeared in nearly three times the number of movies/series that are listed.

As such, it is NOT a complete filmography which the section title indicates.

And, as such, I firmly think that my correction should stand.

In fact, I've made the EXACT SAME changes at other actor/actress pages and have NEVER been "scolded" for it.

It surprises me that Wikipedia editors don't like facts or things being factual.

'Nuff said. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D ( talk) 05:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply