Regarding adding a preposition.

        Respected sir, as you wrote in your profile that you are a 69 year old editor, then you must be very experienced in editing wikipedia. 
       An hour ago I browsed about Dr Shamsheer vayalil on wikipedia, there I found an infobox. In that an alma mater column is present in which name of two colleges are written. The second college which is "Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute" is located in chennai. But in the wikipedia infobox "in" is missing between name of the medical college and it's location. 
        My request is that you add a preposition "in" between the name of the medical college and it's location. Sir you must be thinking why didn't I add this preposition. I am a 12 years old boy and new to wikipedia. That's why I searched for an expert like you. 

Note:Sir, this preposition should be only added in the name of the second medical college and it's location(i.e. Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute and it's location Chennai.)

Thankyou.

Hey. I stumbled upon your userpage by accident, and I am curious why do you think it will happen so early. I would put my money on somewhere in 20-40 years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Piotr. I cannot provide a rational defense of the date, only of the concept. Singulatarians generally accept one or the other of two models: the "swell" or the "spike," as described in Damien Broderick's book The Spike. The "swell" assumes that progress will continue incrementally just as has occurred in the past. I find the "spike" model to be much more likely. In this model, The infrastructure gradually improves until it can support a sudden breakthrough to Superintelligence, the event known as the "singularity.". Then some minor catalytic addition occurs that creates a self-improving autonomous system. This system then evolves abruptly, probably over the course of a few hours or days. In this model, not much is visible to most observers prior to the transition. So, it comes down to a feeling as to what constitutes a sufficient infrastructure and when will that infrastructure be available. A minimally-sufficient infrastructure would require a significant and unlikely catalyst, probably purposely developed. As the infrastructure becomes richer, a broader range of progressively simpler catalysts are possible, and eventually the infrastructure becomes so rich that an unintentional (but improbable) catalyst suffices. Richer still, and and increasingly broad range of increasingly more probable unintentional catalysts suffice. In this model, the singularity is inevitable unless humanity ceases to exist. But the richness of the infrastructure is increasing at an exponential rate. My unsupported guess is that we are well past the minimally-sufficient infrastructure and are at or near the point where an improbable accident is possible, or where a deliberate breakthrough could be initiated by an individual working alone with only normal access to the Internet. Major elements of the infrastructure include massive computing capability (including clouds and supercomputers) increasingly rich knowledge bases (including Wikipedia,) and increasingly sophisticated analytics (including search engines and Watson.) -Arch dude (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I started my copyright review of Spider mite without checking the talk page first. In the last hundred I've reviewed this is the first where there was some discussion on the talk page, but I will start making it a practice to check the talk page first. That said, I think the facts are clear, the Colorado site was copied from, and should not have been. The ideal solution is probably a rewrite, but given the extreme backlog at wp:cp, I am limiting my actions to removal, and minor rewrite when possible. Sorry to leave it with some further cleanup needed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arch,

I appreciate your advise for me. Since I am new and my post on Najaf article was the 1st one, I got a bit surprised when my post was removed immediately. However I followed the instructions and shared my proof of references and answered other concerns of the person removing the post at the Najaf Talk page. I have edited my post today so please review and let me know if there is anything else I need to do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najaf#Medieval_or_recent_times. I'm hoping that after providing authentic information I am allowed to share the information.

Have a blessed day! Syed z (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arch duke. Thanks for your comment, which was certainly a more reasonable analysis than either PBS or Billinghurst had to offer. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what steps I should take from here. I tried asking for help at the Help Desk just last month, to which only PBS and Billinghurst replied. I could submit another edit request, although it must be said I am still not sure how to put my proposal into practice, code-wise.--Nevé–selbert 11:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arch dude,

In relation to your offer to clean up the references on the aforementioned article, I would greatly appreciate it. The mess was solely my fault and it was largely as a result of my incompetence as a new editor. I plan to hit the books so your free to make whatever changes you feel are necessary.

Sincerely,

Margalant (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arch dude,

Thank you very much for your help and hard work! Also, I really appreciate the compliment. I’ll definitely take your advise — and take into account copyright in the future! You did a great job cleaning up the article and its appeciated.

Sincerely,

Margalant (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your reply to my recent problem. I asked for a third party editor assistance before making a content dispute, was that the wrong thing to do? From what I understood of the guidelines, this was the course of action to take before going the whole hog? If I'm wrong then I'm sorry for posting in the wrong section.

Thanks again for being civil and helpfulTroy von Tempest (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Troy von Tempest: Hi again. WP:DISPUTE provides the entire gamut of tools, starting from the usual discussions on the talk page and going on up from there. It includes Wikipedia:Third opinion, which is not very formal and which will attract editors who are better at this stuff than I am. I'm not sure if other helpdesk denizens are any good at third opinion stuff. All Wikipedia editors are self-selected and select their own tasks with no direction or prior co-ordination. It's never wrong to start at the help desk if you don't know where to go. -Arch dude (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC

Thanks againTroy von Tempest (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Arch Dude, your input and support was very helpful, and I am happy the extraneous content was cleared. I am happy it is all cleared and back to normal.

Best Regards,

Matthew Asinari

Masinari (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Outstanding Contributions Recognition
	Your work and contributions are exemplary. Dear Arch dude, with intelligent and most helpful inputs at the Help desk, you truly are an outstanding contributor. Your efforts to guide editors at the Help desk is appreciated. Keep up the great work! :) Lourdes

You'll probably receive a notice that I reverted your edits on September 25. That was a mistake on my part and I've restored your edits. Sorry for the inconvenience. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: I'm of course deeply offended, because I have never made an editing mistake in my life. :-). All kidding aside, thank you for your extra effort in notifying me of this error and of your very prompt correction of it. As a separate issue, I do wonder if I am being too aggressive in shortening the entries. I'm doing it because I feel over-long entries are inapropriate and that they dilute the impact of these pages, but I never bothered to try to reach a consensus on this issue. I figured that I would wait until someone objects. -Arch dude (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're being too aggressive at all. DOY articles are just supposed to briefly mention the event and link to the article with the details. To be honest, those articles are cesspools bloated with info and frequently incorrect. Toddst1 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who spends significant efforts on DOY pages, I thought you might be interested in this discussion about widespread insertion of bogus references and incorrect information on DOY pages. Toddst1 (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1:Actually,I have no interest in the birth and death dates. If we need them, we should autogenerate them from Wikidata. Better would be a link to a Wikidata script that autogenerates them. We still have a massive issue with date accuracy and referencing, but this would centralize that problem and I hope help us work on it over there. -Arch dude (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See that https://www.wikia.com/Licensing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brassmonger (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arch dude, I understand these implications of link spamming, but it was in the article David Vetter that I got the idea to promote my podcast, as an external media promoted watching "The Retro Report" . I understand that wikipedia doesn't run ads, I just figured that because the content is often sourced from Wikipedia and the information is free to listen to, that I could offer an alternate external media that people can investigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendanDouglasKearney (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrendanDouglasKearney: I think I understand your thinking. As you can see from the page I linked to, A lot of good people who are proud of their web site have done exactly the same thing, not realizing that it is not appropriate here. I was just hoping to help you avoid the linkspam nazis. Take a look at the lead picture on their project page to see what I mean: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. -Arch dude (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arch dude. 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 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]

Hello, Arch dude. 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]

It didn't appear to be a content dispute (given that the article hadn't been edited for 2 days and it's a new IP), it simply appeared to be somebody asking for help editing. I appreciate the AGF though. GiantSnowman 19:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'm Psantora. There is a move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Requested move 25 February 2019 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). - Paul^T+/_C 16:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]