Jump to content

User talk:ReaderofthePack: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Olderon (talk | contribs)
12 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}}
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}}
{{archive banner}}
{{archive banner}}

==Thanks!==
Thanks for the help.
It was my first article nomination, and I guess I messed it up a little.
Take care! [[User:Olderon|Olderon]] ([[User talk:Olderon|talk]])


==You're awesome.==
==You're awesome.==

Revision as of 10:21, 9 March 2013

Thanks!

Thanks for the help. It was my first article nomination, and I guess I messed it up a little. Take care! Olderon (talk)

You're awesome.

Just wanted to say hello and give you some kudos since in my very short tenure editing you've happened to show up to help twice. Marla Mason and Cal Leandros are pleased too, I'm sure. And if you can think of any other urban fantasy or etc. pages that could use some help, let me know. Caseylf (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nitram Charcoal Page

Hi, I am attempting to make a Wikipedia page for Nitram Fine Art Charcoal - an artist charcoal that was originally created in 1965. I've had the page removed twice, however Peridon mentioned you might be able to help as you were credited as a great reference digger and article rescuer. I've read through several references on how to create a page and what constitutes a notable company and I believe that Nitram Fine Art Charcoal does meet that criteria (it is well regarded in art circles).

The page is located here and I have attempted to pull references from people in the art community. I would be really appreciative of any insight you could provide and would happily remove anything that appears promotions. My original template was Winsor and Newton

Thank you for your time, Christina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christina119 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

useful references

Hi..recently you removed some references from Lucky Di Unlucky Story saying that these are not useful references. So how one should decide which reference is useful . Vigyani (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the sources for various reasons.Full On Punjabi and Punjabi Mania both looked to be one of those blogs that although relatively long running, isn't considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's rules. It takes an awful lot for any blog to be considered usable, with the exception to this rule being that it can be used if it's written by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority. By this I mean that the person is someone such as a noted educator in the field (professor of film, etc) or is a noted professional such as the editor for a notable paper or a noted film director. Most blogs, no matter how good they may seem or how long they have been running, meet this guideline. It's frustrating as I've seen several blogs cover various subjects in more depth than some of the official RS, yet not get considered a reliable source despite them being rather respected within their field. Some of the other blogs, such as this one are absolutely unusable as a source under this rule and doesn't look to even come close to being a RS. Part of the reason behind the stiff rule for blogs is that blogs are so easy to create, so the reliability of any given blog is suspect. I was able to use Cine Punjab as a trivial source, but that's all it can be since it only gives the basic info of the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ReaderofthePack. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
Message added 11:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flower in a Storm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superpowers (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) 12:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby

Wanted to tell you, very nice work cleaning up and expanding The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby! :) By the way, if you are interested in film-related articles, I hope you'll check out WT:FILM. We are fairly active there. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish article help

Hi! I speak Turkish and English too. What would you need help with exactly? Kind regards, 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 18:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! A checked the sources and I think they are OK, they are daily online newspapers from Turkey/Cyprus. Notability is definitely established, since the movie was screened at national festivals. I expanded a bit based on what I found in the already existing sources. I removed the sales guy's name, that was like direct advertisement :D I left a message to the Turkish contributor on his talk page in Turkish. I hope this helps. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 15:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! I do think that the guy has good intentions, but that the language barrier kept the two of us from really meeting eye to eye when it came to explaining why I'd taken some of the stuff off the page, such as information that was already in the infobox and info such as the sales guy's name. Thank you!Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Finale Fitzpatrick Hush Hush 4.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Finale Fitzpatrick Hush Hush 4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing

Hi Tokyogirl79, thanks for adding more information to the article "Other Worlds" book about the Lohorung community of Nepal. Are you from Tokyo ? Ashishlohorung (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nancy Drew on Campus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drug usage (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) 00:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

Hi,Tokyogirl79. FYI: It looks as though you may have forgotten to sign your comment here. Cheers! Location (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Sourcing

Hi! You've been recommended to me as a great sourcer of references. Would you be able to assist me, please? My article is Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust. Many thanks in advance. Nunnsofunky (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:EntityPoster2013Film.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:EntityPoster2013Film.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Girlfriend, Boyfriend, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggregator (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) 11:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nick sand page

Hi Tokyo girl, thanks for fixing up the nick sand page. --Nick Sand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.25.195.169 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rain On The Just, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ancestral home (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) 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wolfen

Are you the person who added the plot synopsis for that book? If so, it appears you left a portion of it out.ZFT (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale of Two

Hello Tokyogirl79. Good catch. I missed that. Thank you. The author is Ethan Farmer, but it doesn't help in searching :( --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For excellent work spurring on the improvement of Chicken Park. drewmunn talk 18:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

You are cordially invited to join the anime and manga WikiProject (WP:ANIME), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with anime, manga, and related topics. WP:ANIME hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help improving old and creating new articles in this area. Simply follow the directions here to join!


Hey I just noticed you like sailor moon and was wondering if you would like to join the Anime and Manga wikiproject, some extra help would be useful =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:BeautifulCreaturesMoviePoster1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:BeautifulCreaturesMoviePoster1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding Boudreaux's Butt Paste

Nice job. The article is just 1-2 sentences short of being applicable for a DYK by itself, as a 5x expansion :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOS4A2

Can I restart the article? The novel is coming out next month, early copies of the novel are already available and Subterranean Press is releasing a limited edition.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applaud your good work on Bend, Not Break, A kitten for you!

Tokyogirl97, your recent editing work on Bend,Not Break is very impressive, helps a lot with a neutral tone on the controversy of this book.

Hope you love the kitten I chose for you! I am a cat lover :))

Count on you (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I came here with the same impression. It's good to see competent and creative editors like you, Tokyogirl :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ReaderofthePack. You have new messages at Bend, Not Break's talk page.
Message added 15:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job in improving the original posting of BEND, NOT BREAK

Dear Tokyogirl79,

You have done an excellent job in improving the original posting of BEND, NOT BREAK entry in Wikipedia.

Be persistent. Continue to exercise your First Amendment freedom of speech. Focus on how much progress all of you have made toward discovering the unvarnished truth in the past 30 days. If you consistently make progress toward fact finding, the unvarnished reality is likely to prevail over the romanticized stories.

Have faith in American democracy. Truth-finding can be a long journey. While the Battle of Bunker Hill was an initial victory for King George III, American colonists eventually won the War of Independence. British mercenaries fought because they were paid; American colonists defended this New World because it is their homeland. Good triumphs over evil, eventually. It takes time, patience and proactive efforts to debunk falsehood, but truth usually prevails in the long run. Eventually, Ping Fu, Sir Harold Evans, Van Harris Art et al. will make their amends, voluntarily.

As a suggestion, you might want to add DEBUNKING BEND, NOT BREAK website as an external link to WIKIPEDIA’s entry on BEND, NOT BREAK. Visitors to Wikipedia can choose for themselves whether they prefer to read the romanticized version, the unvarnished reality, or both.

William Lee Poy’s article represents the Asian American point of view. His article is understandable to most good-natured Americans. You might want to add William Lee Poy’s article as a reference in Wikipedia’s entry for BEND, NOT BREAK.

Look forward to finding the truth surrounding BEND, NOT BREAK by visiting its WIKIPEDIA entry 12 months from now.

Best wishes,

Albert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 17:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 -- Since Albert has outed himself, I can now say this without violating WP:PRIVACY - He's one of the "truth seekers" who have been harassing Ping Fu. You're a real "hit" with them. They say you came to their rescue. Here's a link to the messages about you: [1] Just thought you ought to know. VanHarrisArt (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imputing Motive and Intent

I'm bringing this to your user page, because we don't need more noise in Talk:Bend, Not Break.

Here are some of the things you've written about me:

  • I'll openly say it: I think that he's cherrypicking exact phrases and words in order to skew the description of the book and its controversy in favor of Ping Fu and I've said as much on the talk page.

I have to say, you seem awfully bent on having a very specific outlook on this entire scenario and you're twisting a lot of words around to mean very specific things, such as the word "critics". A lot of your suggestions seem a little WP:POINT-y and come across as sort of pro-Ping Fu and anti-critics. Trying to cherry-pick phrases to suit your needs rather than using the colloquial terms is just as much of a bias and misrepresentation as if I were to have written the article to be anti-Ping Fu.

  • I don't want to drag this into here, but it's basically the other editor assuming that "critic" equals out to "reviewer". I'm somewhat concerned over the cherrypicking of what terms are or aren't acceptable, as I feel that splitting hairs in this manner is somewhat WP:POINTy.
  • I'm still concerned over your motivation here. Most of your arguments stem from you wanting to keep all of the information in one tiny section and to keep it to very strict content. It's almost censorship in my opinion. I'm not saying that you are trying to apply some broad brush to everything and to make Fu appear like some Innocent Ingrid, but I don't like that your main argument is "but this will just spur on her haters and it could turn into an attack page"... Heck, I'll just outright say it: I think that you're trying to re-write the article for the book and the section in Fu's article to suit your own personal agenda. It's noble that you want to defend Fu against some pretty nasty people, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. We're not a place for you to White Knight.
  • I feel that this is a case of misguided White Knighting on the other editor's behalf.

That's five separate and distinct instances where you've NOT assumed good faith on my part, and have rather imputed motive and intent to me. I do not consider that these have risen to WP:personal attacks, but they are definitely ad hominem arguments.

I am going to, again, and for the third time, ask you to assume good faith. If you can't understand how the above statements are offensive, we can certainly escalate this through the dispute resolution process. My feelings won't be hurt if that's what you want to do. But I wanted to start here, before escalating, as that is WP:DR protocol.

(side note: Please don't bypass DR protocol. A bunch of wikipedians spent their good time on the AfD, only to have it procedurally closed.)

(Another note: Your comments to me are providing great amusement for the "truth seekers", who are copying and reposting them on Amazon.) VanHarrisArt (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just feel that your arguments predominantly stem from you trying to protect Ping Fu from further attacks. You say that the attacks are against Fu, but the thing is that they all come from the fact that she wrote this book. You say that the article is not neutral, but then you fail to actually bring up any examples or provide any suggestions as to how it can be changed. Your reaction is pretty much to remove everything and redirect to her article, essentially "deleting" the article and putting what can be mentioned or added under extremely strict control that has to be met per your guidelines. Guidelines that you've never really clearly stated. I honestly don't know how to progress without first outright stating that I think that you're trying to use Wikipedia as a way of protecting/White Knighting for Fu because you're afraid that people on other sites might misquote Wikipedia as a way to further harm her. We can't cover everything with pillows and write everything down to where nobody can take anything away from it other than one specific viewpoint. I view that as borderline censorship and it doesn't do anything to help anyone. If anything, it shows that we're being biased by selectively picking how much we cover something because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or egg anyone on. I understand that we have to be careful in how we phrase things because bullies on the Internet will probably take things out of context, but that does not mean that we should avoid discussing it in the detail it deserves out of a noble but ultimately misguided attempt to keep people from talking on other sites. That talk is going to happen regardless and in my experience I've found that trying to repress information to a select and specific viewpoint often makes things worse rather than better. Want to help improve the page? Give us alternatives rather than "let's direct this to Ping Fu and only include what I personally think is OK and is vetted by me". Work with us, not against us. Why not use your sandbox or userspace to write up an alternative version of the controversy and content to put in the article? Or if you've read the book in its entirety, re-write the synopsis section to be more accurate rather than complaining that it's all wrong? If you want to compare the alleged inconsistencies with the rationales given by Fu, then please do so. (Use the userspace/sandbox first to make a test edit because it'd help to have a place to work and streamline everything first before posting it in the article, as you're afraid of people going to various locations and using it against you and Fu.) But saying "no, this can't exist because I say so and because there are bullies out there" isn't a very good excuse for redirection. The people are focusing on Fu, yes, but this focus comes from the book itself and the claims of inaccuracy in the book. It's entirely appropriate for this to exist.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go sentence by sentence, because otherwise, my response is going to be a mess.
  • Your first sentence is ad hominem.
  • You're Denying the antecedent.
  • In this diff [2] I cite an example.
  • I suggested no such thing; Please show me a diff where you think I did.
  • Here is a diff [3] where I cited WP guidelines that are perfectly acceptable to me.
  • This sentence is ad hominem too.
  • I have not suggested this; if you think I have, show me a diff, and we can discuss it.
  • I haven't hinted at anything more than being responsive to existing policy--and certainly not censorship; again, if you think I have, show me a diff.
  • That's a non-sequitor.
  • This is a strawman argument.
  • First, I had to know whether there was going to even be a page.
  • If you can provide a diff where I have written, or even suggested, what you quoted here, then do so. Making up a false quote to malign another is exactly the sort of incivility that constitutes a personal attack.
  • Again, please don't suggest that I'm working against WP, unless you can provide a diff with strong evidence to support the claim.
  • What controversy are you talking about? There are at least four distinct ones related to what we've been talking about.
  • You wrote the synopsis and left out the citations. I was hoping you could put them in, so I could do a cite-check. Or maybe just explain, given your experience as an editor, why you would leave out citations on an article that you stubbed for POV?
  • I'm not here to defend Ping Fu.
  • By saying "you're afraid..." you're making an ad hominem remark, and you're again implying that I'm here to protect Ping Fu above Wikipedia.
  • And, again, you're using a false quote. If I wrote such a thing, provide a diff. If not, retract it.
  • You're pushing POV. There are RS citations that contradict your claim.
  • I agree it is appropriate for the article to exist -- within the scope of WikiProject Books.
I don't mind if you yell at me or call me names, but if you continue to publish ad hominem remarks that characterize my motives or intents, without substantial evidence, I will push the issue all the way to arbitration. I don't mind this kind of nonsense from newbies, but I'm not willing to accept it from a person who's just been asked to be an administrator. We can settle this now, if you'll agree to assume good faith and interact with me with civility. Otherwise, our next step is WP:third opinion.

VanHarrisArt (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just offering an unsolicited third opinion as a WP:Wikijaguar who has had zero involvement with the Ping Fu thing (until now) - other than quietly observing all the discussion on this page (and raising an eyebrow over the Amazon links...) it strikes me that Tokyogirl has been acting with the utmost (and very characteristic) civility and objectivity in what is obviously an extremely emotive and intense scenario, so I find your claims that she has not been assuming good faith or interacting with you civilly quite surprising. Mabalu (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'll bring this up on the admin board because I don't want this to get nastier than it is. I don't think either side is really getting nasty per se, but I think it's getting there. Especially since nothing is getting accomplished. I just have to say that I echo the earlier sentiment that if you want to have something changed, suggest an actual rewrite on the talk page. Write your own version of the controversy and reception section in your userspace or in your sandbox, then link to it on the talk page as an example. You complain that the talk page is biased and that it's pretty much just cannon fodder for the Internet bullies, but you do very little to actually give viable alternatives. You just tell me that the page is wrong and say that it's going to give the bullies more to arm themselves with. That's not finding a solution, that's perpetuating this argument. If anything is going to bring bullies to the boards to stir up trouble, it's things like this, where we're doing nothing but butting heads and splitting hairs without actually finding solutions. I've rewritten the argument and I've tried to re-write it to be more encompassing of the situation. You aren't really giving me much to really go on. You tell me that what I'm doing is well, pretty much wrong. No, you're not saying that precisely, but you're essentially saying this by way of saying that the page wasn't neutral enough, that things needed to be changed without giving alternatives, and by saying that the page will only encourage bullying. I'm bringing this up to the admin board as a way of trying to diffuse the situation before it escalates any further. This has long past the point of ridiculousness.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hi Tokyogirl! I see that you were asked this last year, but I think it's about time you were asked again - would you be interested in running for adminship? I think you would pass RfA with flying colours. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 05:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, how about it? :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent, isn't he? Mind you, he has a point - you've been on my potential admins list for ages. If you want to start getting ready, or need a nominator, I don't think you'll be short of offers. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at it, Strad, her resolve is wavering... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be massively active in admin duties - if you use the tools to close the occasional AfD and perform the occasional move over a redirect, that would be an excellent reason to give you the tools. Go on, you know you want to. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of us, one of us, gobble gobble... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your work on Bend, Not Break!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki is awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes.

Tokyogirl79, I chose this Barnstar for your great efforts in these 3 days on page of book - Bend, Not Break! I've used Wiki so many times, but never thought about the great efforts behind it. Hats off to you and Wiki team!

And, I agree, you deserve a good break from the heated debates with some opinionated self-promoting wiki-writers. Count on you (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79:

Your kitten and your Defender of the Wiki Barnstar came from a WP:SPA created 2 days ago, apparently just for this purpose. I won't deny you deserve the Barnstar... but bribing you with a kitten shows they'll stop at nothing! What's next? Virtual chocolate? A picture of a rare Sailor Moon doll set? VanHarrisArt (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A rare Sailor Moon (faced) Doll set for you!

Couldn't find any Sailor Moon dolls on free use image, so hope some rare sailor moon(-faced) dolls will be close enough... ;) Mabalu (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My 2nd Defender Barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Hi Tokyogirl79,

I am giving you this Defender Barnstar again to show my support and appreciation of your great efforts! My barnstar is a reward like a school-year trophy given to an outstanding student, not a bribing item as some wiki offenders just mentioned above.

To keep "Bend, Not Break" wiki page a balanced place, without tinted opinions is very hard, along side with the existing hot controversy around this book.

Two extreme sides make wiki a battle ground. I hope this Personal Message section is a clean and calm place for you, you can have peace at the end of a hard-working day! Enjoy your trophy, you deserve it! 

Count on you (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReaderofthePack&oldid=543003007"