User talk:Belovedfreak/Archive 19
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Would you review my article?
Hi Belovedfreak - I'm concerned that the user who offered to review my article (Music of Madagascar) might not actually intend to do so. I see you're a very experienced user and your expertise would be much appreciated in assessing the quality of the article. Any chance you'd be willing to have a look? Thank you, Lemurbaby (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- replied here. --BelovedFreak 12:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Marlena Evans
Hi! I looked over your GA review, and tried my best to fix all of the problems you listed. It is currently awaiting a copy edit, and I'm going to request a peer review. If you could take a look at it and address that I have fixed some of the problems that would be great. Thanks for your help! Marcus951 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for your GA review - may the blessings of St Eleth himself (if he in fact existed, that is...) rest upon you and your labours, if you like that sort of thing. Regards, BencherliteTalk 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey there! Could you have a look at the article again (not the whole thing, just the parts that you suggested improvement, maybe looking at the specific changes could help [1]?). I removed a few sentences instead of changing them since the article didn't lose anything from their exclusion. Thank you so much! Cheers!Fixer23 (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC) I mainly worked on the prose, didn't do anything about the lead or the technical aspects of the article. So you don't have to look into those yet :) Fixer23 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the new comments, I'll get to it asap and leave the rest to someone else :) Fixer23 (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's alright :) ThanksFixer23 (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: Amending edits
Thanks for your comments, genie :) Even though you commented an IP address, please be careful because "some people" don't always appreciate comments in my favor and they are quite idiotic ... 68.197.144.38 (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- If I may, I did not see you comment at Talk:UBS/GA1. The article was also listed at the time of economy of Iran. I think there is much to say there... First, this article was listed WITHOUT any real review as you can see. Second, the article has changed a lot since it passed "GA" and many critical and material information has been removed. What do you think? Does it need reassessment? 68.197.144.38 (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:FILM November 2010 Newsletter
The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WP:GAN
Oops.. Sorry, I forgot... Btw, can you help me out on this? Novice7 Talk 11:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Boys Don't Cry - How far now?
Could you give me a list outlining what's remaining that needs to be fixed up before I nominate the film? If you could start is a new section on the Peer Review page so it's not as hard to read. Thanks! Ashton 29 (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ashton 29, sorry for the late response. I'd be happy to have a look, but I'm a bit limited for time right now. Hopefully I'll be able to be a bit more active within the next few days. In the mean time, if a lot has changed from the last peer review, you could consider requesting another one, to get other opinions. --BelovedFreak 14:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thankyou! 119.12.113.197 (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Dr.heintz/Manfred Kohrs
Hello Belovedfreak, you´ve help me by Horst Heinrich Streckenbach; thanks for that.
Please, can you help me by User:Dr.heintz/Manfred Kohrs too ? (...you know, my english is not so good)--Dr.heintz (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there, I'd be happy to help but I am quite busy in real life at the moment. I will try to have a look when I can! --BelovedFreak 14:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Belovedfreak,
I think the Article User:Dr.heintz/Manfred Kohrs is ready. Please check it, when it´s o.k. please move it; thanks for help.
I will of course continue to look for references.--Dr.heintz (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- hello, you can delete User:Dr.heintz/Manfred Kohrs. Thanks for help.--Dr.heintz (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Belovedfreak, This WP:GAN of yours has been reviewed and is now On Hold awaiting minor corrective actions. Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
-
- Congratulations from me, too, and for achieving the supportive comments made by Pyrotec. Are you going for FAC (in my experience it can be painful, but don't let me put you off)? I think it's an excellent article. But I find geography articles to be a difficult challenge; they have to contain so much stuff. After I got Runcorn to GA (and failed at FAC), and Widnes to GA, as you have seen, I've moved into more comfortable areas. But — don't let me put you off from getting another gold star!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much Pyrotec! Thanks for the congrats Peter, I'm so pleased it's passed. Yeah, i would love to get it to FA eventually, although I see that as a whole other ball game. I think I could get it there with regards to comprehensiveness, but there's the engaging, professional prose to worry about too! Who knows, I'll keep working on it and maybe one day... In the mean time, a bigger priority for me is probably to work on some of the other settlement articles in that area and try to whip them into some sort of shape; GA is a pretty good benchmark for that. Plus do a few more churches... where to start! --BelovedFreak 11:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations from me, too, and for achieving the supportive comments made by Pyrotec. Are you going for FAC (in my experience it can be painful, but don't let me put you off)? I think it's an excellent article. But I find geography articles to be a difficult challenge; they have to contain so much stuff. After I got Runcorn to GA (and failed at FAC), and Widnes to GA, as you have seen, I've moved into more comfortable areas. But — don't let me put you off from getting another gold star!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Systematic changes
You advised me to go slow. I am, with all changes. I have wasted the best part of two working days as the result of making a trivial change to an article that an acquaintance requested, then creating a revised version of the entire article as a sub-page of my user page, as an example of correcting internal cross referencing. This seemed completely innocuous to me, but caused such a reaction I have been going to considerable trouble, first to preserve the content under a different name that would not be picked up by a web crawler, whilst getting rid of the version that did, and now trying to get rid of this further version.
The systematic changes that I had in mind are typified by: 1. An obituary of the scientist / academic and research administrator Robert Allen Smith mentions people in laboratories that he directed who went on to further distinction later. I would put mention of their presence in his laboratories into articles about them if this mention was not their already. 2. The photographic history of Malvern, Worcestershire contains photographs of Edward Elgar talking to George Bernard Shaw, a early 20th century Rag and bone man, a Troposcope and many other people and objects that are subject of articles. I would put mention of these photos in the relevant articles (I have done so for some, already). 3. The article on Hammett's Law in physical organic chemistry mentions several topics. I would put links from articles on those topics back to the article just mentioned.
But I have wasted so much time on the situation I described above I have to put off quite a lot of small edits on topics I am really interested in that I was planning.
Anyhow, thanks for your advice on caution and the unexpectedness of possible objections. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Tis the season
ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.
Please confirm your membership
 | This is an important message from WikiProject Wikify. You are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Wikify. As agreed upon by the project, all members will be required to confirm their membership by February 1, 2010. If you are still interested in assisting with the project, please add yourself to the list at this page—this will renew your membership of WikiProject Wikify. Thank you for your support, WikiProject Wikify |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC).
LGBT articles of Brazil
Hello! I am Brazilian and I need of you to correct my translation edits, because you are from an english speaking-country, please help me in the Same-sex adoption in Brazil, Changing legal gender assignment in Brazil, LGBT rights in Brazil, Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, Age of consent in Brazil, Prejudice in the Brazilian LGBT community, and Criminalization of homophobia in Brazil. 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hentzer (talk • contribs)
- Sorry I'm quite busy with other things. You didn't seem to like what I had to say about your edits in the past anyway. It looks like at least one of the other people you've contacted over this will help you.--BelovedFreak 17:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Christmas Card
GA Review
Hello, I appreciate your concern over the Transportation in the Soviet Union "A" rating. I understand that an "A" rating is a bit of a stretch from a "GA" rating, but I meant for my rating to remain intact. This is the second article I have rated under the Soviet Union project, but I have rated many other articles. I am familiar with what constitutes an "A" rating and what is only "GA". However, I appreciate your kind message and am glad that all reviews on Wikipedia on being checked carefully. Best wishes, Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:1930s in Israel
Category:1930s in Israel, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:1935 in Israel
Category:1935 in Israel, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
GOCE Year-end Report
Season's Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
  We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011!
– Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
nobleherb spam
Hi, thanks for helping here, I have also filed a block request MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#nobleherb.com so add your info there if you think it is warranted. Richiez (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. Looks like you have it covered. --BelovedFreak 16:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter
The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
GA review request
Hello Beloved, I know you have looked at a few of my Indigenous art articles from time to time, including for GA review. If you have time, would you consider reviewing Josie Petrick Kemarre for me? It's been on the list for a while at GAN, and I'm trying to clear my commitments at WP, anticipating a temporary absence, during which I wouldn't be able to respond to a reviewer. Let me know if that's an option. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 02:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Your GA Review of Josie Petrick Kemarre
Hi. Just letting you know I have called your GA review of Josie Petrick Kemarre into question on that article's [[talk page. I believe you have mistakenly approved it for criteria 3 and 6, and that in fact it would take a significant amount of work before this article would be ready for GA. Please feel free to comment on the discussion page and on the reassessment that I am requesting. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: Trsteno Arboretum
Hello! I suspect that the text was copied the other way around, but I'm not 100% certain and I'd like to hear a second opinion on this. I left my comments regarding the copyright status at the article's talk page, so if you're willing to take a second look, I suggest that we continue there. GregorB (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your analysis... As for the other articles that were apparently copied - such as those three I mentioned in the talk page - would it be generally safe to assume that all mirrored travel2city content was actually copied backwards? GregorB (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the others though I think it's likely that everything is copied. It is possible that they also write their own content (why bother though when you can just steal it?) and that they copy from other websites too. It's probably safer to assume that older articles of ours have been copied by them. If any new ones turn up on WP, it's always possible that they were copied from the travel2city site (and perhaps in turn from somewhere else). I tried to find the site in the internet archives to try to judge how old it is, but couldn't. Sorry it's not a definitive answer but yes, they probably are copied from here, just tread cautiously. If you're not sure, do a few simple checks like you did on the talkpage before I turned up. Check if you can see the text changing organically over time.--BelovedFreak 17:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your RD1 request
Regarding your request for RD1 redaction at One Minute to Nine, I'm thinking because of the amount of revisions to be revdel'd, and that not much other content has been added by the other contributors, perhaps it would be better to just delete the entire article as a copyvio then restore only your version (the last four revisions). What do you think? -- Ϫ 00:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's really not that many revisions; a lot more than that get done under RD1 regularly. Either method really works, though "delete and selective restore" has largely been deprecated, see WP:RD5. Courcelles 00:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ya but just picture how the revision history well end up looking. What's the point if the only 'good' revisions are the 4 without the copyvio. A selective deletion I think is a much better solution here. -- Ϫ 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm ok with either really. I can see both sides but I've not been too involved with either processes, so I'm not sure which would be the best option. I guess if it's revdel'd, then at least we know who edited the article earlier, if that's a consideration. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much original content left from those earlier editors, as I removed some unsourced bits as well. Sorry I can't be more helpful. :/ --BelovedFreak 20:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ya but just picture how the revision history well end up looking. What's the point if the only 'good' revisions are the 4 without the copyvio. A selective deletion I think is a much better solution here. -- Ϫ 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I (never) promised you a miracle
Hello! Remember me from yesterday? That's right, the one who put forward Edinburgh as a good article nomination when it still needed a lot of work done on it. I have (in my opinion) improved it from when I first looked at it and will continue to do so. I shall be looking to fix the references and such after you pointed out that they need formatted properly. I am however not so hot on the prose (not terrible, but not so hot) and that may be my downfall in achieving GA status for the article. Why am I telling you this? Well, I don't want you expecting miracles. :) John Hendo (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- No miracles expected! I wouldn't worry too much about prose (I'm not great at it either!). It is important in the end as "well-written, clear & concise" are part of the criteria. If you can get the content cracked though, and referencing, the prose and MoS can be tidied up at the end (or as you go along) and if all else fails, you can perhaps ask someone to copyedit it for you. And, yeah—I can see you've put a lot of work into it already, so well done for that! Don't forget my suggestion for peer review, there are some very helpful folks over there who are experienced with GA and FA articles, and PR is usually much quicker than the GA process. Also, I don't know if you've already seen it, but the "how to write about settlements" guide can be very helpful for layout, as well as checking you've covered all bases. I'm sure the article can easily be a GA, with just a little more work... :) --BelovedFreak 20:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Burkinabé
Thanks for letting me know. I fixed the categorisation as misspellings. I moved only five titles. I guess is the same... --Againme (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- No problems. Just didn't want you having to make lots of changes if they weren't necessary. :) --BelovedFreak 14:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI, she's back. User:24.34.144.92, adding decorative images. Sigh. Rm994 (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- *sigh* indeed. Doesn't look too good for a legitimate return. I see you reported her to AIV. Not much more to do really except maybe drop a note at Gabi's talkpage for future reference. --BelovedFreak 20:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Grid refs
Please see Template talk:Infobox church#Grid refs. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)