User talk:Jezhotwells/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jezhotwells, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for University of the West of England. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Rod ^talk 23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Nice work on Bristol! One small point - references should be placed immediately after punctuation not before e.g. some text that needs referencing.<ref>blah blah</ref>

Let me know if you have any questions. --TimTay (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Logobig2.png

Thanks for uploading File:Logobig2.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. For future reference, {{Non-free logo}} when you add a logo to Wikipedia. --TimTay (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Bristol mayors

Thank you, very kind of you to take the time to point that out. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

SimSig

Cheers, that actually looks a lot better. manadude2 (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SimSig

An article that you have been involved in editing, SimSig, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimSig. Thank you. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong tagging for speedy deletion

Hi Jezhotwells. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted you to inform that I declined to delete Rail Simulator, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G11 because of the following concern: G11 requires blatant advertising, not just some content that might sound like advertising. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or file them at articles for deletion. Regards SoWhy 15:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I mis-interpreted that, will change back to reads like advertising. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I just wanted to inform you so you notice this and understand why it was declined. Regards SoWhy 16:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

And thanks also for this handy template. Wingspeed (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Well, I'm here to listen to everyone involved and hopefully be able to suggest ways forward where everyone can work together and get along doing what everyone is here for: Creating great content! Delaque (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I understand that you are frustrated about the current tone of the article, but at the moment I feel that the conversation is very heated, and there is lots of focus on who said what and how, rather than the editorial process. I believe that you and all the other involved editors want to write a good article, which is good, and something to build on, but I really need you to help me out by trying to cool down the rethoric so we can find common ground together. Would you be willing to try that? Delaque (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the two templates from the top of the article after recent revisions seem to have dealt w/ the problems that you were concerned with earlier. I noticed that you did that after I responded to Delaque's question posed to me in the talk page today, and I appreciate that change. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Bristol?

What's going on with your edits to User:Lupin/Filter recent changes? Is this a script gone haywire? It seems quite peculiar. --Russ (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi My apologies, I thought that the category box was for filtering the output. that is not clear. I have undone it. Thanks for alerting me. Not sure why the category box is there. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The category box is there because you have HotCat installed. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks my own stupidity then. I have unistalled it. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Johnson assessment

Hi! I assessed Catherine Johnson and I agree with your assessment for the article. Please, next time be patient and let another editor assess. It's an interesting article and it would benefit from more structure. Best wishes. Hekerui (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Image placeholders

Worth reading this discussion. --Rodhullandemu 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I don't understand a lot of Wikipedia's technical stuff so I'm probably not going to explain this very well. I created Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Theatre because there was no page for theatre-related userboxes. The problem is, the userbox I created was at User:Java7837/userboxing/, which I didn't realize was a page available to everyone until I noticed the theatre userbox I created kept changing on my user page whenever another editor created a new userbox at User:Java7837/userboxing/. That's when I realized I needed to create User:LiteraryMaven/userboxing/ to personalize the page and keep others from editing it. If you look at the revision history for User:Java7837/userboxing/, you'll see many editors have made changes since I was there last. I'm guessing whatever userbox is the most recent on that page appears on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Theatre as well. If you look at that page now it appears I've corrected the problem. I'm sorry if my explanation makes no sense! LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Virtual sailor logo.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Virtual sailor logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bristol

Bonjour. J'ecris en français, je ne parle pas l'anglais. C'est vrai votre commentaire, je fais la rectification, merci. Je ne sais pas d'où est-ce que j'ai obtenu cette donnée... --Manuel Trujillo Berges (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Catbrain

Works for me; thanks. I've removed the coord missing tag since the coord is not missing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Korean under K

Thank you for your friendly welcome message, Jezhotwell. I did not remove the Korean language link, I merely moved it so that it would come under K when listed alphabetically. I don't suppose it really matters because it's not in the Roman alphabet anyway. Nevertheless I find the alphabet confusing enough when things are listed correctly!

--ResYwDhymmDybriChoklet (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Love Kraft

At WP:GAN you've tagged it "requesting a second opinion", but there's no review - the "review" link on the article's Talk page leads to an empty review page. --Philcha (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

European Metropolitan Areas

Thank you for you assistance regarding List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population.

Ghaag (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

William Timmons

Your Talk:William Timmons#RFC comment completely sidestepped the main issue of contention: whether the mention of a FOIA lawsuit that has nothing to do with William Timmons violates NOR. (Notice how awkwardly phrased the last sentence of B is to shoehorn it in.) Can you comment on that? Thanks. THF (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

J, thanks for your comments earlier. If you would be so kind as to read the updates and give another comment, that might help us. Dicklyon (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Howard Newby

Why do you describe this editing as disruptive? It was not vandalism, but brought important information about Newby to the front of his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.55.220 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

What is it you think ought to be posted there? --Dragonfiend (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You can opublish your evidence of sock-puppetry, coi and original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure exactly what you think ought to be posted there or why. Unless you can explain that a little better, maybe you ought to just post whatever it is you want posted? --Dragonfiend (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You are complaining about another editor's edits citing WP:COI, WP:OR and sock-puppetry. If you can provide evidence the noticeboard is where to complain. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins are already aware of the COI and multiple accounts here (See for example [1] and [2]) If you've got some message you'd like posted somewhere, just go post it; don't expect me to guess what messages you'd like to post and then post them for you. --Dragonfiend (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Jezhotwells

I noticed you started to request an editor review, but it doesn't seem to be completely filled out. I don't know if it was ever transcluded into the current reviews list. Do you still want to request a review, or can I close it? Wronkiew (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bristol GA edits

Could you take a look at the comments Malleus has put on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Bristol.— Rod ^talk 18:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

warning vandals

When you rollback vandals and warn them, please make sure that you really rolled back the edit. You have recently warned vandals without rolling back their edits, probably due to race conditions with other editors rolling back the same edits. Thanks.--Oneiros (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

vandalism template

Sorry for the misunderstanding but I corrected a spelling error on the page. The Rapture (band) I see the vandalism at the end of the sentence but you may have to review the history of the page that vandalism was there before i edited the word ACCORDING. otisjimmy (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I came accross the word i did not look at the whole sentence my bad.otisjimmy (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you have posted a vandalism template on my page. There is no justifiable reason for its inclusion as you have not reverted my edits and I have not made any edit that could even remotely be accused of not being in good faith. Perhaps you meant to put this on the page of the IP user who has repeatedly made the same page edit without discussion or explanation? Locke9k (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. These things happen, no problem. Locke9k (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting vandalism & rollback to previous version Diffs.

NYScholar has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Which ones ?

Could you be specific and what is you claim, on what paragraph ? --Gwinndeith (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourced

Sourced the information but it was removed.--Gwinndeith (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Author's Farce GAN

I respond here. I think you may need to quote me the line you were referring to in the Cambridge Companion to Henry Fielding because I can't find it in mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just went through and performed a major copyedit of the page found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is anything else missing, I will be around to take care of it quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

your warning

Several of us tried a userRfC for WiC back when this started. At which point, he brought in someone who didn't know the topic through GA.

Please make sure WiC does not keep reverting before we settle this. That would stop the edit war, because nobody else will take his side to that extent. Dan (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing Own Talk Page?

Please stop your disruptive editing and edit warring. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Please stop your edit warring on another user's own talk page.

There are more severe cases of vandalism more worthy of looking out for, especially in the articles rather than talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.52.191 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviews for the Signpost

Hi there! I see that you're interested in possibly reviewing a couple of books for the Signpost. Since they are already available, you're welcome to take a crack at reviewing Here Comes Everybody (if you have a copy) or The Public Domain. Length would be up to you, but I suggest somewhere in the 500-1000 word range. Assuming you do quality work, after that I could try to secure a review copy of Reference in a Digital World.--ragesoss (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rube Goldberg revert

Thanks for your pointless revert of my edit on Rube Goldberg on the grounds that it was unsourced, and the boilerplate rationale you posted on my talk page, giving the whole thing a decidedly automated feel. Fair enough, except that hardly anything on that page is sourced... are you going to remove the entire article? All I did was add Wallace and Gromit to the list of films that have been influenced by Goldberg. This is notable because most younger British people unaware of Goldberg would likely refer to Rube Goldberg machines as "Wallace and Gromit style machines." None of the other entries in the list was sourced, either. To quote a pre-existing unsourced statement at Wallace and Gromit, "Most of Wallace's inventions look not unlike the designs of Heath Robinson and Rube Goldberg." Allow me to suggest the use of Template:Fact instead. Oktal (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing of Noah's Ark Farm Zoo - 26 March 2009

You reverted my edit of this page to the previous version and gave the reason as "Vandalism". The Wikipedia official guidance on Vandalism defines it as:

"...any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."

The material I added to the Noah's Ark Farm Zoo page on 26 March 2009 was as follows:

"Its displays accompanying the aminals present Christian Creationist beliefs as if they were scientific facts."

This is factually correct, based on verifiable observations I made when visiting the zoo and confirmed by many other visitors. I therefore utterly deny the suggestion of vandalism.

The official Wikipedia guidance further states that:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

I regard my change as a legitimate, good-faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. I would welcome any explanation of your use of the term "Vandalism" in this case.

Peteinterpol (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Author's Farce

Dear Jezhotwells,

I was kinda disheartened to see that you reverted my changes here; I felt that at least some of them (though not all for sure; you're correct) improved the article. In any case, Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) went through and reincorporated the good changes, making some larger copyedits of his own. He wanted me to tell you that he feels that the article should be good enough to pass the GAN now, so he wanted you to take another look.

Sincerely, NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm

OK, that's reasonable. Happy with the article as you have left it.

Peteinterpol (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Blond Bombers

Thanks for reviewing this article. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns, so it would be great if you could revisit the review when you have some time. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mike Mizanin

Awesome, thank you so much for the review. It's really appreciated. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hi! I wanted to thank you for your review of my editing and for the insight you provided. I value any constructive critism I recieve and will be honored to listen to any of your recommendations in the future. Thank You, T-95 (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review

Hello, thanks for reviewing Jape (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I hope I've addressed your concerns. --candle•wicke 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ariel Meredith

I have responded to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Next time you promote at GA, make sure you update Wikipedia:Good articles/recent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chemetco

Thank you so much for your GA review - an impressive piece of work, and very fair. Martin451 tackled a few of the points and I hope you'll agree that I've sorted out the remainder. Astral Highway (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor's assistance

Hi, there's a new thread at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests#Archiving stale topics where I'd be interested to hear your point of view. Please stop by if you have a moment. Thanks! and thanks too for all the archiving. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD notice message

You left a notice of AFD on my user talk page, which I appreciate, but unfortunately it indicates it is article Article title that is up for AFD. I suspect you substituted a template and forget to give it the article name as a parameter. Do you remember which article this refers to? RJFJR (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, but I just did some copyediting to that article a while back because it was tagged for cleanup. I really don't have anything to add to the AFD aboiut it. RJFJR (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items

Are you using a report to generate the items for Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hello Pappy and "drawn with a white wheel"

In the game, the wheel you got was selected by a random "internal" Plinko like process at the bottom of a pinball machine. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed

I have fixed some of the issues with the Hello Pappy scandal article. Unfortunately we had issues trying to find the now dead article on ABS-CBN's new site, so I found a different site that had at least most of the information (it didn't say the player was a female named Weng, but thenagain that was probably an unnecessary intricate detail. Also, the citations in the last paragraph DO cover it. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit, we found a new ref - its in tagalog, but it does reference Weng. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Non-english sources

Unfortunately, the non-english source is the only source providing information on what Joey said. However, the verifiability policy says that English language sources are preferred, "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality." Unfortunately, this is not the case. However, the new citation I provided for Weng, is verifiable within the Tagalog article; and I added the relevant quote to the citation itself. That better? ViperSnake151  Talk  23:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Steelers GA review

Took care of your comments. Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks! blackngold29 03:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Follo Line

I have taken your review of the Follo Line to good article reassessment. Feel free to leave comments at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Follo Line/1‎. Also, please read up on the Wikipedia policy on non-English sources at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, as you seem to have misunderstood the policy in several reviews. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

RS

Nice tweak. rootology (C)(T) 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review homosexual transsexual

Thanks that you offered a second opinion. Are you sure about the dispute because the side initiating the dispute refrains from editing because of COI and has problems sourcing specific issues that would support her claims. The whole affair seemed a lot trickier to me because anyone could stop an article from achieving GA by initiating a dispute no matter how much sense it makes. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

re clearing my talkpage of vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Renominated Homosexual transsexual

I have renominated that article because I think your basis for failing was wrong. It is at Talk:Homosexual_transsexual/GA4. Please provide some explaination for your opinion in light of what I have pointed out. One reverted edit is not an edit war, especially when it is one based on sources and discussion and involved just one single word in the article.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, I fear, those comments would have been lost on the talk page of that article, it is very long already. As for instability, disussion is not instability, it is just discussion. Look at the actual edits, each one was made after a long talk page discussion between me and Jokestress and JamesCantor and WhatamIdoing. This last person asked for references to this word being used in psychology, I pointed out that every journal article on it appears in a journal of psychology, and most of those researchers named are psychologist and I reverted that edit. That is not an edit war.

This is a controversial issue where emotions run high, I am the most neutral party in all of this, demanding that all sides get together and sing kumbya me lord is not realisitc, let's just be happy that at this point there is no actual war. Becuase we have had actual wars here on WP over this. What you saw on that GAR is what peace looks like in such a controversial, real life issue.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I noticed you were wondering...

Explanation, carry on. :) BOZ (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for revert on the Noah's Ark Zoo Farm talk page

I'm going to start up a new section on the article talk page to explain why I made these edits. If you can, please respond. Thanks. Sifaka ^talk 23:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I think my edits conflicted with yours. i was intending re-adding Oxford (as it proves that even university edited people can be stupid) and controversial. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at your revert, I think it is a better course of action to manually change back only the controversial parts of someone's edits rather than blanket revert the whole thing. It is frustrating to not know what exactly another editor is objecting to when an edit involves multiple parts. Sifaka ^talk 00:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, sorry. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob! :) Sifaka ^talk 01:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard III edit

I understand your logic, but I was indeed being very broad in my labeling, since labeling strives to encapsulate a whole string of events, people, or places. Henceforth, the labeling on every Wikipedia page is a very broad redirection. You use them on this website to put things in perspective. Why have labels, then?

Remember the embryonic Plantagenets were 100% French and this bloodline is obviously diluted/lessened as they married into either an indiginously English populous or other European families.

Seems a bit anachronistic, ascribing modern law to medieval matters. But good sir, I mean to cause no rabble. The Hainault touch, mein friend. I am done with the matter. I am well aware of the British nationality laws. As a student here and by my nan's blood I have "indefinite leave to remain" or whatever it is called. I might throw rocks at your place in Bristol. Just kidding. Take it easy, they'll be no more squabbling over this.

24.238.41.82 (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

November 15, 2008 Carolinas tornado outbreak

I think I've added the requested information to the article, save a historical perspective since there isn't any that I could find. Thanks for the review :) Cyclonebiskit 16:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review: Mary Carpenter

In case you hadn't noticed, I've opened the review for the article Mary Carpenter. I think it could be a GA (being similar, in a way, to my own) but that more work is required. Anyhow, feel free to comment on my talk page. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't be able to do a full re-review for a couple of days (I haven't the time), but I can't see anything that will stop it passing. That being said, you might consider getting one of the guild of copy-editors to have a look - and push it towards FA class. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Done and duly passed. Enjoy! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 24 April 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bane (comics)

No worries, I'll fix those references when I have the time. Enjoy your holiday. ^The  Jay  Experience  12:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Diocese of Bristol Bristol Schools Chamber Orchestra Caradon Tewkesbury (borough) Trinity College, Bristol Bristol Paint Mid Devon Edmund, Earl of Rutland Salisbury (district) Teignbridge Jamie Smith (footballer) North Wiltshire William McLaren Bristol Kevin Amankwaah West Devon Bristol Schools Philharmonia Forest of Dean (district) Bristol board Weymouth and Portland

Cleanup Easton, Bristol Doomsday (comics) Bristol Parkway railway station Merge Mick Aston List of British monarchs Open Firmware Add Sources Edred of England Minarchism Edwy of England Wikify Alfred Sturtevant Medical prescription Billericay Town F.C. Expand Cobalt glass Cheddar Reservoir The King William

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Bishop

I have written an entry under the title "Ethnomethodology". Jonathan Bishop decended on the site and started inserting false statements into the text. When I called him on it, he did nothing but declare himself a "research expert". The documentation is available on the "discussion" page.

I investigated this guy and he has a number of complaints lodged against him as an unoriginal, know nothing, self-promoting liar. I concur with these statements.

My question is how do I get him banned from the site. He keeps returning and reverting perfectly solid information with his non-sense.

Any help would be appreciated.ASchutz (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter review request

Sorry, I just don't have time in the near future to take on a proper review of Harold Pinter. Glancing quickly at it, though, my most immediate recommendation is to remove all the subdivisions about the various projects he worked on. The sections should flow as a series of paragraphs with chronological or thematic unity. Right now it appears to be more of a collection of summaries. Good luck with it; sorry I couldn't be more helpful! Scartol • Tok 13:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hi User:Jezhotwells,
Thank you so much to take the time to help me grade and copyedit for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie.
I think you made a mistake with the songs; songs are supposed to be in quotation marks under Wiki policies.
Please get back to me, and wondering when I'm done if I could some how nominated it for WP:FAC.
Thanx again!
ATC ^{. Talk} 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Naked Brothers Band

I'll have spare time to handle my remaining reviews from Wednesday to Sunday (May 20 - May 24). - Mgm|^(talk) 07:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

66.177.248.135 & Sea Glass

66.177.248.135 (talk · contribs) seems to have been warned both for adding and deleting the same link. Did you notice the rest of his talk page? If he reads it, he must be pretty confused by now. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 April 2009

Thank you.

Hi, Jezhotwells: I want you to know that I very much appreciate the hand-holding you provided me with respect to the GA review for Syrgiannes Palaiologos. Thank you very much. PKKloeppel (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

Hi, I have a question and comment regarding your Good Article review.

1. I will delete the "See also" section.
2. I saw some featured articles that don't references, which I never understood, but I thought there should be references in the lead section as well. For example, Autism is considered to be one of the best articles on Wikipedia and was a featured article with references in the lead. Also, their aren't too many known references to put in the Plot besides the three, which isn't a lot, so I'm not sure if the references in the lead section should be deleted.
   

Please get back to me.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

GAN

Hi Jezza, I have seen from WT:GAN that you have shown a willingness to take over reviews that have gone inactive. I wonder if you would be willing to conclude this review.

User:Mgm has made many good comments and suggestions that has lead to real improvement of the article, but I had hoped that such a prolific user as them would be able to respond to improvements in a more timely manner (there was no progress from 28 April to 18 May). Thanks, decltype (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after [3]. But I guess you're right, it hasn't been that long. Maybe I have unrealistic expectations about how long a review should take, or maybe the article simply wasn't ready at the time of nomination. decltype (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard III

That's not "removing information" - the fact that sv.wiki is featured is indicated by a star next to the interwiki link on the article page. These stars appear regardless of the quality of the foreign-language FA. The question is whether we should be translating from an article that wholly lacks inline citations as a good route toward improvement of our article - that is what the FAOL tag encourages. Do you think translation from sv:Rikard III av England would really be productive? (On a side note, I think we should err on the side of not marking borderline articles for translation, considering how many clear translation candidates sit in the queue still untranslated.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Badock Hall

Ok, not sure if you saw the note on the article talk page, so I'll come here before starting the labourious process of AfD. You recently reverted the Badock article back to a standalone article rather than a redirect to the combined Halls page. There is a pretty longstanding concensus that university residences, without good supporting evidence of an interest to the wider community, are not notable. For Bristol in particular this has already been established at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badock Hall in Apr 2006
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiatt Baker Hall in Oct 2005
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durdham Hall in Nov 2007

Are you happy for me to revert you, or do you think the current article adds something new and consensus needs retesting? Nuttah (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mary Rundle (British naval officer)

Hi!!

Thanks for the great work you did on the Rundle article. I stand by my suspicions regarding the creator who based the article entirely on WP:OR and provided no sources, but you have done the job, and I have no qualms admitting I was mistaken in this case. I did scour the Net looking for any mention of Ms. Rundle, but I guess I didn't do it right. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Shaidar cuebiyar says thanks

Thanks.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Accessdate parameter

I saw in this diff that you added an "accessmonthday" and/or "accessdaymonth" parameter. Please be informed that these are deprecated. The preferred way is to put day, month, and year together in the "accessdate" parameter. See {{Cite web}}. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that you are doing a great job on this article! Debresser (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it personal, that was just a standarised message. I have a few more of them, to deal with some regular mistakes. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

Hi, I got this from User:ATC, but I'm pretty sure they intended to give it to you. I'll just leave it here :) auto / decltype (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		I give this barnstar to you as you continued and put full effort into grading The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie article, when it wasn't being looked at or focused on for nomination. Thank you. ATC . Talk 01:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's for you. :) ATC ^{. Talk} 22:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ewan Forbes

Thanks for the detailed review. I've been away for the past few days, but I'll try and have some work done on it tonight and tomorrow.

Regarding the use of "he" and "Ewan" throughout, there was a recent major change to the article about this - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_Ewan_Forbes,_11th_Baronet&diff=prev&oldid=284544089 here] - which I've left a note about on the talk page. I'd be interested to know if you think the changes were a good idea before I begin going over the text... Shimgray | talk | 18:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! It's a delight to have detailed feedback on something - a critical pair of eyes pointing up problems really helps improve the article. Shimgray | talk | 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag on Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA1

My Mistake; for CSDing an archive page, I didn't see that it was actually a subpage of a legit article.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Westerlies

I believe I've taken care of most of your concerns. I need more input regarding what needs to be reworded in the extratropical cyclone section. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the remaining issue. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WesleyDodds

User:WesleyDodds made those changes to the WikiProject Alternative music banner on Talk:Rip Rig + Panic, Talk:Massive Attack and Talk:Head (British band) as he is a member of the project. His edits (although sometimes missing an edit summary) don't appear to meet WP:VAND. Can you say in what way they do? --JD554 (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that removing talk page comments could be classed as vandalism; however, when a long-standing editor like WesleyDodds makes them, it is probably better to ask them why they were removed rather than use a generic warning template. As for Wikiproject's for artists' talk pages, you could look at WP:WP_MUSIC#Project_structure and determine the best one based on the genre that particular artist primarily records in. --JD554 (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Before you jump to conclusions and quickfail the other Eurovision page because of the sources, maybe you should discuss the validity of them first instead of making us wait another 2 months for a review if we have to renominate. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

They would have to be blogs to be a problem. Why would you think they are blogs first of all? There are editorial teams for both, news correspondents that reported on-site, the author and date are shown, etc. There are currently multiple GAs using them as sources and even an FA. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You should read the description of what a blog is and then we can have this discussion. I would rather you start a discussion on the reliable sources talk instead of reassessing everything to satisfy your own pov. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ansfelden coat of arms image

Wilhelm meis has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

For beating me to the punch! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I give this barnstar to you as you continued and put full effort into grading The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie article, when it wasn't being looked at or focused on for nomination. Thank you. ATC . Talk 01:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome and thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 11:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ATC ^{. Talk} has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

although I still wish the cookie was real—it looks really good... :) ATC ^{. Talk} 20:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

talkheader

Howdy. re:Talk:Monk & Canatella: There is a strong discouragement on adding the {{talkheader}} template to any pages that don't need it. See that template's documentation for details, (eg. "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page."). See the template's talkpage for numerous and ongoing discussions about same. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Hello, Jezhotwells. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior_of_User:Jezhotwells regarding your uncivil behavior. Thank you. --Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To Jezhotwells and Mojofan1945

Why are you both so interested in Jamie Colby? You make almost daily posts to her Wiki page. Very curious....especially since you have some of her information WRONG and I know her personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuracy checker (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD renomination of Bristol Indymedia

I have renominated Bristol Indymedia for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia (2nd nomination). Since you participated in the previous nomination, good wikiquette counsels advising you of the relisting. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

SPI

You tried to file a case here. Please don't edit the main SPI case with requests; instead please refile on a subpage after reading the directions here. Thanks! — Jake Wartenberg 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

2 Skinnee J's

Hello Jexhotwells, I appreciate your note regarding the 2SJ wiki page. The trouble is that half the info on the page is nonsense, not to mention that many edits that others have deigned "acceptable" contain things that I personally changed/added! Honestly, all I care about is that anyone out there who wants to learn about the band gets the real info. I don't know the first thing about wiki etiquette, but I do know that the info up there is incorrect and there's MUCH more info that needs posting, much of it in the pre-internet era (ie. impossible to reference a source via a link). Can you help me out here? I've added info to the pre-exisiting page - can you please take a look and let me know your thoughts? At the very least, can we communicate via email (Action2SJ@aol.com) so I don't have to keep coming back here? -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's an amazing point of view. So, are you telling me that if I can't reference the sources I can't add info or that since I have a conflict of interest, I can't post? Andyaction (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose in hindsight I should have just posed as a fan and made up a bunch of published sources. So much for honestly - it caused you to flag me! Although I completely understand your point of view, I have to be honest and say that you're breaking the band's balls for your your own sake of purity. I guarantee you that the edits I've made are true, even if presented in a humorous manner. It just seems to me that you're sticking to the rules here rather than doing what's best for the page, the fans and for the band. Can I ask this, then - instead of taking the time to get me blocked, can you take the time to help the 2SJ fans, via wikipedia, get the info they deserve about the past, present & future of the band? There's a ton of really cool stuff (including a full-length documentary on the band premiering in Sept!) coming up. -=AA, 2SJ --Andyaction (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing and laughable that you're completely comfortable with the previous version of the page, the vast majority of which is completely unsourced and erroneous (some completely misleading!). You have made me very sad and have done a great disservice to the band and anyone who cares about the band. -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

With that in mind, why are you not flagging the previous (current, by your decree) entry as unsourced? Most of the info up there was contributed be me anyway. All of it is unverified by Wikipedia's standards, now that I read them. -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

YOU WIN! the 2SJ wiki entry is now pure, complete with errors, misinformation, incomplete discography & no new info for anyone! I lose because I took the time to set it right and have now wasted my time and have a headache! Victory is yours, Jezhotwells! Much love and respect, -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am livid now, astonished and insulted that you're comfortable with entry as it stands and that you took the time to rebuke me (or anyone!) for augmenting and/or improving it. Nothing there currently is truly verified, except by a few interview excerpts (one cited twice!) and, in fact, most of the "facts" that are actually true there were added by me and have somehow been approved (and sometimes simply incorporated into previous text!) by you & Chiliad22, despite not knowing which are verified/unverified or sourced/unsourced! Where is the source/verification for the band members, tours mentioned, albums released? I see nothing and yet you deign to "allow" this information to stand. Someone simply added what they knew, just like I did - so shame on you for allowing this double standard! I just find it insane that you (or anyone, quite frankly) can just decide to be the arbiter of what's "sourced" or "verified" when you were no more or less anonymous than I before I began discussing this with you. I don't possess the time or gumption to go digging through microfiche/newspaper archives to prove the details of my career, so like I said - you're argument is right! You win. I took a lot of time and heart to make the wiki entry well-writen, factual and informative (in the spirit of whoever started the page entry, reciting "facts" of the top of their memory!), so I'm really bummed out about it. At the very least, give us the respect of leaving the statement from the band posted on the page if you won't let us repair the sadly incomplete discography or to add the band's official website (somehow a link to MySpace is ok with you though, despite it being a non-third-party source!). You're a fraud for deciding that you're the person who has the authority to pick and choose which of Wikipedia rules you think should apply. -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No insults at all, friend. Congrats for upholding the wikipedia rules! Well done and thanks for nothing, -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks so much for the updates you've added to the 2SJ wiki page. I'm sorry about my outbursts, I was just frustrated & embarrassed... Everything up there is now indeed true. If I ever take the time to get some more verified info to flesh out the bio & discography, would you be willing to amend the wiki entry if I send you links to verified sources? Regardless, thanks for putting up with me and many thanks for taking the time to update the page. -=AA, 2SJ ps. The 8/10/08 photos are from Fillmore @ Irving Plaza, not the Gramercy (although that venue is in the part of Manhattan known as "Gramercy"). Andyaction (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted my edits

I removed some blatant vandalism on Reading and Leeds Festivals line-ups. Please don't reverse such edits, and then accuse me of vandalism! 94.194.208.253 (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: GA Sweeps

Those are very good reviews. Just remember that if the talk page wasn't using {{ArticleHistory}} before, you should convert them to use it. So you may start reviewing by choosing an article from this page and follow the instructions. And finally, keep track of all review records on the running total page OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Designing your page

Hi

I'm hoping you can point me in the right direction.

I'm new to editing and am trying to put together my profile page. So far I've managed to add a box saying I use Mozilla Firefox, but I can't work out how to add the other boxes. Boxes like the Google Earth one that you've got on your page.

Can you point me in the right direction please? --5 albert square (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ian McKellen

Hi. I have no issue with the delisting of this article from GA, but I do have some comments on the tagging that you've done after delisting. I have never seen an article have entire paragraphs highlighted for sourcing in all the years I've worked on Wikipedia. Why do you not use {{fact}} tags rather than the odd {{reference necessary}}? While it is fine to tag statements for cites, I'm a little mystified by tagging an entire paragraph that only describes some roles played or appearances. It in no way clarifies what you consider needing supporting sources.

I also have issue with tagging biographical data garnered from Inside the Actors Studio interviews. That is properly sourced to the episode, air date and episode information and you only tagged the source once, so I'm confused by what you consider acceptable content from that source and what is not. Apparently it is that he stated on the broadcast that he was attracted to Derek Jacobi. How can that be questioned but the other 5 facts from the broadcast be accepted? There are no transcripts available online that do not violate copyright status of the program and I've never seen proper citations to a broadcast from there be thrown out for "not in citation" when the program is sourced. That's a bit like tagging a citation to a book as failed verification. Depending on the nature of the source, it is not always possible to immediately verify a fact, nor is it necessary for that in order for it to be accepted. And I've never seen anyone question a tiscali.co.uk biography reference. I'd really like to see discussion that casts doubt on the source.

I'd really appreciate clarification on these points. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I like what you did. Interesting use of highlighting. It should easily show editors where the changes are needed. The Delisting from GA shows more urgency in fixing these areas and gives editors the clear opportunity to do so in the correct places. Excellent work!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact, it does not show editors where changes are needed and there is no stated point anywhere that says that a delisted GA is in more urgent need of "fixing", especially when one cannot tell what needs fixing. That is the whole purpose in my posting of these questions. Highlighting an entire paragraph with non-controversial content with a blanket "reference needed" does in no way clarify what is being challenged. The prime example is a paragraph with general appearances in films. What is being challenged? We are not obligated to add a source to verify that an actor appeared in a film, espcially in a starring or featured role. By reinforcing this use of ambiguity, it does not help anything, and only supports the confusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And in regard to the post on my talk page, you have not clarified in any way what exactly you are challenging. Just because someone else "liked" that you highlighted complete paragraphs does not mean the ambiguity is gone. Instead of answering my question regarding what is in need of sourcing, you've referred me to your talk page to see a "I like it" comment and ignored my direct question. Please cite specific statements or portions thereof which you believe are in need of specific referencing or remove the ambiguous highlighting that provides no clarity to an editor looking at the article. Your rationale that highlighting paragraphs saves you time in explaining your fail decision is invalid. You should be pasting in what you have issue with when you aren't going to tag specifics or otherwise there is no clarity in your critique and it calls your decision into question. Not to mention that it appears tacky and unprofessional. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was directed to your review by Wildhartlivie. First, I'd like to thank you for joining GA Sweeps, it's great to have another reviewer! Looking at this review, I just want to point out a few suggestions for future reviews. Rather than immediately delisting articles, it's best to place the article on hold for a week or so to allow the editors of the article to have ample time to attempt to address the issues. In this case there are a lot of {{fact}} tags that were added (and likely necessary), but since they were not there prior to the review, the editors of the article, for example, may not have considered the statements to need to be sourced or the whole paragraph was covered under one source. When looking at actor articles, individual film roles do not need to be cited since the films are references themselves (the same reason a plot for a film does not need to be cited). As a result, the entire paragraph does not need to be cited, but if there is a particular statement that you think needs to be cited that do tag that.

Also, for non-free images (such as File:GandalfPoster.jpg) there should be in the heading a statement saying which article it is being used for (such as in File:Section28.jpg). This will prevent a bot from tagging the article for deletion at some point. The discussion that you added at the top of the talk page does not need to go there, it can be included with the rest of the discussions at the bottom of the talk page. Every reviewer reviews an article differently, so I hope you don't take offense to these suggestions. I believe that these will help the editors to improve the article as well as allow for discussion on issues that are raised. If you need further clarification on anything, please let me know. Again, thanks for helping out with Sweeps. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I did not take exception to the delisting. I did, and still do, take exception to the unsightly and unprofessional appearing highlights which are not necessary when simple fact tags are all that are required. It is still unclear to me what you want with some of your requests for references.

"In the same year, he was also exposed to North American audiences in minor roles in the television miniseries Tales of the City (based on the novel by his friend Armistead Maupin)..." Tales of the City may well be a series of books, but the sentence says clearly it was a mini-series based on the novel (which was the name of the first novel in the series, published in 1978). That isn't ambiguous.

"On 16 March 2002, he was the host on Saturday Night Live. In 2003, McKellen made a guest appearance as himself on the American cartoon show The Simpsons, in a special British-themed episode entitled "The Regina Monologues", along with Tony Blair and J. K. Rowling." What references? The roles are their own reference and the rest of that paragraph remains tagged for references when it is more of the same commentary.

"McKellen appeared in the 2006 series of Ricky Gervais' comedy series Extras, where he played himself directing Gervais' character Andy Millman in a play about gay lovers. McKellen received a 2007 Emmy nomination for his performance." What here needs a reference? The role? The Emmy nomination, which is also specified in the filmography.

I am noting these simply because they are valid questions and examples of the need of specific citations and not the ambiguity of paragraph highlights, especially on content that is not controversial.

As for Paris-Roubaix, I asked if that was orthodox because it was not SOP on the GA or FA articles in which I have been involved during the actual review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

All discussion about the Ian McKellen GA re-assessment at the talk page of that article please, if you wish to have it answered. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Paris-Roubaix

Unless you're willing to keep the article in purgatory for a really long time, it might be necessary to fail it. Too much of the article is dependent on print sources, which I'm sure are fine but make it really hard for someone like me who doesn't have access to them to do some necessary rephrasing that is still backed up by those sources. Or, if I were to be able to do it, it would take a very long time. I don't have internet at my home right now and I'm left with coming to Starbucks for a couple hours worth of web time at a time. My knowledge of the race itself is just not as good as my knowledge of stage races. I'm going to ask for help at WP:CYC, so don't fail the article right this second, but it still may end up being necessary. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Your Message

Hi Jezhotwells, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 10:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Danny Deever

Thanks for the note. If memory serves, some of the print sources were dredged out of the library stacks; it shouldn't be a problem to get page numbers, but it might take a couple of days. I'll let you know if there's any problems! Shimgray | talk | 20:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bristol Badgers

Well, I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted content so you can carry out the merge. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bond, James Bond

Thanks for helping out at Talk:Live and Let Die (novel)/GA1. Any chance you could give Talk:The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)/GA1 the same treatment? Geometry guy 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

Thanks. I've tweaked the few things you noted.--John Foxe (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy re-review.--John Foxe (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Jezhotwells Re. Edits to the Enfield Town FC

Hi Jez,

The reasons why this has escalated far further than I ever wanted it to is due to the ETFC "webmaster" refusing to acknowledge what he knows, as does everyone involved at the club to be true. It is not chronicled or archived anywhere, but it remains a 'fact' that when the club was formed there was a split in the views of the fans and they all found themselves in the horns of a dilemma as to which way to jump. Any such a split will always cause lines to be drawn in this manner and 'any' encyclopedic article must surely have such information no matter how uncomfortable it may make anyone feel. I have admitted freely that my early edits were somewhat irresponsible and have tempered them accordingly, but if you look at the thread of the exchange between myself and Jancyclops you will see that he flatly refuses to accept anything that he calls a "point of view" unless it shows him and his fellow fans of ETFC as whiter than white. To illustrate this you will see that he was quite happy to leave the section regarding the supporters which I posted because it made a number of positive points about them but was then deleting a 'verifiable fact' regarding the club being sued rather than correcting it. I thought that an encycopedia was there to inform people, not for certain individuals or in this case, groups of individuals to effectively "pat themselves on the back", which if you look at the Enfield Town FC page you will see that that is exactly what it does. Please be aware that I have no axe to grind with anyone and that I have acted with the best intentions in order to see that the truth is not suppressed in any way. Please do feel free to get back to me on this or any other edit that I make. Best Regards, Eric Wall. Ericsback (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)EricsbackEricsback (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Jez, This is surely an encyclopedia where people look for original content, not second hand self congratulatory witterings. When one looks something up in an encyclopedia, one does not then expect to have to refer to some other source to verify it's authenticity. Wikipedia, which I have used for reference for many years, is and ENCYCLOPEDIA, and therefore should therefore be aefinitive point of reference, and that is my only interest in this.Ericsback (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok Jez, so you have then seen fit to remove the completely 'verifiable facts' regarding the respective drops in standards experienced by the fans of the other 2 clubs mentioned. your reply shows that wikipedia is clearly NOT an encyclopedia. Ericsback (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles

A second RfC has been started on sourcing for Eurovision articles, you can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. You are being notified as you are specifically mentioned on the list of events relating to the dispute at least once. The list is intended to be factual to help focus discussion, please point out any errors or omissions. You are free to participate in the debate if you wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman in Kharki

Hi. Thanks for your review on "Absent-Minded Beggar". I saw your comment about "Kharki". This must be some kind of joke about accents, don't you think? As you can see, it's reflected on the war memorabilia, etc. I don't know if it's a joke about the Tommys' accent or the South African accent. Kipling spelled the word "khaki" in the text of the poem. I'm only a poor American, and definitely not in the best position to get to the bottom of it. Can you help? I didn't start this article, and the original authors seem to have vanished long ago. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that Shimgray added a note; but the note is unreferenced. The link explains that the word comes from Hindi, but it doesn't explain the spelling. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the OED's citations for the word include the spellings khâkee (1857), khakee (1859), Karkee (1884), Khakie (1879), Khaki (1879), Kharkie (1893), and Kháki[s] (1889), which does tend to indicate you could pick your orthography! It standardises about 1900, as did most such words, but an unusual spelling floating around is probably just that, rather than a deliberate twist of language - the poem isn't written in anything like the forced vernacular of the Barrack-Room Ballads, and I'm not sure why the "merchandise" would bring that out. Shimgray | talk | 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Can't believe I forgot to add the GAN tag to Talk:Izzat Darwaza. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusive language

Hi Jez

Am sorry to trouble you, am just looking for a bit of advice here. Chatting to a friend through MSN before and he was on one of the Transformers pages but instead of finding info about a cartoon he found abusive language. I logged on, found the page, deleted the language and re-saved the page but re-saved it blank until I could relocate the original text. The original text has now been reloaded back on, everything is ok. I tracked the IP address responsible for the changes and sent a message to them asking them not to use abusive language. I'm just wondering is there anything else I should or could have done?

Also, I notice now that the topic is semi-locked due to the vandalism. Is that something I can do as a plain editor or does that have to be done by a mod?

Many thanks for taking the time to read this!

--5 albert square (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Votestacking

Since you're new to Wikipedia -- or at least, don't appear familiar with WP policy in the context of notability -- I think you should read WP:CANVASS before leaving more messages like [4] and [5]. I am not saying that those two are themselves an attempt at vote stacking, but you should understand that such messaging takes place on thin ice. Vote stacking is not allowed, which is why I notified people who participated in the first BI AFD regardless of which side they were on. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

re:Barnstar

Thank for awarding WebCiteBOT a barnstar. It is always nice to know my work is appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark Steel's in Town

Please see the updated article and the comment's on the article's talk page. ISD (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've sorted out the tenses now. ISD (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Giles Coren

Thanks for finding that Giles Coren quote. I had a real job finding it. Will have to check out Nexus. I don't understand why you say it is usually taken out of context however? Could you tell me what you mean? Brythonek (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. I am not sure about parody- seems like a good way of avoiding problems to say it is parody. If I go and parody auschwitz are people going to say, oh well, it was only a joke. It wasn't so long ago that Coren was embroiled in another controversy with the Poles I believe. Anyway, I will look at the article and adjust the wording to give Coren the benefit of the doubt. Brythonek (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Harkness article

Actually that was original text written by me, in what I thought was good WP style. A little ironic that anyone would think an admin with six years at WP and many thousands of edits would be shilling for corporations... Stan (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Hopefully Talk:The CIA and September 11 (book)/GA1 is sorted now :) TheGrappler (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Please comment here. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Tim riley is hard at work off-line right now to create a new version. Obviously, it is a big job. As soon as he posts it, we can all work on it, and I will follow your lead and Tim's as you both know much more about Pinter than I do. Tim is an extremely able researcher with a broad knowledge of British theatre, and his work provides him with unlimited access to research libraries, including the BL. He will give us a status report tomorrow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

He's hoping to get a new version up on Wednesday. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Fair point - sorry. I am not Banksy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.151.182 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Boys' Club (Parks and Recreation)

I responded to your GAN review. Take a look and let me know what you think. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells, what I did was

only revert the article back to how it was originally, he removed that she is Syrian without talking at the talkpage. This childish behavior is not acceptable, and until an agreement has been reached, the article should be reverted back to how it was originally. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash

There's already a debate going on in the respective Talk pages of Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash. Reliable sources have been provided to prove that they held Egyptian citizenship, and not otherwise. Until such sources are produced, it is not appropriate to revert reliably sourced information, is it? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, the discussion is actually over at Talk:Asmahan. I've been involved with the discussion there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Just noticed your work at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and surprised you haven't received one of these yet. :) œ™ 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Harbour

Did you mistakenly removed the category "barrages" from this article? I've replaced the category. If you still disagree please let me know why you think that the harbour isn't a barrage, kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I just saw it listed at Barrage (tidal) and assumed.... but I realise that you probably know a bit more about this then me! And yup, I had heard of the Severn Barrage Idea :D. Well, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

heh heh :D Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pinter

Please go ahead with edits to the Harold Pinter article. We've got the new version up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong guy

Why have you alerted me [6] that this article hasn't made GA quality? - If you check my edits carefully, I haven't been contributing regularly for half a year, and my edits to the article consist only of reverting vandalism. --Flewis^(talk) 11:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia talk:BAN

I removed your comment at this policy page because it's not sufficiently related to discussion of the ban policy and it unnecessarily criticizes a banned editor, which is discouraged. Unbanning NYScholar is not the issue there, and no argument has been made there that NYScholar was not disruptive. If there is going to be a discussion of an unblock, it would probably be mentioned on User talk:NYScholar or definitely on User talk:AdjustShift, so if you want to comment should this come up, you might watch those pages. Thanks for your understanding. --Abd (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive response on my Talk page. I did reply to you there, soliciting comment. No obligation. --Abd (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Me Against the World review

I think you are right. The user who nominated it has told me they had computer troubles and hasn't been able to be online for a while. But it's been a month. I'll fail it for now and report back to the user. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus College, Oxford

Thanks for letting me know (although I'd already spotted your activity on the article talk page!) I'll see what I can do; should be relatively straightforward to tidy up. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I Saw Your Entry For MisterMeth on Sockpuppetry

I have to admit, good call on this, as I thought Cjas was the original. Also, I want to mention that I think the Cjas account was meant to circumvent fair use photography: the four images are my proof. On the four pictures, different photographers are credited, but the copyright holders are all given as CJAS (Criminal Justice Addiction Services, not the user). Given the name of Cjas's account (abbreviation), it would appear (on the surface) that the account was the organization's or a member of it, thus circumventing fair use as it would appear the organization holding the copyright was giving it to the public and uploading the photos they held (all four are ticked Public Domain). The last two (usjails and commcorr) were meant to be the "two uninvolved users" that "cjas" claimed gave the A-Class approval (by what's written on the talk page). What do you think? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been falsely accused. I am one user. I have one account. CommCorr —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommCorr (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

CJAS, the copyright holder of the four (4) works in question, released them into the public domain two years ago. There is no dispute about any of those pictures! They were available via Google Images with the same owner identified and named above for several years before the subject of BLP retired!--CommCorr (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rand Kannenberg under attack by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jezhotwells:

Jezhotwells made 8 edits yesterday. Jezhotwells accused 4 users of being the same person(s) with different accounts. Jezhotwells needs to know that this user is not affiliated with another account. Jezhotwells blocked users from using Wikipedia! Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP that is more than 2 years old. Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP with more than 12 different editors. Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP with a history of several independent positive reviews on quality and importance (in 2 categories). Jezhotwells took advantage of one user lowering a rating yesterday (not improving it!) to start the attack. Jezhotwells does not recognize that this article adheres to all policies on biographies of living persons. Jezhotwells should be asked to please leave this article alone. Jezhotwells is being reported to the Notice Board for these reasons. Thank you. CommCorr —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommCorr (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

I've been through the article once. It still needs a lot more work, and I've left comments that can be seen from the edit screen. By all means, please dig in. I need a rest! Tim riley suggested that the article relies too heavily on Billington, so when adding refs, I'd suggest refs from a source other than him, where possible. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrea Dworkin

Thank you for your note. I'll do what I can to fix the referencing. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm still working on improving the references in the article, but I've been extremely busy IRL and haven't had the time to finish fixing the article. Can you give me a few more days? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article review

Thanks very much for your work in reviewing Military career of L. Ron Hubbard. I've nominated it for featured article status - you're very welcome to contribute any views or advice at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/archive1. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering you gave me a nice insight on what to improve in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, I wondered if you aren't too busy and could take a look at my other current GA nom, Watchmen (film) - the review is stalled, so I don't know what is needed. Thanks; igordebraga ≠ 00:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Actually, there is a consensus, as I explained on the talk page. You may not like it, but that doesn't defeat the existence of consensus. Read Talk:Bristol Indymedia#Merger completed and WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia. I have accordingly reverted your change in line with the consensus for merger and redirection.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: ANI

That is sometimes done when the posts have to do with the same thing. They shouldn't have been merged though, they should have been placed one under the other with one having a Level 2 header and one a Level 3. Either way, I do believe that Simon is overusing and misusing ANI. I would recommend steering clear of him as best as possible. If you are having any problems with him, let an admin know and they can take care of the problem. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, so there is no confusion, I am not actually an admin. I just help out on minor disputes, stuff like that, that anyone can help out on on ANI and AN. Several non-admins do the same where they can help. Kinda taking the stress off the admins for the minor problems. I have no real binding power, but most of what I have said you will get from an admin too :). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the Bristol Indymedia and Independent Media Center articles and I see really no reason that Bristol Indymedia should be merged into Independent Media Center. Even if Bristol IndyMedia is a spinoff of the larger company, there is no reason to mash the two together. It would be like taking USA Network and mashing it together with owner NBC. Just silly. If that is the jest of the ANI post, then is should be at WP:DR or the talk page and not ANI. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Clyde vanbarrel

An article that you have been involved in editing, Clyde vanbarrel, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde vanbarrel. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Happy Editing! — 138.88.7.48 (talk · contribs) _{06:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)}

WQA

Although this isn't a reporting about you, good wikiquette requires me to let you know about this since you're involved. The warning thing being discussed isn't a huge deal; it's just a slap on the wrist as a reminder to not edit war. Don't worry about it. Given Wikipedia's apparent incapacity to consistently apply policy to identicial situations, I truly doubt you'll be warned, but as I said, even if you are, it's not a big deal. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Magic Alex

I thank you for your time on the article. You have taught me a lot about which sites can be trusted, and I have been feverishly looking at other articles to keep them in line with this new way of thinking. It's all for the good of Wikipedia, after all.--andreasegde (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RIII

Jez, he is known to be the last king to uphold chivalrous ideals and lead his troops into close combat. HVII didn't, neither did HVIII, and on...

Hell, I think you might be the biased one. I have gotten into scuffles with you earlier. Read a book. Garner the true information. You seem to be the nightporter for this page. I sure as hell hope you have read a legitimate bio on Richie, such as Paul Murray Kendall's eponymous work. He describes Henry VII as a money-hungry king, which he was and we all know Henry VIII as a womanising glutton. The teenager and the women...led to the Stuarts...no military conquest...and on. Would you like a quotation to back up the sentence?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC) 

List of Colorado railroads

Either you didn't actually look at the edits, or you're really dense. Please have another look. --NE2 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor Assistance - Thanks for taking the time to help

Jez, Thanks for taking the time to provide me with feedback on the Year One (film) reversions...and also for taking action on that article. I now understand what you did and how you did it, but am not terribly comfortable taking such proactive measures against other editors at this point. I am sure my confidence will build after being in the trenches for a while. Thanks again!Bobinit (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Hiroh Kikai

Are you sure I was the intended recipient for that message? Cheers, —Ruud 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I didn't remember and didn't look properly through the edit history. But as I know nothing about the subject, I would have little to say in a GA review. —Ruud 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Before and after Science

Thanks for reviewing and passing the Before and after Science article! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Cunard Building

Hi, I can 100% confirm that the website is still up (I've just checked once again), however, I think the server they use probably doesn't work well in heavy traffic. I'm not sure what the policy is regarding this, but I would reckon the website is easily accesible for half to 3/4 of the day and maybe struggles for the rest. Whether that means it is not a usable source, you'll probably know better than me. I'll look for replacement sources, but I don't think it will be possible to find replacements for all of them because pretty much everything else I can find deals with its architecture and construction, rather than history of use. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham

Hi, I noticed you've done a number of GA reviews for WP:BIO. Would you cast an eye over the article on Henry Allingham and let me know how close it is to GA standard, and what barriers there are currently to it reaching FA? Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will give it a few days for the article to settle down first. Still quite a bit of editing going on as he only died this morning. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Kikai

Hi Jezza. What do you think of progress here so far? -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Earthsuit at GAR

I have started a Good Aricle reassessment regarding Earthsuit, here, and your comments are welcome. This is nothing personal. I thought your review was fine, but I still disagree about the interview. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus

Thanks for your time reviewing for ga autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus. I've fixed the dead link and removed the wikilinks on the authors (reference section). Hope it's ok (my first article for ga...).Alexikoua (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Demi's Birthday Suit

Thank you for the Kikai confirmation.

I thought I'd look at the fate of other GA on photography. I either hadn't been aware of "Demi's Birthday Suit" or I'd forgotten about it; anyway, as I started to read it I was appalled first by its waffliness and then by the sourcing of the assertions within it. See my recent set of edits to it and my remarks on its talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Minstrel show

Thanks for dropping by my page to let me know about your recent action w/regard to the above-referenced article. I was only very minimally involved in the article talk space a very long time ago and contributed little, if anything, to the article proper. I've never actually even read the article. So, I'm not really an involved editor -- and don't intend to be. Peace deeceevoice (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all explicit requests for citation that were in the article. I have no way of knowing what else you believe was undercited. If you will use {{cn}} or similar to mark up what else you think needs citation, I'll do my best to cite for it. I'd like to get to where you feel your issues were addressed, before renominating it for GA status.

As you can see, the requested points were not at all hard to cite for; someone had just failed to do so. Like deeceevoice, I never worked heavily on this article, we were both much more involved in Blackface, but I believe both walked away when it became clear that some people were more interested in making it a battleground than an article. - Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Talk:The Quatermass Memoirs/GA1

done! Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Natasha Bedingfield

Hi Jezhotwells, thanks for letting me know about Natasha Bedingfield being de-listed from GA status, but I never actually brought the article to GA in the first place. I'm aware I have a high edit count to that page, but none of those edits were actually adding content.

Note I'm not annoyed here, it's just that I've had three GA-related notifications this last week, when I don't believe I've had any before, despite being here for over 2 1/2 years! :D Thanks. Acalamari 20:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy

Thanks for your comments on the Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy article (at the GA1). I'm not sure I agree about the image gallery, having just re-read MOS:IMAGES and WP:IG; could I ask you to take another look at those parts of the MoS and give it another think, please?

More useful, from my perspective, though, was the list of bad references, which is very handy. Thank you very much for having taken the time to review them so thoroughly.

I added a couple of notes (broadly to the same effect as my comments here) inline on the GA1 page; it prolly makes sense to keep the discussion there, if you don't object?

Thanks again for looking through the article; I've not worked on an article enough to GA nominate it before :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having taken another look. I'll keep working on the references. Thanks, dude! :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Company Picnic

I've responded to your GAN concerns but am seeking more feedback. Take your time. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson

If you wish to review the article for Kelly Clarkson again for GA, i've cleaned it up as best I can. It's a highly vandalized article, and edited alot by newcomers, tough article to keep up with. Alankc (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

SmartLynx Airlines destinations

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from SmartLynx Airlines destinations, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! AreaControl (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I've opposed at AfD. As I explained there I understand your concerns but the Wikiproject Aviation style guide for airline articles advises that airlines with more than ten destinations could have the destinations listed in a seperate article - an established example of this is BMI destinations. AreaControl (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Prod re:Dexter Pittman

I removed the prod notice. Regardless of WP:ATHLETE says, WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Clearly, the articles from the Dallas Morning News, USA Today, Big 12 Conference satisfy the criteria. There are a ton more to be found, if needed. Corpx (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: South Carolina Highway 38

Hello Jezhotwells, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of South Carolina Highway 38 - a page you tagged - because: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Carmel Kaine

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Carmel Kaine, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete notice of Christel House Mexico

I have removed your speedy delete notice from Christel House Mexico as A7 does not apply to schools. The A7 criteria clearly states "An article about ... an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools). It is my understanding that twinkle does not list the full criteria but just a sumamry of them. You should, however, be aware of the full criteria before tagging any article. This also applies to the following articles: Christel House Venezuela,Christel House South Africa, Christel House India. Dpmuk (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I need your help PLEASE, Jezhotwells.....!

Hi Jezhotwells!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Markbow&diff=cur

I need some help to rectify some error messages that are popping up on the Joe Bowman (marksman) page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bowman_(marksman)

I am Joe Bowman's son, Mark Bowman, and I have ownership of the images I have posted on this page. I originally entered these photos without the proper ownership info, have re-entered the photos with the proper license designation and made the proper typo corrections and finally have the page corrected, have eliminated any factual errors and put the format together properly.

Could you please help me get all photos tagged properly that are currently on this site. I think there are default warnings that pop up to administrators of this page when things are edited extensively or photos are not properly credited. Now I see a "warning" label on this page, suggesting that the content might not be objective enough, because I, as Joe Bowman's only son, entered it. I can verify every single line of information in the complete bio, with numerous ways to verify both through our family archives, and respected newspapers such as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, etc.

I strive for complete and factual content and I think this page was plagued by my attempts to "get it right" and get the proper photos, verifiable, illustrative content to the original page that persons unknown to me designed. The page is as correct, both from a detail and formatting standpoint, and now there are properly annotated photos, which I own, in place now. I just don't know how to notify Wikipedia that the page is correct as I can make it.... Before, there were a few factual errors in the original page.

I am new to Wikipedia and will be glad to provide whatever proof of ownership of these family photos or other factual content verification on any edit that has been added to edited to this page.

Thank you so much for reading and being interested in this page, Jezhotwells!!! I really need some help with getting this thing stabilized and getting all error messages on the photos and "too many edits by interested party/lack of objective content" tags removed...

Markbow (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again!!

Mark Bowman Austin, Texas markbow@sbcglobal.net

Joe Bowman Photo Credits

Hi Jezhotwells-

Let me add some further detail to your questions.....

Every one of the photos provided were taken with my father's camera, as he was an avid photographer and movie maker. So the credit for those photos would go to Joe Bowman, who has since passed away, and I am the executor of his estate, if that helps provide the lineage and ownership.

The only exception would the be Robert Duvall photo with Joe Bowman on set for Lonesome Dove. I, Mark Bowman, took that picture along with many others in that set and can provide more from my personal photo collection. Can I provide any further proof or any verification of the photo ownership or any facts contained on the page so that we can remove the "warning tag" at the top of the page?

I am here to help and get this data verified for you, "Wikipedia approved" and entered in a way that provides a complete and factual page on the life of my father, and it appears I really need some help in the ways of Wikipedia.... The one good thing about getting the editing and content correct is at least now the article reflects the facts as accurately as possible.

Once again, thanks for your help

Markbow (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Massacre of Thessaloniki

Hello, Jezhotwells, thanks for your comment on the article Massacre of Thessaloniki. I put into consideration what you and another user said in discussion and made appropriate changes; actually, I totally changed whole text :-) Could you please have a look at it and tell me what remains to be done? Especially as far as grammar and syntax are concerned - I am not a native English speaker. Thanks again, sincerely Eunapios (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

People of Puerto Rico v. Shell Oil Co.

I blanked the page to create a redirect. If you wish to nominate it again for housekeeping reasons that is OK. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done

Kind of strange coming by to comment on your participation in an RfC I've just closed, but I just really wanted to tell you that I thought your arguments were very well conducted at the Eurovision project RfC. Although I didn't feel that consensus of the debate's participants was with you in all respects, you were very persuasive, very grounded in policy & remarkably patient. Generally, when reading consensus I feel as though my job is first to eliminate inadmissible arguments (the whole "i like it" or "i don't like it" thing; arguments that contradict policy) and then to determine which policy-based arguments received the greatest amount of support. Once in a while, this puts me in the weird position of personally taking a side contrary to my closure. With at least some of the sources evaluated at that RfC, that happened today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Paddy Bradley GA review

I appreciate that the review has taken rather a long time. However the nominator's last edit to the article was yesterday, see the history. It seems fairly difficult to get sources for the traditional sport of a small country, but he's still trying. I see no reason to rush - what harm is it doing? --Philcha (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No offence taken. I suspect the editor had real-life demands for about a month (mostly in June - exams?), and I've been busy myself in late June and throughout July. These things happen on WP.

Bruce Lee Ultimate Collection

Umm.. what exactly do you mean? How is it unneccessary?? (LonerXL (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Hmmmnn? I wasn't proposing anything, for I was only trying to get a clear understanding on the matter.(LonerXL (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Barrie Leslie Konicov

I have reverted your article issues template. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of the article issues template in conjunction with Friendly

I have reviewed many of your recent edits and have found that your use of Friendly with regards to the article issues template stands in contradiction to the guideline at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup which states:

if an article has many problems, please consider tagging only the most important problems. A very lengthy list is often less helpful than a shorter one. Remember that tags are not intended as a badge of shame.

Taken all in all, it seems obvious that guideline-compliant use of article issues template is to consolidate extant templates, not to give you a Big Red Pen. Your intent, of course, is to be "Friendly"; so please make more liberal use of talk to make specific suggestions. Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Botan Dōrō GA reassessment

thanks for notifying me regarding reassessment, i hadn't edited heavily, I'm assuming you notified me as i was in the top 5 editors in terms of number of edits (even though that was only 6 edits). Tom B (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Australian Teachers of Media

I declined the speedy on Australian Teachers of Media because I was able to find and add some references in newspapers for the organization. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

austriamicrosystems

I am quite opposed to the removal of this article, the company is large enough to be significant. However I do agree that the article now has large amounts of cut & paste from the company's web site. I'm pretty certain that this has been done by austriamicrosystems themselves, and it is disappointing. You will see from the discussion page, that I was opposed to the change of a real photograph to the corporate flyer image and think that should be reverted.

Would you be agreeable to retaining the article if I undertake the following over the next two weeks: 1: Revert to a real photograph. 2: Clean up the corporate waffle and turn it back into a factual piece. 3: Include links out to other relevant wikipedia pages.

If this would be acceptable, I will spend the time on it. But if you think the article will be deleted anyway, then I wouldn't want to put in the effort for nothing.

Just for your information, I am not directly connected with the company, so have no axe to grind. I'm a former employee who left amicably a few years ago (to start my own business).

Colin Colin99 (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability of radio stations

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (media), the guideline for notability of radio and television stations. Generally speaking, licenced radio and television stations are considered notable provided that the information in the article can be confirmed with the appropriate regulator (in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission). On that basis, it might be appropriate for you to remove the notability tags that you added to the following articles:

• KBLP
• KBTC (AM)
• KBCN-FM
• KBST (AM)
• KBCQ (AM)
• KBLB
• KBSF
• KHBC (FM) -- Eastmain (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pianissimo Peche

Oh come on. Give me a break here! I'm only trying to SHOW AND DESCRIBE the cigarettes, NOT promote them. You wanna delete the page just because of that? Is this a personal vandetta now?(LonerXL (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

why was the IK (album article deleted, you guys just delete everything that's useful, it had sources, and evrything else what was the problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylove04 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Disrupting at Talk:Hollie Steel

Kindly stop adding comments to this talk page which do not directly involve improving the article. Comments that veer off course can most certainly be reverted. If the talk page is connected to a BLP article, comments that are derogatory toward the article's subject must be deleted, just as in the article itself.

Likewise, uncivil comments may also be deleted.

If you continue your trolling, an administrator will be asked to intervene.

Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Radiopathy

Just a FYI regarding your comment on that users talk page. As you can see here i warned him, after this edit summary warning. Uksam88 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hollie Steel edit warring

I have warned Radiopathy. It would also help, though, if you could refrain from calling "censorship" in discussions like these. Radiopathy's message removals were disruptive and inappropriate, but not necessarily intentional censorship (and even if they were, using language like that just escalates the argument). The issue should be dealt with now—I've warned Radiopathy and will temporarily block him if this behavior continues—so hopefully things will calm down. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This admin is WRONG, and if you continue your disruptive editing, you will go to WP:AN/I. Radiopathy •talk• 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Tribute To

I have removed your proposed deletion tag on this article as it was clear from the first few results of a Google search (now added to the article as references) that this release is sufficiently notable for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

World Cinema Writer

I noticed that WCW has previously done bad GA reviews. He has done a couple more bad reviews: Talk:Hard Target/GA1 and Talk:Vampyr/GA1. I concur that he is not qualified to do a proper review of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Pianissimo Vandal

What on earth are you talking about now? I was the one who created (and is currently improving) the page to begin with, so how did I so-called "vandalize it?" (LonerXL (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy GAN

I've removed the last reference that relied on the French Wikipedia. Could I get you to take another look, please? Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

York City F.C. season 2008–09

Hi, just to let you know I've had a go at dealing with your comments at the York City F.C. season 2008–09 GAN. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Joyce Kilmer GA

Thanks for the notice - User:ExplorerCDT was the main author but has not edited in well over a year. I tried to calm an edit war and have reverted vandalism, but do not have the time or inclination to bring it back to GA right now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of Joyce Kilmer

Thanks for the notice but I think you got the wrong guy. I don't think I have touched this article more than once or twice. --Kumioko (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I see that now. I was going to take a look anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Value stream

Hello Jezhotwells, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Value stream has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - this is a notable concept with extensive opportunity for expansion beyound a dictionary definition - will expand & source ASAP)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Canaline

Hello!

You put a tag on Canaline, saying the article gives "insufficient context to people unfamiliar with the subject". The context is right there in the article - nonproteinogenic amino acid, degradation product of canavanine, found in many legumes. Please remember that the subject is a fairly obscure chemical compound and that organic synthesis and biochemistry is not part of the daily experience of most people.

You also say the article needs more citations. It really doesn't, there are no controversial statements that would benefit from an inline citation and anyone who needs more information can get it from the book that is cited. Diesel-50 (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, WP Chemistry suggests that inline citations should be used [7]. Perhaps you weren't aware of that. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Adding_the_citation says that for narrow and uncontroversial topics general references are permitted. This is most certainly true in the real world. Diesel-50 (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Clare Winger Harris

I've updated the article to address the GAR concerns; please let me know if more is needed. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lapot (senicide)

Hello! Your submission of Lapot (senicide) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hekerui (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Emilio Delgado - edit update

Hello, I was very disappointed to see you completely wiped out the edit of Emilio Delgado's page. The re-write was written by Emilio and myself -- and it doesn't get any more accurate than that. The page was started years ago anonymously and was never very accurate or informative. I do resent the tone you took in describing me as "vandalising" and your statement "The reason you got the above warning is that you don't just junk an entire page including the reference in favour of a version that you prefer. You should discuss suggested improvements on the article talk page first."

I have edited this page for at least a couple of years, usually removing small nonsensical statements from 'true vandals'. The page as it was could be described as "junk" -- my purpose was to make it accurate and more informative. You may not know Emilio Delgado -- but I have for 23 years. As of October 2009 -- he will have been part of Sesame Street for 38 years, so he is known to millions of people who might be interested in reading more than the skimpy little bio that you went out of your way to re-establish.

Yes, I find the many rules for editing confusing -- as this is the only page I ever have or likely ever will have an interest in editing. I would prefer your help in my editing rather than your energies of opposition.

Thank you,

Savoirflare (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham

hey there.

I edited the refs and added most of the cites, well added as much cites as I could find, accessdates etc. The cite template makes the refs look different depending on how you do it, I am forever gnoming getting the refs straight on articles, but until it calms down you can never get it all right. If there is any more work to be done please let me know. Yes I think it is looking good too. SimonTrew (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by EL. I agree with you probably about after the war etc. As you can imagine, when someone important dies then the article quickly gets worked on so I tend to wait a few days to sort it out, otherwise it is (good faith) edit conflict all the time. I will gladly appreciate your advice. If you want an example, I edited about 102 (at that time) references at Electric Car iit took about three days (you kinda get bored after the first forty or so) and STILL additions don't conform to that article's style. I think people use an automated tool and just throw the reference in but don't actually add the date, place, access date, etc etc or it might just say [1] or something, oh lovely if you can click on it, what happens when you print it? You just have [1]. I am not saying the article is perfect, I am just saying I helped to fix the refs, so if there is anything you think wrong (e.g. like cite news then it might be usefull to ask me. I am not claiming ownership or anything, just a bit of a gnome who goes cleaning up after sloppy edits. And I do AGF. SimonTrew (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Tulip Queen

Hello Jezhotwells, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Tulip Queen has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - appears to be notable, as it has attracted non-local coverage (see: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Tulip+Queen%22+albany&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a) - start clean, more to follow)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

GA Review SG-1 Season 1

I've fixed your comments. --TIAYN (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Chart

Great, you make it sound like it is not the most difficult thing to do in Excel. I had crazy formulas, numerous columns in use, and confounding data to make that chart! No, I did click the upload button and add the image, I'm curious as to how it didn't save. No matter, I'll make sure it's updated next month. Thanks for stepping in, and keep up the good work with Sweeps. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I was just kidding. I was trying to make the task sound more challenging than it was. Either way, hopefully this drive ends soon so that the charts don't have to keep being made each month. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Boston Wine Festival

Jezhotwells - Thanks for your critiques on the Boston Wine Festival page. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to make the page better. Here's what I will say - this is not a huge, over publicized event, but it is also no small thing. Its been around a long time and is something that is important that has been featured in every newspaper, magazine, and on TV in Boston. I think that if Wikipedia is to accurately reflect what is 'going on' in Boston, this page should be up.

PS - While the festival's website is down (not sure why), there was a website up when I put this page together. Halsmith555 (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm

Please can you explain to me your comments about my editing of the Noah's Ark Zoo Farm page? I have recently visited this page and find it completely subversive in a collaborated attempt to smear this business with anti-creationist material. I happen to know this visitor centre well and have several friends who visit regularly- yes, there is creation science material on site (not actually Creationism in the form you have portrayed it as) and you may not agree with the theories outlined or you may personally question the information on some of the displays but this is not the place to present a biased viewpoint such as you have produced.

Several points-

1)You have included non-creationist directed information it seems purely as text to bulk out an otherwise subversive and highly prejudiced piece of text. The Zoo Farm is bursting with facilities and animals (the main focus of the whole place!) and you mention them really only as an aside amd fail to mention large items of interest such as 3 new Bengal Tigers and tiger cub (which one might feel are slightly more relevent than some of the other material you have there).

2) Including so many 'Anthony Bush' quotations does not give this page a neutral standing at all- you have in fact carefully selected peoples opinions and statements about him and the park to put across your obvious distaste for the organisation.

3) You are using an image taken crudely via camera or phone i can only assume to further enhance your agenda- if this is supposed to be an encyclopediac page why not use something more relevant or less biased?

4) I'm am truly suprised that you and the other previous editors of this page have been able to create such a devisive account of a very popular main-stream tourist attraction in the South West. I understand you are entitled to describe some of the Christian ethos and message that the site displays (perhaps even question its veracity) but surely you could be more honest with it?!

I would be keen to do some editing to the site- i am angered that my edits can be seen as vandalism; how dare you? Did you not see them?! They were removal of some of the large quantity of biased material YOU and others had put up- i had not been untruthful or vandalistic in my approach. There is much more to Noah's Ark and i wish this to be the crux of the article. I request permission (if this is in any way needed) to be involved in further edits of this page.

regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodward21 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lapot (senicide)

On August 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lapot (senicide), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Butthole Surfers

I wasn't a primary editor at Butthole Surfers; I merely did a lot of copyediting when the article was up at FAC. You might want to notify the talk page at WP:ALM about the GA review, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I ask that you slow down a little with the GA reviews? It's a bit hard to catch up with all of them. I definitely want to give some of them my full attention. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a little bit. I've been doing some more work on it. You can check out my draft page to check out my progress. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know I am almost done with my rewrite of the history section of Alternative rock. Barring any unforseen troubles, I shall be cutting and pasting it from my user page into the article body in a day or two. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the GA review page, I just need an extra day. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I should be done with rewriting Alternative rock. Please give it a look and let me know if there's anything you want me to fix before you make your final decision. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello Jezhotwells, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Uranium Backup, by User:ThaddeusB, with summary '(contest prod - software has enough reliable source coverage to warrant inlcusion (see links in article & http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Uranium+Backup%22&cf=all) - will cleanup & expand article ASAP)'
• PROD removed from Viva Chile!, by User:ThaddeusB, with summary '(contest prod - album one of the group's more important & is notable (see Allmusic review for example: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:wifixqrsldje) - will expand article ASAP)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Myriad of Lights

What citations exactly do you need for verification? There is an IMDb link and there's an Asiaweek link, the HK Academy poll is wikified - what else would you want for verification? DORC (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you can cite it, and you obviously do know that this movie exists, why don't you help verify it instead of going through all the bureacracy of making someone else - who mainly does editing and does very little technical stuffs - search for another verifiable link? DORC (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The link, which states top 100 list is in the "latest issue (December 19, 1999) of Asia Weekly (Yazhou Zhoukan)", gives another verifiable reference. Actually, this list is all over the Chinese internet. Sorry, all this is confusing me. I'm not really interested in doing investigatory work concerning what is considered verifiable facts and what is not. I'll leave that to the others. DORC (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Anna Wintour GA reassessment

Thanks for doing this ... I really haven't done any other substantial work on it other than mostly reverting vandalism since I finished most of the expansion a couple of years ago (and it was someone else who nominated it for GA, not me). Since I've been thinking of cleaning it up and nominating it for FA for a possible Main Page appearance on her 60th birthday in November, this may be just the push I needed.

I have begun addressing some of your concerns, trying to make the intro less peacocky and put in some more balance, as well as rewriting some of those sentences that were disconnected from the quotes that supported them (I also changed "cold and aloof" to "emotionally distant", which sounds less harsh). Thank you for fixing the dead links you fixed ... that has long been a major issue, and when I tried to fix some of them some time ago I found that they weren't old enough to be in archive.org yet. I'll take care of the other ones, or eliminate them from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I feel much more strongly now that this could go to FAC in the near future! Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Idi Amin

Your concerns have been addressed at the review page. When you get the chance, could you revisit? Regards, Woody (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please hold off making individual edits about dead links, I am going through them systematically and I keep getting edit conflicted. Thanks. Woody (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talurit swaged sleeve

I added references to the article.--Stunteltje (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Riis's pieces

You were way too lenient with Jacob Riis. I presume that Riis appears in the school syllabus of large numbers of young or silly American schoolchildren; such people (or retards) routinely vandalize the article, and until your recent "sweep" my attention to it had largely been limited to reverting such silliness. I now read it and don't at all like what I see. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Upfield

I have had a go at starting to correct the GA reassessment issues with Arthur Upfield, can you have a look and let me know if we're on the right track? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC).

Copley Plaza

I deprodded this article. I agree that it needs a lot of work, but the hotel seems prestigious and has a lot of press coverage. It is at least mentioned in nearly 6000 hits in Google News:[8] Fences&Windows 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

IronKey Editor Assistance

Hi, just noticed you flagged my question on the Editor Assistance page as Answered. Any chance this means you've had a look at my updates and consider them ok? I was still hoping for a bit more feedback from editors on the page--the last comment from AndrewHowse had me concerned that the article would simply get Speedy Deleted, so I tried to improve things a lot, hoping for some more feedback. Thanks! — Endareth^Talk–Edits 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard Target

Hey Jezhotwells, I've added the subscription needed part to the article on Hard Target. Is there any more needed for the article? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh fair enough. I was wondering what was going on. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention before I came to you, I saw the review on the Vampyr page and went to the other user instead first. He/she have just passed the article Vampyr for GA so I'm not sure if I should consider it an honest pass or not with the concerns discussed on WP:Film. What do you think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Tucker: The Man and His Dream

Thanks for the review. I believe the concerns have been addressed now, but you should check to see. Wildroot (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, Bzuk has done some serious works and the article is now ready. Wildroot (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Goodness of Articles on photographers

Duh.

I haven't read the rest of this "Good" article. Frankly, I don't want to.

Jacob Riis isn't a good article either, but at least it's better than it was a couple of weeks ago and it doesn't obviously include complete bollocks. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please feel free to nominate the Rashid Johnson article for reassessment at Good article reassessment. Currently, I am working through articles passed over two years ago, as part of the GA sweeps process. The GA review process which anyone can join does mean that articles sometimes get promoted that shouldn't be. That is why WP:GAR exists. The only way this situation will be improved is by good editors joining the review process. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I take your point. No, I don't want to nominate the article for reassessment. I'm sure all this stuff about representing the [put ethnic group here] experience via self-portraits and things you used to eat when you were a kid is very worthy, but even thinking about it bores me. Anyway, after my rewrite (reducing his sheet film size by 144^-2 and no longer calling alchemy etc "sciences") it no longer includes anything that's not a quotation and is so fatuous that it jumps out and hits me. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Brunel

Very sorry if I caused an edit conflict—just been trying to sneak that one set of changes in amidst your edits. So glad someone else wants to save this article! I'll start doing some cleanup work tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Female Buddy Films

Your labeling my addition of the female buddy films as personal essay is assuming that I am the only one who has the opinon, and sexist at that. I can only assume you are a male, but because your page leaves no clues, it's only that--an assumption. Female buddy films are in existence and have been for several decades. I will admit my sources are scant, though, because coverage of them is not as wide as the male buddy film. Please understand that this is fact and not a biased, personal view and your labeling is incorrect. Thus, it will be removed. Shakesomeaction (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Cure

Can you hold on on reassessing The Cure for a week? I still need to tackle Jacob Riis and Kurt Cobain. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Green Day and Sonic Youth I can have fixed up by the end of September. In theory I could fix up Lex Luthor as well, but I can see it being difficult curtailing the overreliance on primary sources by editors that frequent that page. This is a problem shared by all the other fictional character articles on that page. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It does cut down on the process and nomination queues if we can just keep them as GAs. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard Target

Hi! I've fixed the problem you pointed out on the talk page. I hope it's clear now. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Radio Deea information

Hello and sorry for this big delay.

Someone deleted all Radio DEEA info from wiki. Now a search for "Radio DEEA" will show our direct competitors: Vibe FM. We sold some frequencies to that radio station, but we never sold Radio Deea name, website or radio. Please take a look to www.radiodeea.ro/phps and the www.vibefm.ro - not same site, not same owners, not same music and not same team! Radio DEEA is not Vibe FM. Someone tried to still our brand on the internet using Wikipedia. All information’s about Vibe FM are inaccurate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiodeea (talk • contribs) 09:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Emerald Ensemble

Hello! Your submission of Emerald Ensemble at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! orangefreak³³ 03:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Further thoughts on Chicago Theatre

I've adjusted a few areas in line with your comments. Can you re-look as time allows and return with any further thoughts please.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 00:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. Comment also left at article talk page.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Cure GA Reassessment

Hi, I've addressed the referencing issues you mentioned at Talk:The Cure/GA1 and, I think, the "choppiness" issue. --JD554 (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

William March

Hey Jezhotwells, I don't know if it's too late or not, but I finally got my copy of Simmonds in and have addressed all outstanding 'citation needed' claims... Let me know what happens, or what might happen--it seems to have been a one-editor job, unfortunately. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Emerald Ensemble

Jez, thanks for the feedback and for setting up an Emerald Ensemble page - looks good! I was just updating some existing links from .com to .co.uk, and thought I would add a few other links. No intention to spam, but I see your point. All the best ajg455 (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Emilio Delgado

Just curious, why did you mark this edit as "vandalism"? It looks like a genuine attempt to improve the article (albeit without any sources). And howcheng {chat} 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for New Cut (Bristol)

On August 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New Cut (Bristol), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good article. I liked it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DroolingVegetable (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:82.152.251.33. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. He was changing things to what he thought was correct, and, in fact, they were correct either way. It's not vandalism, and it's not even worth reverting, really. Yet you gave him the last warning and identified all his edits as vandalism. Logical Gentleman (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Foresee results

Hello Jezhotwells, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Foresee results has been removed. It was removed by Mamaberry11 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Mamaberry11 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

help with an article

Hi

Can you please help improve the article on 'Nazargunj'? the suggestions made in March 2008 are dated as improvements have been made since. Yet, it still says that it has 'multiple issues' etc?

Thanks

Sid 22nd August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazargunj (talk • contribs) 14:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient context at Dormant company

I notice that you added the category 'Television' to the page Dormant company. From the current content of the page, I wouldn't have thought it had anything to do with television. If you happen to have a third-party source that describes the concept in more detail, could you either add more information to the page, or put a pointer to the source on the talk page so that someone else could? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of Tour de France general classification winners

On August 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Tour de France general classification winners, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Secretariat ICROA

This is an s.p.a. with a severe COI problem. I feel that in such cases a spamusername block is appropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in economics

Hello!

Recently, you have supported that AfD. However, the article has been rewritten to a better way (using reliable sources). Now I can't speedy keep it because of your !vote. May you please revise your position? — vvv^t 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Emerald Ensemble

On August 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Emerald Ensemble, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your typewriter userbox

Hi,

I like your typewriter userbox so much I put one on my own user page! I hope that's alright; I'm not sure what Wikipedia etiquette is on such things. It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Discovery (band)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Discovery (band), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I found plenty of coverage quite easily so with the band also comprising members of two other notable bands, this passes WP:MUSIC on at least two counts.--Michig (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Victor Arbogast

Dear Jezhotwells, I just recieved a email response from Margaret Mary Layne (Director) of the Huntington Museum of Art, verifying that Victor Arbogast has a sculpture that is part of their permanent collection. As a matter of fact it is currently on view in an exhibition entitled "I Don't Get It: Non-Objective Works from the Permanent Collection". She gave me a brief description of the piece from their collections database. She wanted to know if her email, or if a letter on their letterhead would satisfy your requirement? Or should I use write in Huntington Museum of Art as a link? Shizuye (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Shizuye

Perhaps if you give a clue as to which of the 3,000,000 + articles in Wikipedia you are referring I might be able to respond. I can't find one called Victor Arbogast. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Response at WP:EAR

Wow. I have to say I am very surprised and disappointed by your response to my recent request at WP:EAR. I posted a request at EAR because WP:EA says "This process can also help in resolving disputes"; EA is listed well above RFC in the list of suggested resources at WP:DISPUTE; and my experience of RFC is it often degenerates into an inconclusive Wikidrama-fest. I wanted to request input from uninvolved editors in a low-key way. Yes, the editors involved on the policy proposal page are all experienced - so what ? I see nothing at WP:EA that says it is a resource for new editors only. If you don't want to help out then that is fine, but there is no need to be belligerent and offensive. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

37th century (Hebrew) et al.

I declined your speedies for the various Hebrew centuries. Whatever those articles are, they aren't clear A3 cases. I suggest that you talk things over w/ the editor about the articles themselves. If that doesn't result in an amenable solution, then you should consider sending them to a group AfD or otherwise bringing in opinions via the dispute resolution chain. There are a couple of dozen other articles I didn't check which appear to basically be similar. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from tagging those for speedy deletion, though there is no requirement that you do so. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Shen-kuang-szu Incident

Hello. Can you tell me why you added the {{copyedit}} tag to this page? I need to know the reason so as to improve it. --GnuDoyng (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusing conversation on my user talk

In this diff, an anonymous user posted a discussion that apparently involves you. I don't understand what the anonymous user wants from me. Can you clarify this for me at all? Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The Fame/GA1

Ping. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Kettlebowl

You have marked the page for Kettlebowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettlebowl) as unreferenced and potentially not meeting the 'notable' guidelines.

I have added references to the article and have therefore removed the unreferenced tag.

I would disagree with that it is not notable. Something that attracts 1,000 people every winter, and is written up in several hiking books and listed on several ski sites seems notable to me. How do we resolve this?

By the way, thanks for making it easy to add stuff to your talk page. I've never quite known what to do before in these situations, but your talk page rocks!

Mckennagene (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the Kettlebowl page, I have added a response. Mckennagene (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cynthia Lennon

You may have noticed (by looking at my contributions) that I have been away for 14 days. It's called a holiday, y'know. As for your review, I have to point out that your spelling is not the best: "vist, entence, retruning, gammar, Re-roganise, artciel, rtivia, de listing". The kettle calling the pot black, methinks.--andreasegde (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what kind of grievance you have against me, but it would be nice of you to actually admit it.--andreasegde (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Bill Harry

Are you on my case, or what? You did not have the wherewithal to inform me of your review.--andreasegde (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the best yet: "I suggest working to make this an artciel [sic] about Bill Harry." It's called BILL HARRY, or did you not notice that?--andreasegde (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Century AfDs

Hi, I see that you have created many AfDs for the Hebrew century articles. I think these topics could be discussed more easily if you bundled them into a single AfD nomination. Would tag all the AfD pages you have created for deletion (with {{db-author}}), and then add the articles to a single AfD discussion, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/32nd century (Hebrew)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bundling the AfDs. Since you agree that the discussions should be centralized, I've closed the other AfDs as "procedural close. Discussion about the Hebrew century articles has been centralized to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew)." If you disagree with my closes, feel free to revert all of them. Best, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

GAR

Hi, Jezhotwells, thank you for taking the re-evaluating job on Ahn Eak-tai, however, would you hold the review til the next week? There seems none to take care of the copy-editing of the article, and I have a bigger project to finish up this week (FARC). I can sometime edit the article, but could not devote my time of editing here for the musician article. Even after I implement sourcing and rewrite the article, additional copy-editors who can fix my grammatical errors are needed. So if you do hold it for a while, that would be great. --Caspian blue 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a chance in Hell, Caspian blue. If you go on holiday, or even to the toilet for a good, long read, Mr. Jezhotwells will totally ignore it. It's his right. He can't spell for toffee, but he is a law unto himself.--andreasegde (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jezhotwells, thank you for the generous acceptance of my request. However, I don't think I could make the page up for the current GA status because I'm still struggling with the above mentioned article, and I don't have any energy to do things that require great engagement for the musician article. There seems none to take the job of rewriting, so I think you can delist it. If I clean up the article in future, I may ask your helpful review. Thanks. Have a nice day.--Caspian blue 16:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse

Hello Jezhotwells

Would you consider redirecting this article to Mansfield Woodhouse right now?

As you mentioned, the article is obviously not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining.

I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd, instead of having to wait 7 days. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

from User talk:ikip:

I am somewhat confused by your message, presumably you have changed your mind. If you wish to merge then perhaps you should join the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. One editors start !voting, I have to ask for approval from every editor, because the decision has to be unanimous, this is like herding cats, and very time consuming. That is why I struck my comments, because time had run out.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Ikip (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

= GA: Walter Skinner

I'm finished with the problem solving on the Walter Skinner talk page. Thanks for reviewing my nominated article Jezhotwells. --TIAYN (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Blood Ties (Homicide: Life on the Street)

Hey, thanks for the GA review for Blood Ties (Homicide: Life on the Street). I've made some tense changes. I basically changed everything to past tense except descriptions of the episode plots. I also kept the "'Blood Ties' is the three-episode sixth season" and "The episodes constitute the..." in present tense simply because most television episode articles are written that way, and I wanted to maintain consistency. But I don't want it to hold up the GA review, so if you think those should be past tense too, simply change it. Thanks again, let me know if there's anything else! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the review! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Propose deletion

Hello, i nvber neglect to add to the user who created teh page it was my first tiem and i had asked ont eh prosed deltion talk page what i should do now i added it to the page they said it was all automatic and i didnt need to do anything else it was just error on my part sorry :(--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism in North America

Please reply to my comments about Conservatism in North America here. I would be appreciative also if you would read the discussion page Talk:Conservatism in North America and point out that the material in this article is trivial and inaccurate or duplicates other articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm always glad to discuss articles on talk pages. I've explained on Talk:Conservatism in North America, and as others have explained, this is not an acceptable article. Most of it is copied by hand (with typos) from other articles. The material that is not copied does not follow from the sources given. The Four Deuces, a reliable editor, has gone to the trouble of comparing the claims with the sources, and has given examples on the talk page.

If the article were in fairly good shape to begin with, I would prefer to rewrite rather than revert. But this article would need so much work to fix that I think it is better the way it was -- a redirect page.

I do think Neelix is sincere in his attempts. I don't think he understands how much time and work it takes to write a good Wikipedia article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You have not replied to my response and I have reverted the article back to a re-direct page. Here's my question: If I pursue dispute resolution and find agreement that it should be two articles (which was done in 1995) what is to stop Neelix from taking the re-direct page and creating a new article? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RS Noticeboard

Before you talk about my knowledge in the area, please see Nicolo Giraud. A fully researched FA that goes into claims about pederasty. As you can see, none of them are fringe sources and all are people that actually deal with the field as a field. There is a clear difference between the two. This is the page. As you can see, the essay is applying Freudian theory onto generalized claims about Victorianism without any proof or evidence to back up the assertions. This is an -opinion- piece and can only be taken as such. WP:FRINGE makes it clear that such things cannot be used unless they are notable. Only scholarly works can be used. The fact that they are unwilling and unable to provide an Oscar Wilde biography with real scholarship to make the claim is telling. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am keeping my responses at WP:RSN. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words about my work, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse. Much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem - it was deserved. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My revert at WT:Reliable sources

I responded here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

30th century (Hebrew) AfD

Responding to your message: I guess you can't blame the admin for going no consensus with 60 articles involved and some people insisting on keeping some or all of them. It seemed like it would be a no-brainer to delete them after the 37th century outcome, but I guess there were more people involved this time and the bar was set a bit higher. I don't hold out much hope of getting any kind of policy decision on this; in my experience the policy wonks don't want to weigh in on something as narrow as this (see WP:Instruction creep). But I guess it won't hurt to bring it up. I'm not sure exactly where, though Wikipedia talk:Notability might be appropriate. There are still all those Hebrew year articles to deal with too, there are probably 100s of those. You could put mention them in the policy discussion.

One way you can avoid the whole AfD process is to go ahead and merge the articles into a more appropriate location and replace them with redirects. I've done this with blatant content forks; it might take more work but it's more in line with the normal editing process. I think with something like this wikiquette requires you to put Mergeto and Mergefrom templates in the appropriate spots to see if anyone has a reasonable objection, but this way only people who are actually involved in editing the articles are likely to weigh in. The problem with this approach someone can always restore the article and then you're back to where you started, so a lot depends on how committed you are and if you have other battles you'd rather fight.

Kind of ironic this came down around Rosh Hashanah.--RDBury (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus College, Oxford GAN

You may remember delisting Jesus College, Oxford (quite correctly) recently. I've reworked and expanded the article, and relisted it at GAN. As you have some familiarity with the article, would you like to look it over again? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 10:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on Y-Chromossomal Aaron

Jezhotwells. Thank you for your help on Y-Chromossomal Aaron article. The user is still vandalizing the article. Can you help again? Regards --MCohenNY (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Request reassesment of "New Wave Music" and "List of New Wave bands and artists"

I think the "New Wave Music" article has improved a great deal but is stuck at a certain point and needs an outside look. Based on past experience I fear all the work that has been done will be reversed without direction. I liked how the "Alternative Rock" reassessment made a good article better. "Alternative Rock" is about a similar "catch all" music genre.

I have no clue where to start with the list. I feel it is a disaster and all I do is fight a rearguard action to prevent it from getting worse. Edkollin (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Makinti Napanangka

Hi there. Some months ago you did the GA review of the above article. It is now a Feature Article Candidate, and I would invite you to comment on whether it requires further improvement to meet that standard. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Pat Condell

Excuse me but how are video-sharing sites not reliable sources? Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Refencing_youtube say it is ok.--A pinhead (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is one editor's opinion about their use as external links. IOt is not a guideline or policy. The Pat Condell youtube links are invalid as self published sources and as links to video sharing websites. Wikipedia prefers dead tree publication mostly or web sites of dead tree publications. The underlying criteria is that other people have checked the facts in some sort of editorial process. That may seem wrong to you but that is the way it works here. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit on Noah's Ark Zoo Farm

Thanks for your message on your page. I agree entirely with your restoration of the link, despite there being no page to link to yet. Leaving the link there in case someone creates the page seems entirely sensible.

Best wishes,

Peteinterpol (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Bands

Thanks for the great list of bands. I do have some of them on the list I'm currently working on, so I might park the other ones you mentioned until I have time to research and document them. I would consider putting just their names on the list, however Simple Bob doesn't seem to like this approach, and I wouldn't want to waste my time. I have also swapped the info from Electric guitars to Electric Guitars - I must be more careful in future! Cogoal (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC) cogoal

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wicked Lester reassessment

Hi, I just ran across Talk:Wicked Lester/GA1 and made the requested changes plus added a couple of more references and cleaned it up a bit. I believe it is now up to muster. I also see that it hadn't been officially closed yet. Do you think it could be reassessed without putting it back up WP:GAN? If not I would be happy to put it up, but figured we could save a step since you just reviewed it a month ago. J04n(talk page) 01:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks J04n(talk page) 02:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayne Pierson

Dear Jezhotwells,

I have forwarded an e-mail in which she gave us permission to use the image. Along with a previous conversation proving that we didn't commit to write anything in favour or in bias, simply asked for facts and links to verify them. This is my last attempt to get anything done on Wikipedia. Honestly this has been the most frustrating experience for me so rest assured if this cannot be sorted out I will give up and let the bureaucracy win. I'm sure not a single admin bothered to check the references and citations to check the truth about the article. This hurts me because I truly believed Wikipedia to be the best thing on the web, but at this rate I can't help but think its destined to be merely a reference tool updated by a handful of people with arbitrary powers.

There maybe some good in all this multi layered security and stuff but what's security without accountability with regards to enforcement??

Regards, saber.etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saber.etc (talk • contribs) 06:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jayne

Thanks for the help. Will be looking forward to a response. I didn't mean that all the security was unnecessary. All I meant was that admins in charge should at-least read the article properly and take a little time to go through its references before cutting and chopping it away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saber.etc (talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Northeast Philadelphia GA review

Please tell me where additional inline citations may be needed in the Northeast Philadelphia article. I could add inline citations in several places, but to no effect on the GA review level. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What do I do next?

Dear Jezhotwells, I have created an article on my user page User:Shizuye/Victor Arbogast and I would like some comment and feedback on the article. Is it now ready to move? What are the next steps? Thank you. Shizuye (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Shizuye

How to i post the content of one website called www.sgrabby.co.nr to wikipedia.... i'm unable to understand to post

Learnsomuch (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Hello sir,

Iam sankar from India. intrested to post the content of "sgrabby - share knowledge" (www.sgrabby.co.nr) website. Hw do i do that? I'm unable to know wwhere to start and wher to post? can help me related to this?

thanks, sankar.

RE: Jayne Pierson

Hi there, I am Jayne Pierson and I have noticed there is an incorrect quote that was misquoted from me in a newspaper interview. It is 'Her group Gouge, achieved a top twenty single in LA.[1]. {{speedydelete|incorrect quote from newspaper interview}} There is no such thing as a single in LA?? There is only the US Billboard charts and the UK charts....Gouge actually charted at 13 in the N.M.E. charts on the 14 October 1995. I actually have a copy of this listing however I can't find this listing online. Pls ammend. Kind Regards, Jayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffybunny0101 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisions

Yes, please review Al Williamson for the problems you mentioned, seeing as I have fixed substantial amounts of those errors. Thank you very much for this!

Ojay123 ^{(Talk•E-Mail•Contribs•Sandbox)(Respond on my talk page!} 02:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jayne Pierson

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayne_Pierson

The original article is 100% accurate, less one quotation were I was misquoted by a journalist as she misheard me on a Dictaphone (I will correct this below). All the statements and facts that were on the original article were 100% factual and informative to people interested in Jayne Pierson as a fashion designer. This includes my music history and influences that have conspired to create the Brand 'Jayne Pierson' and therefore the fashion designs I create.

Most of my achievements with the music band 'Gouge' are not documented on the internet as these achievements were a long time ago and largely before the internet in fact we didn't even have a website, but these are still relevant to the influences of my work. Our records can still be purchased. Gouge links include:

1/ http://www.netsoundsmusic.com/nsudsii/2/29079319/602/2.html 2/ http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/unsung/topic/30715/flat/

We have all relevant documentation to support the original article, but in physical print form... such as a copy of my EMI music contract, photocopies of the band performing and copies of the groups chart results in NME dated 14th Oct 1995 and newspaper and magazine interviews with the band from magazines such as: Select, Q, The Tip Sheet, UK Independent Chart Listings, N.M.E. reviews The Evening Standard. How do we reference print material that is not on the internet?

I was misquoted by a journalist, who stated "Her group Gouge, achieved a top twenty single in LA.[1]". This should read to be factually correct, "Her group Gouge, achieved a single placed at 13 in the UK independent charts in 1995.[1]

Having read back some of the comments made by some of the Wikipedia editors who have been reviewing this article, I have been left shocked and insulted by comments made. My achievements are real, I have worked extremely hard and I am revoked by below comments by people who do not understand the fashion industry:

"The article is full of puff and makes it sound like college sponsored work placements were paid employment of importance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"

First work-placements in the fashion industry are not related to college sponsored work,they are a process to employment essential to a fashion workers CV. To gain work placement at a design house it is essential to gaining employment or starting your own label. Your work must be of a very high standard and it is a massive achievement hence it was widely documented by the BBC, who not only write about it but film it. The Westwood placement lead to employment, which lead to me starting my label, which lead to me showing at London Fashion Week in my own right. Therefore any work placement statements is not puff, but extremely important background information to the formation of my label. It is also documents a route into fashion useful to student who will read this article.

The Wikipedia page has been created in response to people interested in my work asking if I have a Wikipedia page. I have provided truthful and accurate information for the creation of the page, most of which has been removed by people unknown to me, facts changed and references ignored, by Wikipedia.

Please confirm and add the additional information which has since been deleted. Also how is the best way to show the documented proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffybunny0101 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Jayne Pierson

I only got involved in the actual article after, true facts were being removed and inaccurate information posted. Obviously as the article is about me, I felt compelled to create a Wikipedia account and update the factual quote.

I have not written the article myself nor have I proofed any articles before they were posted on Wikipedia, it is not a self written autobiography, but the information is meant to be updated if it is inaccurate and Wikipedia invites people to do this and find a way to reference the true statements so they do not keep getting removed and replace with the inaccurate quote. Please advise? Rgds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffybunny0101 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism in North America

There is an ongoing AfD discussion about the Conservatism in North America article here. As you are the only user who has been participating in discussion about this article in the past who has not yet participated in the deletion discussion, I thought that you should be informed that it was taking place. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Crowded House reassessment

Hi I have fixed the prose and removed dead links in the references and replaced with live links and removed the link to hg2g completely. Could this please be reassessed as a good article?--Mutley (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain

Dear Jezhotwells, Can you please explain what I need to do with the developing article User:Shizuye/Victor Arbogast? I read the articles that you recommended. I filled out the form when adding the image of the sculpture to the Wikipedia Commons, noting that Victor had taken the photo himself. File: Victor_Arbogast-Sculpture.jpg It is in the area that doesn't require copyright for the image. Do I need to cite a source on the user page itself separately from the References such as: Photo by Victor Arbogast. Or should I put the credit line directly under the photo caption? Thank you for your help. Shizuye (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Shizuye

DYK for Portway, Bristol

On November 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Portway, Bristol, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking care of image permission.

I am having Victor Arbogast (who is the photographer) email photosubmission@Wikimedia.org the image that is in the article that I am writing about him User:Shizuye/Victor Arbogast; stating that he is the photographer & the exact details of the photo of File:Victor_Arbogast-Sculpture.jpg and to describe how it was licensed to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. His email will also say how his photo is to go in the Wikipedia article written about him. Please do not delete the image off of the article. I am trying my best to get all of this done right.Shizuye (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Shizuye

Involuntary euthanasia

Tell me exactly what errors of fact I am allegedly introducing. And lalso tell me how can I improve the grammar. I asked for an editor ASSITANCE, not for a criticism. Or are you unable to help? 190.25.80.226 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

• Article contest: Durova wins 2009 WikiCup

• Conference report: WikiSym features research on Wikipedia

• Election report: 2009 ArbCom elections report

• Audit Subcommittee: Inaugural Audit Subcommittee elections underway

• Dispatches: Wikipedia remembers the Wall

• News and notes: Strategic planning, November conference, brief news and milestones

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: Project banner meta-templates

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)