User talk:Belovedfreak/Archive 20
WP:FILM January 2011 NewsletterThe January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC) February Disambig challengeGreetings! I've challenged my fellow disambiguators to help knock out more than a thousand disambig links a day for the month of February, and every bit helps. Please check out the list at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and see if you can get in the game for this month. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Re: Good article nominationsThanks for letting me know. Hugahoody (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
P90x LinkHello, I noticed you removed the link to fitnesstrainingreview from the P90x article. First, let me explain that I know Chelsea from that article, as she was in a class of mine. She was always talking to me about p90x whenever I was complaining about my shape. She gave me a link to a website she was starting (fitnesstrainingreview) as well some other info on P90x. About a week later I was doing more research on P90x and came across the wiki article which had the phrase "The program has three “rotations”—classic, lean, and doubles" said citation needed. Fast forward a few months, I ended up buying P90x and doing more p90x searches on google when I considered creating my own blog to hold myself accountable. I saw that the p90x wiki was still saying citation needed for that quite and remembered reading that exactly on Chelsea's blog on her new post. I then decided to link her site in the middle of the summer. Now your reasoning was that it was not a reputable source. First I want to begin by asking what exactly is a reputable source as far as a workout video goes? I personally know that Chelsea is about as filled with p90x knowledge as anyone possibly could be. She has been able to answer any question I throw at her immediately about p90x. She even leads p90x workouts on our campus. Recently she was talking to me about people who had emailed her questions and mentioned finding her site via wikipedia and thanked her so much for all of her help, . Lastly I wanted to say that this link has been on the wiki page for about 6 months and has been through just shy of 200 revisions. I honestly think that taking this link and source away from the wiki article is just hurting potential visitors of the wiki. As you can probably tell I am very inexperienced with wikipedia, and I probably wasn't supposed to just undo people's edits. I am sorry I did not contact you here first. Let me know what you think about all of this, and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.74.245 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 February 2011
Your revdel requests on butterfliesHi there, I started handling your requests on the Xylophanes but I'm having second thougths about just how much of a pure description of a species really qualifies for copyright protection. I've halted the revdels and instead asked for more eyes at WT:COPYCLEAN. Feel free to chime in :) MLauba (Talk) 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
International Federation of AccountantsYou had taged International_Federation_of_Accountants for possible copyright violation. I have copyright edited the article at the temparary page Talk:International_Federation_of_Accountants/Temp. Kindly review it and move it to the original namespace. R.Sivanesh ✆ 07:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Re:Articles copied or closely paraphrased from CATEAh, yes, I thought it was a compatible licence. Although I think it might still be okay to use the texts, because I suspect these are the original texts that were published when the species were described, meaning that they would be PD-Old for a lot of species. I will try to find out. By the way, I mainly used text from CATE if I could not find decent other sources, because the CATE texts are a little too technical for wikipedia. Sorry for this. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I was skimming through the SCV listings and saw that you tagged this article copied from wikibin as "No copyright concern." I'm afraid that's not quite an accurate statement (at least not before fixing the article somewhat). Wikibin only licenses their content under GFDL (violating the license since they don't attribute the authors here, but that's beside the point). This makes it a problem because we haven't been able to accept GFDL-only licensed content since November 1, 2008 - it has to be CC-BY-SA. So for articles like this which aren't G4'd (or otherwise promptly deleted) we need to restore the history from the original article so that the original authors are appropriately attributed here on Wikipedia (I've done that in this case). Since a copy from wikibin shows up every few days I thought you should know. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Why not say it hereHi Belovedfreak I read a comnent you made to two warring egos, then looked up other inteerventions you've made and thought I'd drop you a line. If everybody here had your sense of fairness, balance and tolerance, this would indeed be an information gathering paradise. Um abraço, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to join projectHello, Belovedfreak. You have new messages at Otelemuyen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Otelemuyen 13:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC) redirectsHello, Belovedfreak. You have new messages at Rcsprinter123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Listed buildings in Poulton-le-FyldeI see you've gone for the big time! Things have moved on since the Runcorn lists you mention. For the accessibility techniques have a look at List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England and copy what's been done there. I think you will also need to add titles (in a similar manner to this list) above the Key and above the actual list. That should keep you quiet for a few minutes. I haven't looked at the list in any detail, but it sure looks good! Hope you do not get too much angst in the reviews. I'll keep an eye on events. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) Don't worry if the comments are "challenging". FLC can be a helluva learning process. The reviewers are very experienced, and the list can only get better in the process. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:FILM February 2011 NewsletterThe February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC) DYK for Grace Mildmay
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC) TalkbackHello, Belovedfreak. You have new messages at Ebe123's talk page.
Message added 21:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Again Hi there. I have a question. On the page that you took a look at, I could have sworn was in review by someone a few days ago :S its weird.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
FLCYou may be interested to know that I have nominated List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England at FLC. Your nomination seems to be progressing OK. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Belovedfreak, I just now realised that you recreated this portal last year after it was deleted in 2009. I haven't worked with portals before. Could you please check my changes to Portal:Namibia/Did you know (I created entries /3 to /7 and will add more soon) -- Is there any possibility to have a DYK with picture on top, and to avoid duplications other than adding more DYKs? Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Co-ordinated organisations User:GillesAuriault/SandboxHi Belovedfreak, I would like to recreate this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Co-ordinated_organisations which was deleted by User talk: MLauba on 23 February 2010. I have put the new proposal in my Sandbox, it is a translation of an old page of the French Wikipedia. Unfortunately, MLauba is on "indefinite Wikibreak" (which is a pity for the Wiki community I think..), so could you have a look at my proposal or indicate a way to have it checked? Thanks in advance for your time and help, User:GillesAuriaultGilles 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Sheriff Hill RequestHi. You may recall reviewing this article a weeks or so ago after I submitted it for GA, which you declined (at length!). If you have the time, I should be grateful if you would have another look at it here and let me know what you think of the amendments I have made in light of your comments and to suggest any further improvements, especially re the external links section (which may be too big) and the overall article length (again, i think it's too long). If you don't have the time, no problem: I'll submit for peer review in the usual way. Thanks Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy SavilleHi thanks for your message and the link. After further consideration I think it would probably be best to put the GA review in abeyance and in the meantime I may have a go at improving the article myself. Thanks. Jprw (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC) TalkbackHello, Belovedfreak. You have new messages at Talk:Brontë family/GA1.
Message added 16:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Just wanted to say......what a thoughtful and helpful review this was. I've had the editor's talk page watchlisted since leaving a note there a few weeks ago, and I think your comments were spot-on. Hopefully they'll be taken on board. 28bytes (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:FILM March 2011 NewsletterThe March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC) ThanksHi, i dont know if you remember but you gave Al Pacino a peer review about 10 months ago and it proved very helpfull in my quest to improve the status of the article. Just today it was promoted to GA. Thanks again for the review, couldn't of done it without you.Monkeymanman (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination driveOn behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles. During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed. At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting). While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed). If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Another FLThanks for your review and support at FLC for List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England. This has (at last) been promoted; a task made more difficult by the CCT completely changing its website in the middle of the process. Only one list left now to complete the set — SE England! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
March 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive award
And apologies for accidentally posting it your actual user page. My fault. –MuZemike 17:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Rcsprinter123I've made a pledge not to review anymore GANs, or do any "bad" edits until this time next year. I'll just focus on writing articles in userspace, and then promoting them for a bit. I'm also going on a two week WikiBreak soon too. Userboxes can be misleading. Age. Sorry, Belovedfreak. RcsprinterGimme a message 15:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Request for revision deletion at Super (2010 American film)You are certainly right in saying that the text at Super (2010 American film) infringed copyright, though only on a small scale. Nevertheless I have unfortunately had to decline your request for revision deletion. If you read criterion for redaction number 1 you will see that it says "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion can not be used", which rules out this case. Usually this is a suitable method for dealing with copyright infringement only when the infringing material has been present very briefly, and removed with no significant intervening edits, whereas in this case it was there for only just short of a year, and there had been numerous intervening edits. If you think it is worth the effort you can look for other methods of dealing with the problem at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
|