This is an archive of past discussions with User:Johanna. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Ben, I read your advice. Thanks.. I need to inform you that its not Autobiography...the article is not about me...Loganathan Krishnan Mutharayan is different person and he is no more and passed away recently. He published several books and few are available in Amazon..would like to share one of them...Loganathan, 1992
Loganathan, K. (1992). Hermeneutic Analysis of Discourse, Intern ational School o f Dravidian Linguistics, India. Loganathan, K.;1; (1996). Metaphisica Universalis of Meykandar, World Saiva Council of Meykandar Adheenam, London.
Thanks for doing the review! It had been sat there for seven months and I thought it would never be reviewed! Enjoy this Duff! '''tAD''' (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Digicentric/sandbox Larraine Segil
Ben, my first article, struggling, so sorry to trouble you. Briefly, did you decline this article (May 1, 2015) because of the wrong kind of references or because there were not enough? Reading what I found, "submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations," I believe it is the former. Just want to be sure. Thank you, Ben.
Thank you, Ben! So many of her accomplishments fall back to the 1980's and further, there was no internet and simply aren't archived articles on the internet. I'll do my best!
Re: Deletion of Dr. Rajan Mahtani
Hello Ben,
I do understand that the page of Dr. Rajan Mahtani is being continuously linked with news from different news portals. However, it should be brought to notice that there is a profile by the name of NorthAmerica 1000 (maybe a online marketing firm) who is continuously trying to defame Dr. Mahtani as it has been paid to do so. If you visit that profile( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Northamerica1000&action=history), you will see that its recent edits are for some 'brewing' related topics and Dr. Mahtani. Can you suggest me some ways in which i can keep the information true and relevant?
Northamerica1000 is a regular editor with truckloads of edits and besides that s/he's an admin (i.e. trusted user), so, no, chances of him being a "marketing firm" are seriously low. You can question or suspect someone of being a paid editor but you can't just claim that someone has been paid for editing, it's a serious accusation and you need to provide proof for that.
To echo what User:Jeraphine Gryphon wrote, User:Northamerica1000 is one of the most trusted editors around who has made countless contributions to the wiki, particularly at AfD. I find it extremely unlikely, just shy of impossible, that s/he's being paid to edit. To do so without evidence (which you have provided none of) would be considered a personal attack. The "brewing" edits you are referring to is just some cleanup work involving creating talk pages for articles that previously did not have one. Thank you. BenLinus1214talk20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The WP:ASPERSIONS stated by User:Elenaparker123 about me here are entirely false. My edits to the Rajan Mahtani article removed a notability template, added a single sentence and added sources. That's all. Wikipedia articles are based upon the content of reliable sources. If the editor above does not like how the sources report about the subject, then they should take that up with the respective news agencies. North America100023:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Northamerica1000, that's what I thought. :) User:Elenaparker123, it's not Northamerica's fault about the sources. In fact, it was their finding of these sources that saved the article from deletion. These are the reliable sources that are available on the subject. The ones you originally provided did not indicate the subject's notability, but these do. BenLinus1214talk01:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
09:32:08, 20 May 2015 review of submission by Sequencesolved
I wanted to humbly bring it to the notice of the the concerend reviewers that the books of Dharampal have not been much disscussed in academmic settings. Hence, it is difficult to find cross citations on his work. Due to the above mentioned reasons I used the original book for writing this article. Please, tell me what should I do to improve the article as secondry citations are not available.
Creativepartnership (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Given that the submitted page is similar in content to existing oral history pages within Wikipedia I would like some guidance of the type and style of references you are seeking. I listed 19 potential references in my note to you on May 13. Any comments gratefully received. Creativepartnership (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
My problem with it was that it read like an advertisement--particularly the "Today's Neuroscience, Tomorrow's History" section. But also, the references are not formatted correctly--see WP:REFB and WP:ILC. Also, please format your sections per WP:MOS. BenLinus1214talk16:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
What?Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When?June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Meg Manning Coma.png
Thank you for uploading File:Meg Manning Coma.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
And File:Normal Is the Watchword Bus Crash.png. While the use of posters/covers for films and the like is generally assumed to be OK, seeing as they have specifically been released to represent the work, episode screenshots are a little different- you can't just assume that a screenshot is going to be justified in an episode article, and, normally, they won't be. When they are, a detailed rationale is a must. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I have clarified these to say why they are particularly important in these articles. File:Normal Is the Watchword Bus Crash.png is especially important, as it contains many important characters for the season, and the scene pretty much dominates the rest of the 21 episodes of the season. :) I'm guessing you came across these through GAN? Are you planning to review them? Also, I think that File:Veronica and Logan's First Kiss.png is also pretty important—the whole episode article is basically about that one moment. :) P.S. Thanks again for your comments on Boys Don't Cry (film)—I'm still waiting for a peer review and copyedit but I'll take it to FA again soon. BenLinus1214talk00:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the bus crash image contains characters and the fact that the scene is important does not make the image important- the image is important only if the topic cannot be understood without us seeing a picture. To put it another way, we don't add a non-free image if the scene or moment is important, we add a non-free image if how the scene looked or how the moment looked is important. This is a distinction that a lot of people miss. I can't commit to reviewing them right now, but, at the very least, clearing up any NFC issues should make the review smoother. (I'll do what I can to have another look at Boys Don't Cry- hopefully, any remaining issues I have can be dealt with at PR, and then I can support straight away going into FAC.) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I never thought about it that way before. Looking at a lot of GA/FA television articles, screenshots (if they have them) do meet that criterion. With that in mind, the screenshots in "My Mother, the Fiend" and "Donut Run" are clearly irrelevant. The bus crash is debatable, but there's another scene in "Normal Is the Watchword" that depicts Veronica holding Logan in a style reminiscent of the Pietà. This fact was acknowledged and discussed in many reviews and even books of essays on the subject. However, on this point, there's another scene in the season finale, "Not Pictured" (also a GAN), which is a reversal of this Pietà. I was planning to upload it for that—is it okay for them to be so repetitive? Also, I know you're not targeting this file, but File:Veronica and Logan's First Kiss.png is still actually extremely important in terms of how the moment looked. I also just found some new production info that said that the series creator was not happy with the chemistry depicted literally in that screenshot, so that would be helpful in the caption. (On Boys Don't Cry, that's great. :) BenLinus1214talk11:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like these are the kinds of things which could justify a screenshot, rather than merely an important scene. I wouldn't want to commit to any right now, but if you're citing the sources which discuss the appearance of the screenshot in the text and then include details about that discussion in the rationales, you're on the right path. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@J Milburn: For "Weapons of Class Destruction", it would be something like this quote in a book of essays on Veronica Mars (this in particular was written by series creator Rob Thomas): "I wasn't actually pleased with the first Veronica/Logan kiss. Now, I may have been wrong on this front, but it wasn't what I imagined, or really what I think was described in the script. The line of description called for Logan to "devour" Veronica. I wanted it to be—I don't know if sexual is the right word, but—hungry, or a release, or mixed with some self-loathing and confusion. Instead, it came off as singularly romantic."[1] On "Normal Is the Watchword" / "Not Pictured", I would probably put in a quote from another book of essays, Investigating Veronica Mars that discusses both scenes in equal detail. Once again, given both scenes are so heavily discussed, could I use a screenshot in the season premiere and finale for their respective scenes, even though they are similar? BenLinus1214talk22:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't really make a definitive claim without seeing the article (and, preferably, a detailed rationale). Again, it sounds plausible that non-free images would be useful in these cases, but don't try to go out of your way to include non-free images. I forget who said this, but I think it's right- we should be aiming to include as few non-free images as we can get away with, not as many as we can get away with. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Meg Manning Coma.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Meg Manning Coma.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi, I am writing a page on institutional investor journals. They have a history of over 40 years and they publish good material in finance. They are cited by many leading newspapers/ articles but they don't have a very strong media coverage. So the page was declined by you for notability reasons. But I added some information related to their being notable and references pertaining to the facts. Could you please review again?
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Weapons of Class Destruction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi- just a quick thought in case you aren't watching FAC- you may like to know that there's another LGBT murder-related article at FAC currently- this might be one you'd be able to contribute to, and could be useful to get used to how FAC works (if I'm right, you're not super experienced with it?) and, of course, reviewing articles by others will often draw reviewers to your nominations. (By the way, I do honestly intend to have another look at Boys Don't Cry, and I more than likely will get to it, but I can't make any promises.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I'll take a look at it. Yeah, I'm really not experienced with FAC at all. Oh, and both the peer review and copyedit have started (on the same day!). BenLinus1214talk22:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Rat Saw God.png
Thank you for uploading File:Rat Saw God.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following:
This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here.
If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP!
The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded.
Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification.
Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages.
Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work.
The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1.
It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified.
Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action!
If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here.
After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Hello, it's been a while since I last been on Wikipedia. I finally decided to getting around to editing my article, and would like you to take another look at it. I'll explain some of my changes. First of all, I got rid of some internal sources from the developers because I thought it would be a bit biased, and instead replaced them with articles from credible sources (i.e Popular/Credible companies that cover gaming news) and added similar sources to areas such as "Gameplay Features" to reinforce the credibility of my article. I can now happily say with certainty that the majority of the sources are from credible external sources. If this article is still not suitable, well I guess I'll find out what I have to do next. Thank you. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Not Pictured you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The article Not Pictured you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Not Pictured for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ben. Can't help but notice you have several TV related articles nominated for GA. I have one there as well - Dark Angel (TV series). Just making you an offer as i'd rather not wait for several more weeks (or maybe months) before someone reviews mine. If you'd be willing to review mine i'll review any nomination of your choice in return, or i'll just pick one at random if you have no preference. No worries if you're too busy though. Let me know. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Freikorp: I've been reviewing a lot lately. I could take it, but there are three articles that I would have to review before. Let me know what you want to do. BenLinus1214talk23:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah no worries, that's fine with me, review the other three first and then review mine. I'll start reviewing one of yours now. I haven't made this offer to anyone else regarding this particular article so I don't anticipate anyone else will start reviewing it any time soon, but if Dark Angel has been reviewed by the time you get around to it, you can pick another GAN of mine if you want to (I keep a list on my user page), but don't feel pressured to do that if the topics fall outside of what you're comfortable with. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rat Saw God you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The article Rat Saw God you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rat Saw God for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Ben, the image on the Boys Don't Cry (film) page are compromised of different images, but it comprises as a "whole". Thus the image is already approved under the fair use status, so why did you remove it? Ashton 29 (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ashton 29: I assume you're talking about File:Boysdontcryrollerrinkscene.JPG? Four separate screenshots are almost certainly not justified (see WP:NFCC#3a), and, regardless of whether it's one file or four, that does count as four separate screenshots. This is made explicit at WP:NFLISTS: "the "extent" of use is determined by the number and resolution of non-free images, and not the number of files". Josh Milburn (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@J Milburn:–if each file were to be uploaded individually, all under fair use, could it then be assembled to a whole of four shots? @BenLinus1214:–I was responsible for getting this article to GA status way back in 2010 and would be of assistance if you're interested in pursuing FA status. It's certainly a legendary film, particularly in today's social and political context. Ashton 29 (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer! You can certainly be involved if you like, but I feel as though I'm fine with handling it myself. In addition to J Milburn's initial comments, it's gone through a peer review and a copyedit. It will be nominated again pretty soon, I think. On the image, I think that if you uploaded all four files, that would constitute excessive use of non-free content. But a non-free image in the cinematography section would be helpful, and there are lots of scenes that are described in that section which a single image would be very helpful for! BenLinus1214talk03:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ben- four screenshots seems excessive. If you genuinely feel that the cinematography section is lacking without a screenshot, one could probably be acceptable with a well-written (not just copy-pasted) rationale. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ashton 29: Yeah, I would recommend uploading a screenshot of the opening Raging Bull-esque part—that would be a helpful illustration. Or a screenshot of where they strip Brandon. But I would prefer the former. BenLinus1214talk12:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@BenLinus1214:I feel like the roller rink scene is probably more significant, given that Pierce stated it completes Brandon's transformation. I haven't seen the film for sometime, but the Raging Bull-esque part would be the highway scene in which Brandon is driving? Any specific shot in particular?Ashton 29 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ashton 29: I agree that the roller rink scene is more important, but can the visual aspect really be illustrated by one screenshot? Also, yeah, that's the Raging Bull part. Nothing in particular. Whatever you think is best. BenLinus1214talk12:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@BenLinus1214: I uploaded one frame from the roller rink scene, depicting Brandon's grand entrance into manhood. Hopefully it suits the article needs and fits nicely within the Cinematography section. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I've made some changes to the Keturah article, per your GA review suggestions. Please take another look now. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)07:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC).
As you're not about right now... I've left you some comments- please don't miss them! I'm sorry to say I still think there's work to do before it's ready for FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
GAN
Hi. Yeah, I like to take a look at the GAN page. However, I'm little reticent on reviewing GAs because I'm not a native (and, you know, prose issues are common), but I'll consider it. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Normal Is the Watchword you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gabriel Yuji -- Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi BenLinus1214, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ceradon (talk • edits) 18:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points.
The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category.
After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition.
Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful.
16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Thank you for reviewing the "Sisters at Heart" article and promoting it to good status. I have nominated it for featured status here. If you are willing to contribute to the discussion, your comments would be greatly appreciated.
Since your last review of my article, I have fixed the referencing just as you highlighted, while also adding more reliable sources to the mix. I would greatly appreciate it if you could review mine once again. The article is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PULSAR:_Lost_Colony hopefully you can approve it. If not, I will keep trying to fix my errors. Thank you. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Donut Run you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reviewing The Wanderers for me. It's much appreciated! I was wondering if you can have another look at the article since I've made many recent improvements. Its still possibly missing some things, but I could do with your advice. Also, there are a few things I'd like to go over. Firstly, there is no information whatsoever on the exact budget of the film, so this cannot be placed in the article's info box. Also, regarding your concerns with "ref 2". All of the information from "ref 2" are from an interview that Phil Kaufman (the movie's director) did with Tom Philip in 2014. There was another link to corroborate this, but the website has currently undergone technical maintenance, so it was removed from the article about a month or two ago. If your still concerned with "ref 2", you're more than welcome to email the owners of the website/article within "ref 2". They will be able to corroborate what I have said. I have read the article the quotes are from myself. Also with the critical reception, there may be 18 review on Rotten Tomatoes, but many of the critics have either left simple numbered ratings with no comments, or the links are broken to read their reviews further. I have looked elsewhere and have included other reviews in the critical reception section. Also, the Manual of Style/Film section on Wikipedia says that the critical reception goes below the box office performance as it is. As said again, I'd like you to have another look through the article and the changes I've made (if possible). Also, any more recommendations will be appreciated. Thanks again! -- Metal121 (talk) 07:08, August 6, 2015 (GMT).
Thanks for the note. I'm sorry about the template messages- I'm trying to go about this in the most amicable way while still actually getting somewhere, but I appreciate that they're a bit impersonal... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Troy and Veronica.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Troy and Veronica.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charlie Don't Surf (Veronica Mars) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
19:06:51, 15 August 2015 review of submission by OgbeniAdejokun
Please let me know what your thoughts are on the present draft, and would be grateful to you for feedback.
Hi OgbeniAdejokun--It's looking a lot better. For now, I have a minor writing point and a sourcing thing. The writing point is that there's too much boldface in the whole article. In an article like yours, the article's subject and section headers should be the only bolded words--see MOS:BOLD. Also, I would check your sources to see if they cover the subject or the subject's companies. For an article on the subject, a decent amount have to be on the subject and not the companies. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work19:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Rapes of Graff you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gen. Quon -- Gen. Quon (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article I Am God you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gen. Quon -- Gen. Quon (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Well done
Just want to say that what you've done for the Boys Don't Cry article is extraordinary. From the well-intentioned and sort-of informative GA it once was, to the in-depth, thorough and well structured article it is now, brings me a lot of joy! If any film is important and current in today's political and social world, it's this one. Thank you. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wichita Linebacker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of accolades received by Brokeback Mountain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jarhead. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
On 28 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Donut Run, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Donut Run", an episode of Veronica Mars, was the first professional directing job for series creator Rob Thomas, who was even unsure when to call "action" during filming? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Donut Run. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The message you left on a user talk page, " If you are a paid contributor, you must disclose certain information to the Wikimedia Foundation." ids not exactly correct. The material does have to be disclosed, but not privately to the foundation; it needs to be disclosed on-wiki, on the user page, and ideally on the talk page of any relevant contribution. The message I use is " I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, [1] Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure. In addition, Wikipedia may not be used for the purposes of promotion-- we are not a directory. Our articles describe the subject, not advocate for it or praise it, and are directed not to prospective clients of contributors, but to the general public, who may want the sort of information found in encyclopdias. See also our rules on what makes an organization notable. " DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I created a page for this organization this afternoon. Someone has redirected this page to One-Arm Dove Hunt. This has put the Olney Amputee Dove Hunt in the position of possible legal action by the owner of the One-Arm Dove Hunt. Mrs. Northrup made it clear at this website that the One-Arm Dove Hunt is no more. Http://onearmdovehunt.com. The Olney Amputee Dove Hunt is a new organization with different ownership.
What do I need to do to get this put back like it was.
Also the prior information on the One-Arm Dove Hunt is gone. That needs to be put back as well.
@Patalexander: Legal action? How? It doesn't make any sense to me. The page on the One-Arm Dove Hunt was deleted under two speedy deletion criteria--A7 and G11. I had nothing to do with this, so I would recommend that you take it up with the deleting user, Seraphimblade. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work02:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
International Child Amputee Network
I find that this page has been deleted also because I edited it this afternoon. Please have this page restored as soon as possible.
--PatAlexander 02:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Patricia alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patalexander (talk • contribs)
@Patalexander: The page was not deleted "because you edited it". It was deleted for reasons A7 and G11. I cannot delete or restore pages--I am not a administrator. Once again, I encourage you to contact Seraphimblade--he'll probably give you more helpful information than I can. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work02:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay! I got 'em done. The only big thing that I would recommend is that you go through the plot summaries with a fine tooth comb and really hammer out the way the prose flows. As it stands, both entires have fairly choppy plot summaries that could conceivably be made a little smoother.--Gen. Quon(Talk)15:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The article I Am God you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:I Am God for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gen. Quon -- Gen. Quon (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer.
Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all!
Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups.
For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Could you review 87th Academy Awards for featured list promotion? I would appreciate the help. Please note that there were more negative reviews than positive reviews in this ceremony, and therefore the negative/mixed reviews go first.
Oh, and congrats on your first featured list. Way to go!
@Michael Goodyear: I think it would make a great FA, especially given how well-researched it is. However, I might recommend a peer review beforehand. Also, can you possibly do a GA review for one of my Veronica Mars articles? I would particularly appreciate it if you chose "A Trip to the Dentist", as I've been thinking about that for FA as well (also the article "Not Pictured" ,although that's been reviewed for GA already). Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work03:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Johanna. I'm looking for an editor to help review some changes I'm proposing to the entry on the writer Wednesday Martin. I noticed you're a member of WP:WMNWRITE, so I thought you might be interested in helping. I've been working through the article with another editor for the last couple months and we've made quite a bit of progress (the article had multiple flags when we started). All that's left is the introduction and infobox. The volunteer editor who was previously reviewing my drafts is a bit busy at the moment and suggested I reach out to some other folks. Would you have time to look over my latest Talk page message and let me know what you think? Feedback on the rest of the article is welcome as well. As I mention over on the Talk page, I am working on Martin's behalf and I don't want to make any edits on my own because of that conflict of interest. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Trip to the Dentist you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jacedc -- Jacedc (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The Artist FLC and Missing Boys Don't Cry SAG Award
Best of luck with the FAC- I'll do what I can to find time for another look through, but I've got a lot on at the moment, and it is a hefty article, so it may not be very soon. I'm watching the review page, at the very least. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
AHS FLC
I saw your comments in my FLC, but I won't be able to edit during this week, I'm very busy! Next week I will definitely edit them. Thank you so much. GagaNutellatalk01:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup!
Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck!
Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia.
The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
We both are having our first ongoing nominations (at FAC). How about a QPQ; I will comment on Boys Don't Cry FAC, and you comment in my nomination. What do ya say? -- Frankietalk18:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Great! I'm always up for a QPQ. I found FAC to be a bit daunting before this nom, but it's less threatening now that it's been up for a week or so. As long as the nominated article is really top-notch, there's no real reason to worry. It's not actually any scarier than FLC, to be honest. :) I'll leave some comments soon! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work00:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
GA
Thank you for the excellent review of salvation has come down to us. I am relieved that your article is already GA, because I don't GA reviews, as I could not really judge prose. I look at FAs where otherscan deal with prose, while I check image placement, alts for images, {{lang}} and other accessibilty features. Feel free to place your next review requests on WP:QAIPOST, it's for members and friends ;)
MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?
You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.
Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
GA reviews
Sorry for any delay, I haven't forgotten! Just trying to keep up with a lot of real-life work and some other projects, but I'll get to you at some point. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Johanna. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
