Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:40, 14 April 2009

Archives

1: August–October 2008 2: November 2008 3: December 2008 4: January–February 2009 5: March–April 2009 6: May–July 2009 7: August–December 2009 8: January–May 2010 9: June 2010 – present

Template:NewDYKnomination

changes the section header so {{DYKproblem}} doesn't make a working section link. I guess it can also cause problems for section links in other places. Maybe it would be better to keep a clean section header. Other things might be added below the header like in {{Afd2}}. I'm not a template coder. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, I forgot about DYKproblem. I have been working on a possible update to {{NewDYKnomination}} which would put the history link below the section header, like in AfDs, so that might be the best solution. Thanks for the suggestion, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For now, I have just temporarily fixed {{DYKproblem}} to keep the section headers working until I figure out a better long-term solution. The main problem currently is figuring out how we would display the (history) link below the header in cases where there are multiple articles in the same nomination. In a regular nomination, something like

Article

(history)

• ... that......?

would not be a problem. The problem comes up when we get ones like:

Article1, Article2

(history) (history)

• ... that......?

which is pretty ugly. One option would be to display the article name within the link:

Article1, Article2

(Article1 history), (Article2 history)

• ... that.......?

But I can't get the formatting for that to work yet. I have been fiddling around, and there seems to be some problems with displaying that many parser functions within a URL. I will keep working on it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The history links are showing up bigger than they used to. Is this intentional? Also, could you take a look at the image at the Evan Vaughan nom? It's a shield, but according to the nominator it's an artist's recreation...I'm split. Shubinator (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just saw your edit summary...I liked the history smaller. Shubinator (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've had some time to look at it, I agree; I've put it back the way it was, with <small><small>. I just don't like having all that markup in the edit window. I had assumed that because I already had <span class="plainlinks"> I could just add something in there (like style="small" or who knows what), which would save space, but I can't find anything that works. (As you can tell, I'm not very good with html.) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got it! There is a CSS way to make smaller text: Hello (see the source)

You can change the percentage to whatever you want (it's at 80% now), and as you mentioned it works in the span tag you already have. I'm not amazing with html either, but the internet is a great resource. By the way, thanks for the comment on the nom page. Shubinator (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a lot better. I've tried it at 75%; let's see how it looks. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 12:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:EdMcLain.jpg

Hi, it is good to hear that you have managed to secure permission for this photo; since you are in contact with its author, might it be possible for him or her to upload a larger size image than this thumbnail? Jappalang (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate they cannot release a larger sized photo. The value of this picture to the article is a good question. I have seen several articles in which the authors try to break up the monotony of text by inserting free images, several of which I think do not truly contribute value. The answer I have often gotten in these situations is "they are free". Unless such additions prove to be a detriment (overflooding the article with images, mass of editors up in arms over the relevance, etc), such issues with "free images" are often overlooked. I think that Street newspaper presently has a bunch of photos of various vendors and the papers they sell. I am not certain how one image of Ed McLain is going to further add to that, but that is not worthy to make a challenge of. At least the paper was mentioned in the article, but that leads to the slippery slope where editors insert a photo of their favorite vendor and paper just because it was mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey, Rjanag. You've had a name change - I didn't know. ;) Well, remember that disastrous article you reviewed a while back? Well, Pride & Joy (comics) has changed. If it's not too much trouble, I'd love your opinion. I'm currently waiting on another good article review. -- A /_contribs 21:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey A, sorry if I caused any confusion. Actually, I have been noticing all the work you and a couple other editors have put in to the article (I never took it off my watchlist after the first GA review), and it does look like it's come a long way in the past couple months! I haven't looked super-closely, but from what I can tell all the concerns I had at the first review have been addressed and this will probably be pretty much a shoe-in for GA once someone responds to the current nomination. Anyway, I'm about to run, but I will try to find some time later to look through it more closely and see if I have any minor suggestions. Best, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahah, it's all good. Now I get what you meant; looking back now, the article was horrendous. Took me a while to hunt for more detailed information. Thanks for your help, Rjanag - and take your time, no rush. Your opinion's all that matters. Thanks again, -- A /_contribs 22:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Street newspaper

Apologies, perhaps I am asking too much for this image but my stance is unchanged at this time.

• The section "Coverage" talks about the range of topics and issues street newspapers focus on. As I said before, telling people "poverty, homelessless, and such are the issues covered" sort of describes the imagery adequately, i.e. without seeing the paper, readers already think, "okay, so it prints such stuff".
• To justify the use of the front page of a current newspaper, the text should talk about how the paper presents these news articles. What is the format these papers used to arrange the articles on the front page? Why is such a layout used? Are the front page photos specifically selected to evoke a certain kind of emotion? How about the way the fonts are used? Perhaps, something resourced from this or its like. The image is to clarify to readers the text, e.g. (simplistic example) "text: it shows subjects in controversial poses, designed to elicit compassion" is accompanied by an "image: front page with a homeless man on the corner, asking for alms as pedestrians non-chalantly walk by (photo shows and focus on the expressions of the subjects)", reader goes "ahh... look at the faces of the lot... oh, so this is how the paper operates to tweak the feeling of the readers".

Basically, my issue with the cover of Spare Change News is that the article states nothing about what the layout of a street newspaper like Spare Change News is about or has what sort of effects; instead the image is used to show the contents, which words can perfectly describe. Commentary/criticisms for fair use images must be in main article text to qualify for significance. Captions lack sufficient weightage. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jim Schelle

I closed the discussion as "keep". There really was no other option since only you and the prodder were arguing "delete". However, I updated the closing statement with a note about the discussion to modify WP:ATHLETE. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I did see that; thank you for your consideration of the matter and your thoughtful closing statement. I am still a bit disappointed that most people ignored my actual question and just parroted WP:ATHLETE back at me, but at least not everyone did. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And I unfortunately might have been one of them. As a "mild inclusionist" it personally doesn't bother me to have a zillion articles on "Pokemon", (as the prodder compared this article to) minor fictional characters, or video game weapons. However, many of the articles covered under WP:ATHLETE are BLPs. (Jim Schelle is not since he died in 1990) Therefore, the question of whether or not appearing in one pro game warrants an article should be asked. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mind if people disagree with me on whether we should have the article, as long as they (like you have) actually give a reason why they think so. Since I was specifically questioning whether or not we should follow WP:ATHLETE in this case, I got annoyed that people were totally avoiding the actual question and just pretending that I nominated it the article for different reasons than I actually did. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW I contributed my 2 cents to the WP:ATHLETE thread. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgia Tech

Rjanag, most major universities have a separate article on Greek life. When I get some free time, I plan on expanding the article significantly. Thanks for your comment, you were the first person to write on my talk page. AF3 (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A great suggestion; we'll need to remove the link from the GT Navbox, but other than that, I am fine with that plan. I've downloaded the article locally to work on it, so if you want to recommend it for deletion, that's fine. Thanks!

AF3 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rank & GAN

Rank: I noticed that your infobox says you speak Chinese, so I was wonder if you could tell me if this (內容物：1片裝) has anything to with the albums rank. Here the website if you want to view the whole page.

GAN: If you have the time could you please review TVXQ? 月と暁 22:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not totally sure, but I don't think 內容物：1片裝 is a rank. I　think it's something along the lines of "Product contents: 1 disc". (I've never seen the character 裝 (simplified version 装) used like that, but that's what the context suggests.)

Okay thanks.

For TVXQ, do you mean an official GAN review, or a copyedit before the review? In either case, I may not be able to do anything until the weekend, because I have a pretty crazy night coming up tonight and probably also tomorrow...but I will try to take a look. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean for the official GA review. 月と暁 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New

Just came to ask for yet another favor :p. Can you do a copy edit of List of number-one albums of 2008 (Japan)? You can do this whenever you have the time no rush. Also TVXQ is now a GA article. :) 月と暁 18:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, already? And I was just starting to think I would have time this evening to review it! Looks like CarpetCrawler beat me to it...

Anyway, I would be happy to copyedit the list article; it looks pretty short, and has purty pictures. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was very quick, I'm glad it passed next step to them and Kumi Koda to a FA. Thanks for starting the ce. I want to promote the article to a FL article. 月と暁 19:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Two questions (since I can't read Japanese to look into these things myself):

• Amuro became the first solo female artist in 28 years to have a single at number one for so long; the record was previously held by Saki Kubota (久保田早紀 ,Kubota Saki?) in 1980 – I can't tell what you mean, did Amuro break Kubota's record, or does Kubota still hold the record and Amuro is second? In either case, do you know what Kubota's record was? It would be nice to mention.

Yeah Kubota still holds the record and Namie is second. Kubota holds the record for seven consecutive weeks.

• Rock singer Yui's b-side album, My Short Stories, debuted atop the charts, making her the second female artist after Seiko Matsuda to do so – but the previous paragraph says that BoA's album also debuted at number one. Is there a difference that I'm not understanding? Also, when you say "the second female artist to do so," do you mean second in 2008 or second ever?

rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the difference is BoA is the second artist to have six consecutive number-one studio albums, after Ayumi Hamasaki and Yui is the second artist after Seiko Matsuda to have her b-side album debut at number-one. By "the second female artist to do so," I mean ever.

Also, about Exile's album... does the Japanese source at the end of the paragraph mention how the album was actually released in 2007, or is that your own addition? If it's in the source, it might make for a good DYK hook (something along the lines of "... that the best-selling Japanese music album in 2008 was actually released in 2007?", although I dunno if that is unusual or not in the music industry). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese source doesn't say it was released in 2007, but if you click on "EXILE LOVE" on the source it does show the album was released in December of 2007. It'll be easy for me to find a next source saying that it was released in 2007 if you need to to find one.

In any case, I've nominated it for now, with a tenative hook, here. If it turns out that stuff isn't in the source, I can strike the first hook and go with an alternate one. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of sourced there. Thanks for nominating it.

I want to apologize for not making my writing clear. That's why I requested a copy edit, to me it makes perfect sense but to others I'm not all that sure. 月と暁 19:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand, and I have the same problem—when I already know and understand what I'm trying to say, I can't tell which parts are awkward or confusing. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know I'm not alone. :) About the DYK, the info about Mariya Takeuchi is somewhat incorrect. She is the first artist over 50 years old to have a album that stayed at the number-one position for three consecutive weeks. Sorry about the confusion. 月と暁 19:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How is this for a second hook? (...that Perfume is only the second technopop group in 25 years to have a number-one album in Japan?) Reading it makes me think this would be better for either the album's page. I'll let you decide. I'm making your talk look like a mess. 月と暁 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That looks good too, feel free to add it to the nomination. No worries about the talk; a messy talk page means we're getting work done ;) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I added it. I might be adding more to lead in the near future so keep an eye on the article for a bit longer, just in case I'll need you to copy edit again. In your opinion do you think that the article is anywhere near ready to become FL article? 月と暁 20:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with FLs. This list looks great to me, but some other people might be able to give more input; I think Sepiroth BCR does a lot of list work. If you snoop through T:TDYK you will usually be able to find several list articles by the people who are experienced with lists, and you could try asking them. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I'll go ask him what he thinks about the article and I do some snooping at DYK too. Again thanks! 月と暁 20:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How are these links inappropriate

In what is is a 360 degree view of a place not appropriate for an wikipedia? If I'm interested in a place enough to look it up in wikipedia, you think I might want to know what it looks like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharriso (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 April 2009

Because you appear to be trying to promote your website. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for promoting other websites; sites should only be added to an article if they benefit not Misplaced Pages, not if Misplaced Pages benefits them. If you believe your links are beneficial, please discuss them at the talk pages of the relevant articles (for example, Talk:Mount Huang) to solicit more input from other editors—that way you can get a second opinion other than mine.

And, by the way, I wish you had gotten in touch with me after my first warning, rather than having waited until my third.

Thank you, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I appear to be trying to promote my website? I'm not posting links in inappropriate place. I'm only posting links of specific place on the articles about those places. I think people that visit these articles would want to see a panoramic view of the place the article is talking about. Is it cool then if I go delete all the pictures on Misplaced Pages that come from flikr?

Misplaced Pages doesn't exist for its own interest, its a vehicle for knowledge. And I don't have to ask permission to edit articles, thats the God Damn point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharriso (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't need to ask for permission to edit articles, but Misplaced Pages operates by consensus and discussion, and when there is disagreement then we take it to a talk page to work out a reasonable solution for everyone. I suggested that you go to a talk page because a) that will help us find a solution, and b) that way you can find opinions from people other than me, since I know my opinion is not the one that you would like to hear.

The fact of the matter is, I did not find your links to be very useful to improving a reader's understanding of topics like Mount Huang, University of Kansas, etc. These articles are already well-illustrated, and have links to entire galleries of images on Wikimedia Commons, so I don't believe your links were necessary. Again, if you disagree, you are welcome to seek other editors for more input. But please remain civil and refrain from attacking other editors. Thank you, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheng resolved?

If you've no objections, can I tag the Cheng character entry at GL/I as resolved? --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any objections, and have tagged it. My only outstanding question is what to do with the old image. Is there any di rationale for images that have been superseded but not by an exact copy...or should I just FfD it? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FFD has this: "Examples of what you may request here: Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version." It depends on the file, but in this case I can't see any use on wiki for the original file with such low resolution and there are now two replacements, I'd say FfD is appropriate.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, also found this at commons which may be of interest. Commons Deletion Policy/Redundant.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Prestige DYK

Hi Rjanag, I pointed out the sentence from the prestige article I used as the hook on the DYK page. James McBride (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit to the intro, as per your suggestion. Thanks for your help! I had sort of given up on the article getting reviewed. Since no one had looked at it for a week, I figured the hook was not exciting enough. James McBride (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look

Xinfang Arilang 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Wild Swans? I think there are a couple anecdotes there about 张's parents petitioning. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Happy big 5, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --Loremaster (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Running just as fast as he can...

I need to do more running offline. How about you? I hope you're staying fit and having fun. Sorry about the misspelling. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just got back from a run and a rousting match of badminton! (and a shower.) It's good to get away from WP sometimes. No worries about the misspelling, I can't spell my own name half the time!

Best of luck on your RfA, I'll be looking forward to seeing what happens there (especially your answer to question 5, which I think is going to be very important)! rʨanaɢ /_contribs 05:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Karen Mok picture

How do you want me to prove that I have the copyright to the picture that I added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaeljojo (talk • contribs) 08:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding file: karen perfume launch.jpg. You are right, I mistakingly named the picture this way but did not know how to change it so I uploaded it again, this time with the correct title. yes, this file can be deleted (I cannot delete it myself, can I?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaeljojo (talk • contribs) 10:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had File:karen perfume launch.jpg deleted at your request. As for the other one, File:KarenMok HKfestival2009.jpg, what you need to do is to add source information. The easiest way to do this is to paste in the following template and fill in as much as you can:

{{Information
| Description = ] at the 2009 ]
| Source = 
| Date = 17:41, 22 March 2009 
| Author = ]
| Permission = {{GDFL}}{{cc-by-3.0}}
}}

I have taken the liberty of guessing some of the information for you; make sure you check to see this is accurate, and only post this information on the image page if it is actually true and this really is your picture. To be honest, I am not totally sure whether it is, since in the past you have uploaded someone else's image and claimed it as your own...but since the camera metadata is present on this image, I am more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, if you don't add the information within a couple days, the image will be deleted. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. It is apparently easy to get a bad reputation in this environment (not entirely intuituve though how to upload picture correctly) so thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I have added the source as detailed as I could. Please have a look and tell me whether it makes sense. If so, I would like to upload it to the article.

jaeljojo Jaeljojo (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks ok now. I have added it back into the article, but for now I'm keeping the lead/main image like it was before, and adding this one lower, since I don't see any strong reason to replace it yet, and I think the current lead image looks a bit more natural. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

File:KarenMok HKfestival2009.jpg

I'm sorry, I don't actually know much about photography. My work is almost exclusively on engravings, lithographs, and the like, most of which I scan myself. You'd want a photographer for that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, Metadata often isn't enough, as that might be copied as well. This editor has uploaded this image before File:Karen perfume launch.jpeg, claiming it was taken in Oct. 2008 (no metadata on that upload). So, on that the basic backstory of the image has changed (2008? 2009? Perfume launch? film festival?) A good place to do a quick search is images.google.com - a quick search there found this - which shows her in the same dress at HKIFF in 2009, so that confirms the 2nd. I didn't see this image in the first couple of pages of search results. However, it was uploaded without any information (such as you stated above) or without a license; so it's a good idea to let the uploader prove his claims while at the same time assuming some level goodwill in that licensing etc. can be confusing for a new uploader. Skier Dude (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Copyedit

Of course, it's the least I could do. Don't sweat it. I'll be quite honest though, I'm not actually the best with copyediting, but I can give it a shot. As for it not interesting me, don't fear. I managed to push an article I hated to GA standards a short time ago. -- A /_contribs 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a punctuation geek, so I noticed a lot of unneeded comma usage. I've done some minor fixes (see edit summary) - there are some other areas I am rather worried about.

• Who was her family "besieged with thousands of phone calls" from? I'm guessing it's from friends in China, because somewhere below the paragraph, it states she was a celebrity in China - something that took me by surprise, since it hadn't been mentioned above.
  • The source isn't very specific, but I imagine it was calls from both friends and random fans (anyone who had read the local paper). As for her celebrity status, the intro states "made her a household name" or something like that, but maybe I could make it a bit clearer. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Great work on the 'description' section, seems really interesting. I am, however, unsure of the line "According to Liu, her parents had plans early on to write about their parenting methods and relied on Liu's perceived success in gaining entrance to Harvard to establish themselves as "experts" in order to publish their book.", because that sentence (to me, at least) describes a lot of things happening at once - parenting methods, Harvard entrence/success, expert writers.
  • Moved it around a bit, to try to shift the emphasis. Does this look any better? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• "The success of this and similar books (another bestseller in 2001 and 2002 was Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad Poor Dad) in mainland China has been said to reflect a "national obsession" among Chinese parents to get their children (many of whom, because of the one-child policy, are only children) into top-ranking American schools." I'm not sure of this, seeing as I haven't read the book or live in China, but is it something crucial to include that one-child policy note? I might be a bit biased right now, so I'm not sure.
  • Definitely not necessary; I had the same thought myself, but kept forgetting to do anything about it. I'll remove it now. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read through comments from the review, and I'm not I satisfied the articles' needs - I've cleaned up some little fixes, but you might like to take a quick run through when you get the chance. -- A /_contribs 17:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this! I have left some replies above. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem, really. The article was actually intriguing once I read through it, which is great. As for the edits, I can (now) understand the emphasis of that sentence (above), so great. I'm not entirely sure if there's more to do; I merely fixed the errors I saw and stuff that didn't work well. Great work on the article, though - again, it's pretty interesting. -- A /_contribs 18:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The 25 DYK Medal

		The 25 DYK Medal
		For your outstanding contribution to WP:DYK in creating various topics especially China related articles and keeping the system running, Rjanag, you are hereby awarded with the 25 DYK Medal. We look forward to many more DYKs from you. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Caspian blue 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

!! But I don't think I've actually written 25 yet! Do I have to give it back? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got 30 DYK badges including nominations, check out your archives. :) --Caspian blue 20:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hot damn. That's right, I haven't been counting noms, so I lost track of those. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK image swap

Hi, could you take a look Talk:Main_Page#Changing pic for lead hook here and swap a picture? Thanks Sasata (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Help With Argument For No Deletion

Hello,Rjanag,it's Easter,and I still need help with that article!All of the stuff warning me about deletion is starting to bug me!Bryceman99 (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Pride & Joy (comics)/GA2

I finished the first pass of the quick stuff, Image and Stability review, so I'd appreciate your comments at Talk:Pride & Joy (comics)/GA2 about the article's present status, as I am about to do the main part of the GA review itself. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! It wouldn't be where it is had it not been for your original review, remember? Thanks for also pitching in with the current review - glad this article can shine now :) -- A /_contribs 17:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested...

... in this article today in the New York Times. Shubinator (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

i fixed the section

im not vandalizing articles, i cleaned up that section. there is no need to have that notice there. Justme89 (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You did not clean it up; here is the link. You removed the tag without having made any changes whatsoever to the section. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So i made a little mistake. big deal, sue me. that notice is from 2007. it needs to be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justme89 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 April 2009

No need to be rude; I wasn't making a big deal, I was just giving you a warning asking you not to do it again. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

It's more of a anniversary, but I will take a birthday as well. Thanks again! ClonedPickle 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Street newspaper

Please trust User:Awadewit's editing. She will save the article, as it is borderline. You are fortunate she is doing that. I would like to see it pass and her copy edit will make it happen. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I do, and I am very grateful for her help (just waiting for her to finish before I bother her with a thank-you note). Of the two edits I've made while she's copyediting, one is a different section (just something I noticed that I should have fixed long ago, nothing to do with her editing) and the other is just a minor tweak to one of her rewordings. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Glad you feel that way. I know that, from her perspective, it is very disorienting to have the article's editor make changes while doing a copy edit. Anyway, I think she will support once she goes through it. It is an interesting article on a topic previously ignored! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)