User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 10

Suspected sock puppets/Landau7
Sorry about that, we seem to have hit that one at the same time. I requested a checkuser be run, as there's some evidence but it's not proven there. Is that alright, or would you prefer I withdraw the request? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perfectly all right. As I wrote, I was simultaneously over and under whelmed by the evidence, a checkuser would also be OK. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll make a note, though - so far, out of half a dozen checkuser requests I've made for SSP work, not one has been approved. I guess that has discouraged me from seeking them. Here's hoping you have better luck, though. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We shall hope! If not, it'll just stay closed as inconclusive. I'll make sure to check back next time though, and note what I'm intending to do before doing it, hopefully that'll keep from crossing wires again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Panairjdde
Hi -- Actually, P. has been posting as Panarjedde, as he & I agreed; his last edit with this account appears to be mid-December. I'm sorry to see that he's been subjected to these blocking, & I feel that it was at least partly my fault. I was diagnised with significant medical problems last November -- at about the time Jayjg contacted me about him -- & I limited my involvement with Wikipedia for the next 3 months, & did not help out when I probably should have. (Now that I'm past most of it, I've been attempting to become more active.) However, while I've extended my help to P. in the past, we haven't exchanged email since November, & I only learned about his recent problems yesterday by accident. -- llywrch 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That account was blocked in December by Jayjg, apparently for similar reasons. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS -- I see above that Betacommand has a request for Arbitration opened against him. I believe that might help show that the problems were not with an "AdminBot" but with the person running it. On the other hand, he & I argued over this most viciously (at one point I worried I might cross the line into uncivil behavior), so I don't want to appear to be just kicking another Wikipedian when he's down. -- llywrch 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello!
My name is Jaromir. I am definitely a man. :) Thank you very much for your words at: . Have a nice evening and good luck! I would like to tell you the 'good luck' version of a Friend of mine: Good luck in everything you do: good or evil ;) under the condition that you treat this 'evil' part as a joke.. :) --Riva72 17:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Some people take this place much too seriously. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. You are absolutely right. Greetings from Poland! Today, I have no time for a longer conversation but I hope it is possible in the near future. I like your picture and I appreciate all your Wiki badges. --Riva72 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
For your comments and your honest response. I would be curious as to a few things. I don't mean any of this in a bad way. I cold have said that I was the first person to mentor a know troll, and that it was effective for over a year (Mike Garcia), or that I welcomed and trained great new users who were breaking every rule on their first day (Zoe, for instance). I coudl have said Fleshlight is a funky sex toy and ignored the phone call of the guy who was telling me it was put there for spam purposes (he actually called to request that the article he put up would be locked so that no one could even edit it). I didn't. Not worth it. I believe that Wikipedia should be as inclusive as possible, but that means defining and undertsanding what Wikipedia is not, as well as what it is. Danny 20:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you have preferred that I lie about what I think to win an election?
 * 2) What constitutes the community? People who vote in some RfA or VfD, or is it much more than that. I rarely voted in either, because I grew appalled at the muckraking and nastiness that would inevitably emerge. I know a lot of other people--amazing contributors--who feel the same way. They just dont want to play in the mud.
 * 3) Considering that I am still over 80 percent, are my views, which I am making very obvious (perhaps even more obvious than other candidates have in the past) so oounter to consensus?


 * No, heck no. Of course not. I would have preferred that you honestly didn't believe what you honestly believe. :-)
 * 1) That's a tough call, but well, WP:BITE is a cornerstone here. And it has good reason for it. I remember reading somewhere (arbcom candidacies, maybe?) that maybe half of people who became excellent contributors first came here to promote something they were connected with. If they were not politely reverted and explained our policies, but just blocked for a month after their first edit, how many would have stayed? I venture few. Not none, but few.
 * You don't have to play in the mud. Some excellent contributors just write articles. That's great. In many ways they're more valuable than mere mop-wielders; we're not producing a community here, after all, we're producing an encyclopedia, the mop work is just the side effect, the articles are the real end product.
 * But you do have to play in the mud, if you want to be an admin. Hence the euphemism, mop. :-) And yes, you have to be polite as you wipe the mud off, and not throw it back wrapped around a rock, specifically because you do have the funky tools, and you do have the support of the community: 1200 other admins, if no one else. If you don't block the guy who adds one spam link for a month, and they do add it again, and again, and again, someone else will revert them, each time, and someone else will eventually block them as persistent. Really. Not everything is an emergency. There are degrees of this sort of thing, and there are lots and lots of other people trying to help, you're not a lone warrior with a mask and a gun. Maybe you were when you were the only guy with OFFICE powers, but as an admin, you have a lot of backup, and that is why you are not supposed to always use extreme force.
 * 1) You may well "win". When I first did my research, I honestly thought it was a foregone conclusion, I'm shocked as anything that it's not any more. You're not Willy On Wheels! :-) But it does look like you could be Tony Sidaway. He's an honest, dedicated, very experienced, and well meaning guy too (and if he's watching this page, will probably show up and say he's honored to be compared to you :-) ) . Maybe I'm wrong, the RfA is, of course, the acid test of consensus, there are now enough people showing up there that it will be fairly representative. I certainly won't throw a tantrum if you do get the mop back. As I wrote, you've done far more for this place than I have.

I don't know anything about Mike Garcia or Zoe, I've only been here for a year. Well, I've met Zoe, but I don't know about her interaction with you. I have to decide on what I see in your recent contributions, and your statements. Those statements don't make it sound like you're interested in doing that sort of thing any more; please correct me if I'm wrong.

As to what you could have done - told the guy on the phone call that he doesn't own the article. Gone to the Fleshlight article, and improve it to be NPOV. If you didn't have the time or interest, cut it down to a non-spammy NPOV stub, put it on your watchlist. If you don't even have that much time or interest, get some help from those who do: cut it to a stub and post a note about it on the WP:AN/I, find an appropriate Wikiproject full of people who are interested, drop a note on the talk page of some editor who participated a lot in the AfD that it needs watching or cleanup. You're not a lone hero any more. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
AnonEMouse, thanks for your support on my RfA. I should apologize for "snubbing" you; I thought about contacting you before putting the RfA up, but didn't want to run afoul of WP:CANVASS. That was probably overanxiety on my part, but people can get pretty bizarre with their !votes sometimes. Anyway, thanks for supporting me--if you can mention me and Newyorkbrad in the same paragraph and keep a straight face, I can't be screwing up too badly! --Akhilleus (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't take the "snub" comment seriously, I see there was a long line. You're a great asset. I see you sprung straight into action with Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd), which I was hoping you would look into. Thank you, appreciated. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you. It made me smile. :-D Danny 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm amazed how few you have, I expected a maze of barnstars. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will get through this. :-) Danny 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for helping us solve that issue, AnonEMouse. Happy Easter :-) Ev 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sakura Sakurada
OK with me to restore, but I would immediately send it to AFD. There are no sources other than her own porno site. Thanks, NawlinWiki 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been expecting you. Hey I don't have a problem with people pointing out faults but those links Sandy identified I bleeive I have rmeoved them from the main article if you check. THis is why I removed them if I knew how to strike the list ut I would have done tha rather than remove it. If you could help with the referencing this would be great after all we are creating a hopefully featured article for all of us. i bid you adeau you crazy mofo. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 11:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

welcome
to Wikinews. Doldrums 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

AlwaysLeaveSomethingUndoneDebate and AlwaysLeaveSomethingUndoneDebate
I've already moved the old history of AlwaysLeaveSomethingUndoneDebate to Wikipedia talk:Make omissions explicit/AlwaysLeaveSomethingUndoneDebate, so AlwaysLeaveSomethingUndoneDebate and AlwaysLeaveSomethingUndoneDebate can be deleted since there is no meaningful history left in either of them. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 17:42Z 


 * Right. I'm not sure what possessed me there. Thanks. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Democrazy (film)
You've pobably seen that it's at AfD; Guy has already speedily deleted the article on the B-Movie Festival (which supplied its significance), which I've placed at WP:Deletion review. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One at a time... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice (and quick) work on B-Movie Film Festival. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 17:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good close on B-Movie Film Festival drv sometimes seems to spend more time arguing the toss and finger pointing than just dealing with the primary issues and moving on --pgk 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, thank you. :-) Bask, bask, wriggle, wriggle. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A request to the Wikipedia administrator 1
Hello! How are you? I hope you are fine. AnonEMouse, I ask you, the administrator, for a permanent deletion of my English Wikipedia user page, my talk page and my list of contributions:  as I do not wish to identify with the project and to leave it forever. Thank you! --Riva72 06:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shame you feel that way. Hope you can change your mind. There are tens of thousands of editors on this project, so there are surely hundreds of good ones and hundreds of bad ones.
 * Anyway, I can delete your user page and talk page, but not your list of contributions, that's an irrevocable part of history. Is that good enough? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. Ok. I will appreciate if you remove these pages: I mean my user page and my talk pages.. Thank you! --Riva72 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you really want to leave and disappear, leave your page red. That's better than protection. --kingboyk 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A request to the Wikipedia administrator 2
Hello again! I have just placed the proper templates. I would like to ask you if you could protect my user page and my discussion page from being edited by removing the edit this page section as I left the project and I do not want the pages to be vandalized by anybody. It would be a peaceful situation for me as well. In case you want to say something, I ask you to place your statement under this request message at your talk page, please. I will appreciate it. --Riva72 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reason you are anticipating vandalism? Have they been regularly, extensively vandalized before?
 * See, you're not blocked; "I want to leave" isn't a reason to block someone. If you want to leave, you just leave. However, that means you can also come back whenever you feel like, without any hassle. And when or if you do (as I hope you do), it would be useful for people to be able to communicate with you, without any hassle. So unless you really have a strong reason to suspect they're going to be regularly vandalized, I'd prefer to leave them unprotected. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * AnonEMouse, I do not intend to come back here and I will never do so. I want no Wikipedia members contact me in the future. I want to have nothing in common with the Wikipedia and the Commons projects, including the proper foundation. I ask you to protect these pages as I explained earlier. I believe I, as the leaving user, have all the rights to have these pages protected that way. The template I placed is very informative. Thank you. --Riva72 17:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No -- at least nothing I could find on Protection policy says so. I could be wrong -- if another admin protects them, I certainly won't un-protect -- but my reading of policy and usual behavior is that protection is only used when it has to be, not just when it's asked for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Quotation of your words: ..but my reading of policy and usual behavior is that protection is only used when it has to be, not just when it's asked for. I may only answer to these words of yours in that way: that is also one of the reasons I hate the projects. If you are kind enough explain to me here why some of the users are protected that way.. See the case of the user Phaedriel, for example. --Riva72 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't protect it, so you'll have to ask those admins (User:Kingboyk, User:Tom harrison). I probably wouldn't have protected it. However, note that it had gotten a whole slew of unanswered messages since her absence, and there is a possible exceptional circumstance that I'd rather not give details about. But ask them, maybe they will feel those reasons apply to you as well. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't protected at Phaedrial's request, it was protected on my initiative, partly for extremely sensitive reasons, and partly because people were failing to accept she had left (although the reasons don't matter, what matters is that I took an administrative action based on what I felt was right and proper at the time given the information I had available to me). I have no objection to deleting the user's page and talk under the "right to vanish" but I'm puzzled as to why protection should be needed. --kingboyk 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I ask you again, the administrator, to protect my user page and my talk page i.e. to prevent them from being edited by anybody by blocking people's access to the edit this page sections of the pages mentioned earlier. I do not understand why you all are not willing to accept this final decision of mine. I see it as the attack on my personal (which may also be read as human) rights. I will appreciate your understanding and acceptance of my decision. --Riva72 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

PNC at PORN
Hi, the text below is the combination of the current template and the special case paragraph that I copied from BIO. Can we have a sidebar from the furry and discuss where we differ on the specific wording? If you feel this is inappropriate, go ahead and revert this comment and I'll understand. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Valid criteria
 * "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The depth of coverage of the subject by the sources should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Further definition of this concept is provided at the notability guideline.

Special cases
 * The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria probably merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. Editors evaluating an article should assume that adequate research will support notability.


 * This is perfectly appropriate, I don't plan to revert it, thanks. My basic objection is that the "The following criteria make it likely" phrasing of the special cases paragraph means that the notability criteria at WP:PORNBIO are essentially meaningless... which is a fairly basic objection, I hope you will agree! That's not just an objection to its use at WP:PORNBIO, by the way. No doubt
 * Unlike Jeff, I strongly agree with the principles of Notability. I was backing it, and its children, before it became marked a guideline. That was why I pushed for WP:PORNBIO, in fact, so that we would have a bright-line rule for notable and non-notable porn star articles. However, each article does have to be judged with relevance to the context, to its subject. One example not related to WP:PORNBIO is Spoo, which does not have any references that would be considered both independent and reliable -- but can hardly be considered an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, given that it is a Featured article, by definition one of our best.
 * I saw a lot of referenced material, so I am assuming that the article is pulled together from many minor sources or examples. Does it border on primary research?  I don't have a problem with that.
 * Another counterexample not related to WP:PORNBIO is User:rambot which creates town articles based on US census data. These articles have, without exception been kept regardless of the fact that no reliable independent sources with any non-trivial mention of the town are given. The last such article it edited was Linden, Indiana, with a population of 700. Are there guaranteed to be books, non-local newspaper articles, other non-trivial mentions of Linden, Indiana? I doubt it. Yet it's a real place, and kept.
 * OK, I have no problem with this. It's a perfect example of single source providing notability.
 * WP:PROF, WP:MUSIC, and yes, WP:PORNBIO are like that. There are notable and non-notable professors, but the dividing line for them isn't the same as for normal people; publishing a dozen book-length articles makes most people notable, for a professor it's just average if no one reads the articles. Similarly, there are notable and non-notable pornstars, and the criteria that make them notable or not are not the obvious ones either. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see anyone who is substantially in the public eye as notable. Writing freely circulated books or articles makes the notability grade for me.  I think that it is very important for WP to provide an objective source where readers can investigate authors.  But where do you draw the line.  I don't see a problem including an academic based on a significant web-bio from a notable institution, if there is a reasonable expectation of editorial oversight.  But does that qualify Mrs. Smith because she has a bio at a elementary school website?

You definitely have me thinking. There are always good reasons for more rules, but collectively they just become overwhelming and difficult to manage. Where do we draw the line? Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to drop by Articles for deletion/Shahid Hussain Bokhari (2) this is an intersting discussion. --Kevin Murray 01:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection I support the compromise which you proposed yesterday. Would you feel comfortable returning that so it isn't a Kevin/Jeff thing? On a further thought, I can see moving the BIO lead prefacing the special cases more into line with your thoughts. I would also like to redress your other concerns there when protection is removed. I remain unconvinced that the PORN issues can't be addressed at BIO, but I do agree that my solution so far does not addressed your legitimate concerns. However, the level of PORN coverage you advocate may not be fully encyclopedic, but I am for looser standards than many people. No clear right or wrong here. --Kevin Murray 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fans of X-Rated Entertainment
An editor has nominated Fans of X-Rated Entertainment, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aieee. This is territory in which angels fear to tread. The principle is certainly good, but it seems that the application leaves something to be desired. If even Radiant!, who was the one who bravely (and/or recklessly!) dropped the guideline marker on Notability, doesn't like it, I'm afraid to endorse it. I'm sure he has been following the issues more closely than I have. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Doctor33 sockpuppet
You banned this user and his sockpuppets back in February. It appears he is back (again) as User:D12111, this user has the same edit pattern (targeting Bratz and WWE articles, adding nonsense like Bratz being the official theme song of wrestling events, etc.). TJ Spyke 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Again, tough call, but the edit history is very similar (Sean Paul, Bratz, Wrestling, and related video games), and the information added is consistently uncited, and does seem to be false. (Comparing: and ). Will block. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the honor is mine!
The honor is all mine, dear Mousey ;) If you think that I'm back with a vengeance from my contribs, then I'm glad you didn't check my logs! Being on maternity leave from work has its advantages, don't you think? ;) Btw, I just noticed you pasted my blocking template on your page! I can't tell you how moved I am... and it was your idea, after all! ;) Do you have any news from our friend Crzrussian? I was very saddened when I found out he had left the project. I don't know what made him take that decission, but I hope he reconsiders some day...  P h a e d r i e l  - 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At first I thought I would be using the template as well, but somehow have never gotten around to it. I have blocked a number of people, but usually for sockpuppetry, which doesn't lend itself to this one. Also, I have to admit, however I try, I'm not as nice as you are. It's a tough goal to shoot for.
 * As for Crz, I asked, but he was coy. I think it was a combination of factors, some of which I know, and some I don't. Part was when Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2 failed by the slimmest of margins, a margin that was only achieved during the extra day and a half it was kept open due to bureaucrats' being inactive. That actually led Crz to nominate himself for bureaucrat ... with predictable results, given he wasn't that experienced an admin yet (By the way, since then, Kafziel learned to channel his marine tendencies a bit, and Requests for adminship/Kafziel 3 not only succeeded but would have made WP:100, unopposed, were it not closed early... yeah, I know, that doesn't mean much to you, but for us mere mortals it's impressive.) But that wasn't the whole reason, I don't know the whole thing. Part was life outside Wiki - if I understood a brief hint from him correctly, he may be absent for much the same happy reason you were. I hope I did understand him correctly, that would be a good reason to be missing. He does check in on Wikipedia events every so often, he was aware of the Essjay incident, and told me I was hard on Yanksox. Drop him an email, if I'm right you can discuss cloth-vs-disposable and the finer shades of diagnosis-by-poop-coloration. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Spitzer
I'll just have to apologize and say oops for forgetting to notify the original author about the speedy. I do notify the original authors on any deletion tags but in this case it looks like I slipped up. Thanks for catching that for me, and I will try not to forget in the future. Regards. -- Whpq 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

jameson
Hey Anon. If it were me, I'd try to organize it in straight chronology, rather than trying to segment off her relationships and business interests -- especially since the two are heavily intertwined with her marriage to Grdina. But I don't have time to do it myself, so I can't really complain I guess. NoahB 13:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I organized it on the model of the other Featured Articles about living actresses, like Angelina Jolie, Diane Keaton, etc., that do split off the relationships sections. But I can see the point that it would be easier to update with new events if it were strictly chronological. Thanks again for helping. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold or IAR
To me, the idea that one is allowed to be bold or IAR is about being free to try most anything once. After that, proper procedure and so forth is needed as anybody continually doing anything makes no sense at all. With regard to Daniel Brandt, creative solutions are desireable as all non-creative solutions have been found wanting. Please help move us in the right direction. WAS 4.250 18:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually think the current article is near optimal - neutral phrasing, covers everything, lots of citations, and watched by lots of eagle eyes. Daniel Brandt seems to be objecting out of principle rather than out of any specific and actionable complaint. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is more complicated than that, but I'm not sure I care anymore. WAS 4.250 01:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Russell Wallace ready for FA?
I am strongly considering putting Alfred Russel Wallace up for FA again. You provided the most and the best comments last time. I was hoping you could take a quick look at it before I do to see if your comments were effectively addressed and provide any other feedback. Thanks. Rusty Cashman 19:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Thank you, I'm honored,... except I notice that you didn't really address all my nitpicks from last time. :-(. Where do you want the new list, here?
 * In general, much better. Still a number of minor issues, but I could easily support this with just a little work.

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * sometimes called the "father of biogeography". - needs a specific citation calling him that.
 * Parents, Wallace and Greenell were? Don't need a lot here, but a few words could make a difference: were they rich, poor, politicians, explorers, scientists... Was father a surveyor?
 * Vale of Neath[3] - end with a period before the ref
 * to collect specimens in the Amazon Rainforest - mainly animal specimens, or both animals and plants?
 * still no separate article for any of the books including "one of the most popular journals of scientific exploration of the 19th century" ? Oh, well. I won't insist on them.
 * revolutionary connotations. [12] [13] (and other places) - no spaces before refs Footnotes
 * Quotations shouldn't be in italics, but in tags or any of the many templates - see Manual_of_Style and Manual_of_Style. Didn't I say that last time?
 * On the other hand, book titles, like Origin of Species should be in italics.
 * hypnosis then known as mesmerism - comma after hypnosis - said last time
 * later investigations into spiritualism ; began investigating Spiritualism - pick one capitalization
 * séances - wikilink - said last time
 * and of human society.[43][44]. - drop last dot
 * November 7, 1913; November 1, 1915 - link per WP:DATE
 * Nov 1, 1915 - spell out and link
 * The New York Times - link and italicize
 * Royal Society, The Copley Medal, and the Order of Merit - wikilink, first mentions
 * In recent years ... since the year 2000 - starts vague. Move "since the year 200" to the start of the sentence.
 * £200 a year - wikilink to GBP per WP:$
 * as a student from 1828-1836 - end with.
 * end sections need to be combined - References, Further Reading and External links - all 3? Consider joining the all into one, definitely join the latter two - for example, ""Missing Link-Alfred Russel Wallace, Charles Darwin's neglected double" by Jonathan Rosen, The New Yorker, 12 February 2007" seems to be the exact same thing as "Feb 2007 article on Wallace in New Yorker magazine"! I'd also consider combining Selected Publications with something.
 * Look over my last nitpicks and make (more) sure you got them all.

Mr. Stout says thank you
And so do I -- I just checked my watchlist, and thank you for reverting his image page. Just to let you know, I did send a nice letter off to Viking Press on April 3, letting them know the photo is being used here. We'll see if I hear anything back on that.

In the last week or so I've uploaded eight more promotional photos and placed them in the articles where they belong:


 * Image:Hutton-TDR-1.jpg
 * Image:Chaykin-Wolfe-1.jpg
 * Image:Hutton-TDR-2.jpg
 * Image:Hutton-TDR-3.jpg
 * Image:Hutton-Wolfe-02.jpg
 * Image:Rubinek-TDR.jpg
 * Image:Chaykin-TNW-1.jpg
 * Image:Smitrovich-TDR.jpg

I can never manage to use the "promophoto" tag without getting dinged for not having fair use rationale -- even when I've used the fair use rationale template. I've uploaded all the promotional photos I'd care to for the time being, though. Could I ask you to go to these eight image pages, attest to their having fair-use rationale and fix the offending categories so the images aren't deleted?

If you know any magic words regarding photos of this nature, too, you're welcome to e-mail me. I've been uploading Stout book and DVD covers and 2D art with no problem whatsoever, but dealing with this particular image category is something else. Thanks again. WFinch 03:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What you need to do is go to Template:promophoto and read what it says there about the incantation. Take a look at my edit to the Rex Stout image to see how the magic was worked there. eye_of_newt=3|tongue_of_dog=0 are optional parameters... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By george, look at that -- I'm educable. All fixed. Thanks, too, for linking that list, which made it go faster. And I also discovered that the tag "promophoto" is old hat, now -- the tag is now "Non-free promotional." WFinch 19:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 :)  Newyorkbrad 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have known you were following that, Brad... I think those NW pages are getting better and better. WFinch 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Panairjdde
I've blocked User:SPUJ as an obvious sock of this user--just wanted to let you know, since I saw that you were involved in one of the last sockpuppet filings. Lexicon (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)