User talk:Belovedfreak/Archive 14

Peer Review Barbara Kingsolver
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks so much for your peer review comments. They were really helpful, and I so appreciate it! Thank you! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 00:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Good luck with it... -- Beloved Freak  09:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Radcliffe Crocker
BorgQueen (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much
I want to thank you for the very helpful advice you gave me at the help desk. I have been considering a Wikibreak, that's seems the most reasonable option to do. I have actually been editing since late October/November 2006, and unfortunately I got into some disputes. Thanks again for your helpful advice! I really appreciate it. SwisterTwister (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Wikipedia's a great project in many ways, but it's seriously not worth allowing real stress into your life. Sometimes it's best to just to step back and reevaluate what you want to do here, or, as I said, just pick a different area to work in. But either way, just forgetting it exists for a while can also give you some perspective!-- Beloved Freak  09:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that there far worse matters to worry about than a silly little dispute on Wikipedia. I was going to ask about it at the Help desk, but there's been something on my mind since this dispute with another user. Although I really should let this all go, but here's the question. I've been told before that users that accounts shouldn't use the IP addresses. But I feel that they are necessary at times if the user doesn't want to identify themselves. I think this is a double-sided matter. I just want to hear someone else's view on this. Thanks!:)-- SwisterTwister (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you decided to go for a wikibreak rather than leave altogether. If I understand your question correctly, you're asking me whether or not it's ok to edit from a registered account as well as logged out, from an anonymous IP address? I guess it depends on intent, and it's not really clear why you would want to. If someone edits and finds that they're logged out and didn't realise it, that's fine. If someone registers and account and then decides that they can't be bothered with it and would rather not log in any more, that's ok. What you absolutely shouldn't do is intentionally edit with both a registered account, and an IP address, acting as though you are two different people, or hoping that people familiar with your username won't realise the anonymous person is you. This goes for any situation, but especially if you're using the two to edit the same article or group of articles, or in a dispute of any kind. That would be seen as sockpuppetry. You can't use the illusion of being two different editors to your advantage.


 * If you're in a dispute, or getting some kind of grief from another editor (and let me say that I don't really know the nature of your recent dispute other than what's on your talkpage and User talk:Richard Harvey), but if you are in a dispute then I can understand that you might want to log out and do a few uncontroversial edits without drawing attention to yourself, but that isn't really fair to other editors and if they realise what's happening they will then start to be suspicious of your editing. It's hard to know what to advise, since I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but it might be worth reading over Sock puppetry. Your logged out IP account would be considered an "alternate account", and if you're going to edit logged out as well as with your registered account, you should really be above board and at least drop a note on the userpage of your registered account stating that fact and the IP addresses you use. Remember that editing with an IP address is actually less anonymous really because it can be traced to a location. I hope this answers your question. If not, let me know. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  08:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It does answer my question, thanks. Well, part of the dispute was that I was using both my account and an IP address. But now I know not to do that in the future. Well, I do understand how it can be less anonymous if it's traced back to the user. The reason I suppose...I would want to edit logged out is because sometimes I don't feel like using my account, perhaps so I don't show I'm active again. In the past, I have seen users post the IP addresses they contributed under, as a matter of fact, as I'm typing this I'm also typing my IPs in my talkpage. I guess the more definite reason I would want to edit anonymously is because users at times feel that they need privacy. The reason why this user dispute arose I find strange, I added photos to a British grocery store (Tesco) and a user disagreed with the photos I posted and they removed them. Two more posters posted that the photo amount should be reduced. So, I reposted the photos, but Richard removed them once again disagreeing like the first user. I find this whole situation strange and frustrating in a way. I don't know if in general it is a wrongful reverting, or I am indeed at fault. All in all, all I was trying to do is add photos to an article that didn't have many. I digress, thanks again for the advice. I believe this Wikibreak has helped a small but possibly good (at least it's better than nothing). I apologise if I've made a nuisance out of myself for posting the origin of my dispute. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

12 Gauge (album)
Hi BelovedFreak, thank you very much for passing my first GA! I couldn't say this during the "process", simply out of professionalism, but your review of the article was extremely detailed and thorough and was exactly what I'd hoped for. (I had been lurking through several GA reviews in-process and was worried who'd end up reviewing mine.) I couldn't have been happier with your comments, and your contributions to the actual article did not go unnoticed!. You helped me give the article that extra push it so desperately needed. I really appreciate it. All the best,  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  19:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome; I didn't realise it was your first, so extra congratulations! And thankyou so much for your kind words. They actually mean a lot because I'm still quite new at GA reviewing, and not everyone necessarily wants the same thing from the process. I have found though that when I've nominated articles, the more detailed the review is, the more helpful. Thanks for listening/responding to all my nitpicks, and letting me know when you didn't 100% agree; you made it an easy process! Hopefully we'll get some clarification over the citation issue! Good luck with developing it further. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  10:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes sense that people look for different things in the GA process, just like people who review the articles look at it differently. I'm taking what I've learned with your "nitpicks" and using them to my advantage on other articles. You made the process easy as well, the whole process was quick and smooth. GA articles I'd looked at for reference wouldn't fly by your standards (granted they were older articles), and that's what I appreciate: high standards.


 * By the way, someone responded on Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources, and it's more or less the "compromise" answer. I hope more people respond to either this discussion or the one you opened up. But I realized today (which is in agreement with this response) that there should at least be one citation per paragraph... if not for the sake of citing, at least for the sake of editors who may not notice the one citation hidden at the bottom of the edit window that covers all the information previous. (I do have one exception regarding albums/songs: the description of a music video; unless it has other citations applied to it, I don't think it needs more than one citation: the music video itself.) –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  05:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that seems to make sense. I think I will try to find a more active venue to ask though. I'm still concerned about the "directly after a quote" bit. I agree about the video though, that can be counted as a primary source in the same way that books and films are counted as sources for their plot summaries. (although I have seen some people requesting secondary sources in those situations, I don't think it's the norm.) Obviously, anything that is open to interpretation from the video would need secondary sourcing.-- Beloved Freak  08:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you link me to your question when you post it? I'm also surprised by how few people are participating on the template page. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  09:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. And that will motivate me to actually getting around to doing it!-- Beloved Freak  09:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've joined in that discussion and removed my question; I hadn't seen the other one when I posted it. I've asked for some input from WT:MOS and WT:FACR, hoping that someone there can help.-- Beloved Freak  11:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we learned anything new, but the corroboration was important. Thank you for pulling in people from all edges of the Wikiglobe for this! –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  04:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, basically similar to what you were saying, (and I was gradually comoing around to agreeing with!) It's clearly a complex issue and depends on the particular case, but I feel more comfortable with the whole thinsg now. Tony's very experienced with FAC reviewing, so I'm happy with his answers. Onwards and upwards!-- Beloved Freak  16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the grunlement
Hi BelovedFreak,

Thank you for all your help with User:SwisterTwister. SWTW looked like one severely disgruntled editor, until you stepped in!

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Unfortunately it's pretty common that people get stressed out over Wikipedia. Sometimes all that's needed is to step back for a little while.-- Beloved Freak  14:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS May 2010 Newsletter
The May 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Phenomenal job on Merrick
Well done on what is a massive improvement on the article, and now a much more informative, indepth piece on Merricks life. The quotation boxes (ie.Tom Norman) add so much and give a really good insight to how Merrick was presented to the people. The article is transformed. Really well done.Xavier 21 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah thankyou very much. I've not finished with it yet, will try to improve it a bit more, but thanks for the comment!-- Beloved Freak  16:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Speculative fiction nominated to be featured portal
Portal:Speculative fiction is now a Featured portal candidate. As you contributed to the discussion of the content of the article at the peer review, I thought I'd let you know directly. Please come participate in the discussion here. Thank you for your time. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 23:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm pretty tired now, but will have a good look at it when I'm a bit more awake.-- Beloved Freak  23:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Some people like this category at the top of their talk pages. I've started using it to keep conversation is one place.

The Look of Love
Thank you for the wonderful review and comments for the article and many thanks for passing it. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome—good luck with further developing it!-- Beloved Freak  09:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Secret Diaries of Miss Anne Lister
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: "The Post-Modern Prometheus"
Okay, my mistake.. Anyhow, if you want to improve the article, here; http://www.chelonium.plus.com/txf/commentaries.html.. The website contains transcripts of all X-Files audio commentaries, which includes "The Post-Modern Prometheus". I found it easier to see the transcript, then listen to the audio commentaries when I worked on X-Files episode articles. Anyhow, sorry for my revert. --TIAYN (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and great job on nominating The X-Files (film) to GA-status, I nominated it to GA-status but it failed, don't remember why. Anyhow, congrats. --TIAYN (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks - for both! I do hope to get this one to GA, and thanks for the link. I have a load of scribbled notes from the commentary, but that will definitely help. Let me know if you have any suggestions as I go. And most of the credit probably goes to you for the film, I mostly addressed the issues from the first GA review.-- Beloved Freak  13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Comments on Maggie Horton
I got back to you on your problem with the GA. It was my first GA review, and I think I might have messed up. The article is well written, and the references can be proved. Please list any suggestions, and the user who nominated it can fix it. I don't want to see it downgraded because with some work, it can have potential. Gabriela Hernandez 19:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for your reply and comments on the sources. Hopefully the main contributor will be able to help with some, but there are other problems too.-- Beloved Freak  20:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!
TFOWR 21:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please Review More.
I have fixed all the major problems that you listed. However I would like you to list the other problems so I can quickly get to work on fixing them. This article can make it, and I don't want it delisted. Please leave those soon, so I can continue my work. Thanks. Sami50421 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PS on article Maggie Horton Sami50421 (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, and thanks for making those efforts to improve the article. I left quite a lot of comments at the review page though, and unfortunately it doesn't look like you've fixed them all. If you could comment at the review page, it would be helpful to me, to see what you've done. You can simply write "done", indented, under any that you think you've sorted, or if you disagree with any, you can write a comment saying why you disagree. You've also not commented on any of the source yet that I listed yesterday, that would also help. I know you don't want to see it delisted, but it has a long way to go yet.-- Beloved Freak  08:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I replied Done to everything that I fixed. Please leave additional comments on it. You mentioned problems with grammar, and it being in universe style. I would like to know where exactly your talking about. Thanks. Sami50421 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Stone Temple Pilots (album)
Hi BelovedFreak. I started a discussion regarding an article I'm working on at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations in the hopes of getting people's opinions on a wall I hit a week or so ago. As someone who's worked with me closely on the GA process, I value your input, and I need as many honest opinions about what to do with this article before I spend any more time on it. Thank you! –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  05:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, nevermind! I removed the section entirely and have a new idea of how to incorporate some of the info. Disregard above message, thanks! –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1996 Burundian coup d'état
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1987 Burundian coup d'état
 — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Susie Bootja Bootja Napaltjarri
Thanks for your patience. I finally got to the outstanding issue of the lead needing expansion. It's stil short, but then, so is the article :-) See what you think. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Horton fixes
Hi again. Yes, I am trying to work on those sources. I am trying my best to do whatever I can for this. I have been trying to fix all of the problems with it. I have put more work into this, than any other. I would really like to see it succeed. Anyway please don't delist it, until I have made all the changes you have addressed. Please leave some more comments, if you find any more problems with it. Sami50421 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to offer an opinion -- while the article has potential (and I've tried to help contribute), I think there should certainly be a time limit. I don't think it should get an indefinite amount of time to improve with regard to the GA thing. Not trying to sound mean, but articles should be of GA standard before receiving the GA promotion, not after. I think the reviewer was simply a bit overzealous this time. -- James26 (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I can't tell from what you've said if you realise that this is a GA reassessment; it should have been quick-failed but was already passed. I started a reassessment with a view to delisting. However, there's possibly more to it: Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi Hernandez/Archive. Thanks for your contributions at the article, anyway. -- Beloved Freak  23:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So now that the sock puppet investigation has been completed, will the article be delisted as a GA? I'd hope so, as I never thought it deserved GA status, even before the suspicion arose. In any case, I must say that this was a very thorough investigation. -- James26 (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've delisted it. It needs a lot of work before it's GA.-- Beloved Freak  08:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppetry!
Why am I being suspected of this? I have absolutely no connection with User:Gabi Hernandez. I don't care what you accuse me of. I didn't do anything. I will admit to being that random IP address, but I barely ever use my account without logging on. Sami50421 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasons why are listed in the sock puppet investigation. It's probably best to keep further comments about it at that page.-- Beloved Freak  23:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yennenga
LBGT stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender". Yennenga and other cross-dressers fit under the definition for transgender: "individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to vary from the usual gender roles.". The project already includess the main cross-dressing article. Dimadick (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Dimadick-- Beloved Freak  13:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha
Well said. Cheers. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there was so much more I could have said... don't think it'll last long though. :) -- Beloved Freak  19:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)