User talk:Belovedfreak/Archive 15

The Elephant Man
Hello, this is jordancelticsfan regarding my recent edits to The Elephant Man. The reason I added UK to country list and British drama films category is because BBC and answers.com, as well as some other sites, list this as a US/UK film. Maybe that isn't very good evidence, I'm sorry for the edits. Thanks for correcting my mistake.Jordancelticsfan (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Answers.com, no. BBC is generally reliable. Could you point me to a particular webpage where they say that? It's hard to say for sure without seeing it. Thanks, -- Beloved Freak  20:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just google search: BBC films review The Elephant Man, and it should come up first.Jordancelticsfan (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks I found it. To be honest, although the BBC is reliable in general, and that's a perfectly usable review for the article, I'm not sure where they got the technical details from, or exactly what criteria they use to designate a nationality. I think in this case it's probably better to go with what the IMDb says unless something clearer contradicts that. -- Beloved Freak  21:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good. I promise I won't add UK to country list again. Thanks for your help.Jordancelticsfan (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) -- Beloved Freak  22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

List of tattoo artists
Hi there, just wanted to say thanks for the great work you did on the List of tattoo artists page. :) ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; glad you like it! It still needs a fair bit of work, more references, a decent lead and of course vigilance to keep on top of the non-notable entries that periodically appear!-- Beloved Freak  07:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bianca Jackson
I'll do some more work on it later see if I can iron out the last few points made. Hope that's okay? RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 10:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't want to leave it too long, but see what you can do. -- Beloved Freak  11:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Love in Motion (Anika Moa album)
Thanks for your PR of Love in Motion. I think I have attended to all the issues you have raised. Would you please be able to give it one quick last scan for errors/problems? Thanks Adabow  ( talk )  10:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice this message at first due to the one below following in quick succession! I have left a few more comments at the peer review.-- Beloved Freak  16:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Social populism
May I please have your advice on what I need to do to Social Populism up to the mark so that does not get deleted. Please have a look at the page I have redone the whole thing from scratch and it is completely different. Thanks a lot, I look forward to a reply.

--Thehelpinghandforwiki (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lord George Sanger
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Review
Thanks so much! Staxringold talkcontribs 12:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -- Beloved Freak  13:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lord George Sanger
i can see that you are a tremendously busy person, but if you'd looked beyond my empty talk page, and taken a little time to check my overall contributions, you would have noticed that i never edit "randomly". in this particular instance i was certainly wrong, having misread the paragraph, but to the best of my recollection you are supposed to assume good faith here. your snarky self-important comments are symptomatic of all that's off-putting to genuine contributors to wikipedia, and the kind of attitude that deters more people from wanting to join in constructively HieronymousCrowley (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * replied at your talkpage.-- Beloved Freak  14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
for this. I forgot to add the template :). Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ok, I didn't realise that you had only just blanked the page and then thought maybe I'd got caught in the middle of your edits! Does Louisa Dresser Campbell need to be listed at WP:CP?-- Beloved Freak  14:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

✅ :)Acather96 (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. :) -- Beloved Freak  14:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible issue
I've noticed some similarity between the edits of a possible new user and the edits of a recently banned one. This edit was made by blocked user Sami50421, while this edit was made by HGraphite. Both use the line, "The character is still part of the current storylines." Both mention the character's debut twice in the opening paragraph. Both mention that the characters were created by the series creator, "as one of the original characters" (the second edit contains an apparent typo, and says "as one of the original series"). I also noticed that the new editor missed an apostrophe, which was a tendency of Sami's as well, if I recall correctly.

Of course, the editor could simply be a well-meaning newcomer, and this whole thing could be a coincidence. I just thought you might want to see for yourself so we can clarify this. -- James26 (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also of note is that GamerPro64 recently promoted an article that HGraphite worked on. The blocked user, Sami50421, used her other account (Gabi) to gain a GA promotion. Again, my suspicions could be off, but I thought it was worth noting. -- James26 (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have started Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi Hernandez again. Very suspicious. I must admit, I noticed the GA nomination last night and was immediately suspicious that it was a sock, but in my tired state, it didn't even occur to me that it was Gabi Hernandez. By the way, I think the other editor is probably not related. They've been around since 2008 with no userpage (not Gabi's style!), and looking at their contribs, they seem to be a bit more familiar with policies. Plus I think they're more into video games than soap operas. Could be wrong, but I think that's a red herring. Interesting that HGraphite used the same words in your GA review "Now, I'm gonna need a second reviewer to review the prose, but until then, I will put this article on hold." But, she does seem to pick up bits of phrases and code from other editors.


 * Unfortunately, I think this will mess up your GA review, if it does turn out to be her. It looks to be in good shape though, so hopefully will be picked up by someone else and will pass.-- Beloved Freak  09:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards to my GA review, I actually went ahead and removed this person's recommendation from the list of nominees. Now that an investigation has begun, I'm also going to remove the review from the talk page (and if you know of any way to delete the review, that would be fine).


 * Basically, I don't want any attention or promotion for the article to come about under these circumstances (assuming the sock suspicions are correct). I want it to be 100% fair and honest. Anyway, thanks for starting the investigation. -- James26 (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know if there's precedent here but I guess you could leave the review page and strike the review (maybe once the SPI is closed?), or perhaps explain the situation to an admin and ask them to delete it. I'm not sure. Anyway, thanks again for letting me know of the situation!-- Beloved Freak  10:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Why haven't I been told about this? Can I be involved with this in some way? I mean, I'm shocked about this investigation. GamerPro64 (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't inform you because it didn't occur to me that you'd want to be informed. By all means, you can submit evidence, if you have any, (for or against) at Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi Hernandez. The mention of you above was purely a result of the sockmaster in question previously passing GA nominations that she had nominated herself, so I think James26 was just covering all bases. After a look at your contributions, I didn't think you were involved, so I didn't list you in the case, Regards, -- Beloved Freak  12:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I was shocked that she used the same line in that review. Also, we're not the same people, to make this all clear. I've been around since 2008, I made two good articles and such. Now, can you look at Glee (TV series)? I'm quite afraid that I did something wrong, like giving it a Good Article pass when it wasn't ready yet. GamerPro64 (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I wouldn't feel comfortable giving this article a full review. I'm not that famliar with Glee, and I've never written or reviewed an article psecifically about a TV series, so I don't think I'd be able to comment confidently about GA criterion no. 3. At a glance, a couple of links don't seem to work, I don't think the lead adequately summarises the article (per WP:LEAD) and there are issues with stability. It might be that there are just a few small issues that can be fixed and so it might be worth listing it for a community reassessment, stating the problem. If you do that though, you should probably wait to see what the SPI says so that we know one way or the other if this is a sock.-- Beloved Freak  13:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll wait. Besides, I think I found evidence of sockpuppetry, so I got something to do. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify things myself, GamerPro, I was indeed just trying to be thorough due to the previous matters. Sorry for any offense. -- James26 (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's O.k. I can understand. I'm guessing that was maybe because I don't have a userpage. Me not having a userpage can throw people off. Though if you click on the redlink, it'll show that it was salted per my request. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * HGraphite has been blocked.-- Beloved Freak  23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed, I was pinged right away when she/he redirected Stephanie Johnson. She doesn't give up, does she? Rm994 (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope she does this time. Thanks again James26 for noticing in the first place. I'm sure you guys that work on her favourite articles will be keeping an eye out! I will also now be taking notice of suspicious GA nominations.-- Beloved Freak  08:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hard Candy
Thanks for dealing with the sockpuppetry case. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Just sorry that your nomination that's been waiting so long has to go back up there!-- Beloved Freak  08:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well, you win some, you lose some. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 12:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done with my review of I Do Do
hi, I'm all done. I found some problems with the prose. I did not find any other problems. I did not put it on hold. I thought I would wait until you have a chance to look at it. Now I think I have the reviewer bug. Thanks for making you proposal. I think it worked out well. Love your talk page, btw.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ok, good start. I have dropped a note to ThinkBlue so she can get started if she wants. I will finish the review over the next couple of days, I am limited on time and internet connection, (it's taken me about 15 mins to post this!) but will do my best. I'll point out the things I look for too so that you can see the process I go through. Well done! -- Beloved  Freak  17:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, I'll get the concerns after I'm done with this one review, and will await what you have to say. You know, maybe I should wait until you do your review, cause if you bring up something that Ishtar brought up, ex. change this to that, I just don't want to deal with that, you know. I hope you catch my drift with this. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I appreciate it. Sorry for not waiting for your review, the WikiCup started and I kinda wanted get the review done, and speed up the process... if you know what I mean. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS June 2010 Newsletter
The June 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) 05:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * I really want to thank you for helping me overcome my fear of reviewing. There are still some areas that are out of my comfort zone.  There was an article that I could have reviewed, and not passed, for example, instead I just made a lot of suggestions, because I was chicken to not pass it.  I don't like reviewing as much as I like editing, so I might not do a lot of it.  But, I had to start at some point and you definitely helped me do that.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome, and thanks for the star! As I say let me know if you ever need any help. Just stick with reviewing articles you're comfortable with, and you'll be fine! Beloved  Freak  12:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review of "The Post-Modern Prometheus"
Hello, again! This message is just to let you know that I have started a GA review of "The Post-Modern Prometheus", which I hope to conclude later on today.  Super Mario  Man  03:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed after a few minor adjustments. Meets the criteria. Excellent work!  Super Mario  Man  19:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, and thanks for the copyedits you made.-- Beloved Freak  19:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Have a heart.
Please. I promise to leave Wikipedia, and never come back if you leave Maggie Horton, and Kimberly Brady as they are. I spent two whole days working on these articles. Please. I promise to never come back, and I sincerely mean that. Have a heart, please. I'm begging you. I poured two whole days for those articles, and look at how much better they are. I promise to leave this site right now if you do so. 24.34.144.92 (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you may think, I do have a heart. I think it's a genuine shame that your behaviour here went down the route that it did as you obviously have an interest in improving certain articles. However, your deceptive editing caused disruption here and rather than raising the standards of certain articles, your actions have repeatedly attempted to degrade one of the processes we have of assessing articles (GA), as well as mislead other editors who tried to assume good faith and help you. You said I AM ALLOWED TO EDIT UNDER AN IP ADRESS, MY BAN SAID SO; if you can point me to such a discussion, I will stop reverting you. As far as I am aware, there is no such provision. From an administrator on your user talkpage: "if you even edit anonymously during that time, you will never be unblocked" which doesn't sound the same at all. Please take advice you've already been given and find some other website to edit. There are lots of wikis out there to cater for all kinds of interests that have different standards to Wikipedia (for example: ). I genuinely wish you no harm, but you have been indefinitely blocked from editing, you're not allowed to edit here, and your edits are so obvious that they will be spotted very quickly.-- Beloved  Freak  22:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please. I'm going to cry, that was my hard work. I spent long hours of research to write Kimberly's article, and Maggie's I was fixing from the Peer Review. I'm not going to war with you over this, but it's important to me. I was strictly told when blocked, that I would be allowed to edit under an IP, but that I could not be granted access under my account for six months. The blocker himself told me that. I promise I will leave Wikipedia, in a heartbeat if you just leave my hard work undedited. I swear, i will be gone. No socks, no strings, no nothing. It's just very important to me. 24.34.144.92 (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What my blocker was saying is that, "You will only be allowed back here under WP:OFFER, and even if you edit anonymously until then you will never be unblocked until the time ends". He says there, that I can edit anomynously, and says that my ip is not indeffinetley blocked. 24.34.144.92 (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I know you've worked on it, and I know you're young, but Wikipedia is just a website. It's seriously not worth getting so upset over or having a "deep heart sinking feeling". None of the editors that you have come into contact with are "evil", or want to make you cry, it's just that we take editing Wikipedia seriously. Your actions here show that you either don't understand the policies and guidelines here, or you're not interested in following them. I don't mean to be patronising, but maybe your age is the problem at the moment. I honestly think that you'd be better off somewhere else, for your own sake as much as anyone else's. If you're at the point where Wikipedia is making you cry, that's got to tell you something. Anyway, if you could link to where User:tim Song said you could edit anonymously, that would be helpful.-- Beloved Freak  22:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (After edit conflict) I don't think that's what User:Bwilkins was saying. It was User:Tim Song that blocked you, by the way.-- Beloved Freak  22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'm not going to war with you over this"? -- Beloved  Freak  22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I never intentionally meant to break so many rules here. Yes, I am really young, but I did my best here. And I might have exaggerated a little when I said I was going to cry, but that was my hard work and it kind of hurts when you see hours of research and writing thrown down the drain. It's like studying for hours on a test, and then bombing it. It really does give you a heart sinking feeling. I would just really appreciate if you could do this one thing for me. Just one thing. Please, this information is meant to help the site not hurt it. I am in no way trying to cause trouble here, but it would just mean a lot. You won't hear from me again, I promise. My problem is that I have become too addicted to this site. I was used to coming on every night, and fixing up a Days article or two. That's why I kept making sock puppets, I really couldn't help it. I liked it here too much, it's a good operation. I wish I could take back some of the actions I have done ,but I can't and I take responsibility for them. It just hurts to see my hard work reverted, especially on Kim's article. It was a stub with two tags on the front, and I fixed it up and added at least 6 new references. 24.34.144.92 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

first review failed
Hi there, I was going to tell you a weird story, but then I read the thread above this and figured it wasn't so weird after all,lol.

Seriously, my first solo attempt to review blew up in my face. I put the article on hold because there was a lot of stuff mentioned in the article that was not even hinted at in the lead. I made a lot of other minor edits myself. It sat on hold for a while, then the nominator got back from vacation and said he would rather have the article failed than to take my suggestions. I've never really been in an edit war until I tried to review that article. I think Wikipedia is a very weird place and I think I'm going to chill off of it. But thanks anyway for trying with me.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it didn't work out too well, but I hope you don't let it knock your confidence. Quite aside from the review in question (and with no reflection on the article or nominator), it can be tricky reviewing and making suggestions because people can be very attached to what they have written (understandably). Reviewing gives you a whole new perspective on writing articles, I think, and vice versa. GA nominators are perfectly entitled to disagree with your suggestions. It's up to you to either persuade them (linking to relevant policies or guidelines helps), or decide whether the point is something that is a GA requirement or not, and so whether or not it is something to fail the article over. Of course, the trouble is that many of Wikipedia's guidelines are open to interpretation.


 * As far as the issue of the lead goes, I'm afraid that that may be slightly my fault as I do interpret WP:LEAD quite strictly, and that is something I've had to let go of a little myself lately. This aspect of the manual of style is a GA requirement, but of course how it is interpreted may vary. Not every detail needs to be in the lead, but the main points need to be summarised. (I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression about that previously.) The trouble then is deciding which details are "important aspects". With this article (and I haven't read all the way through it, so I'm not really qualified here!) I would like to see some info about his family in the lead. However, it is true that there's not much on it in the article, so I think that other editors would disagree with me there. And with regard to an example mentioned in that GA review, Napoleon I, I would personally put a lot more in the lead for that article.
 * I don't think that it was your influence that made me take that point of view, I think you and I just have the same POV when it comes to the lead. We the person said Josephine wasn't mentioned in Napoleon's lead, I didn't even bother checking it.  I figured it was probably not a lead I would have passed. Oh, well.  The whole think is in the past for me.  I am going to chill for a while.  Take Care.--155.52.208.80 (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was me that wrote that. I was at the hospital with my friend, who just had CA surgery.  When I just peeked in right now I got the message that there was a message for me and I followed the links back here and found that my signature came out as Dana Fabers IP address.  Just weird. oops still coming up as an IP address. Istar456--24.128.175.127 (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, guess you're not logged in! -- Beloved Freak  17:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that when reviewing GAs, you can ask for a second opinion, either informally or on the WP:GAN page, and see what other experienced reviewers think. But I understand if you want to take a break from it for a while. Wikipedia is a weird place in many ways, and it shouldn't ever get to the point where it's stressing you out in real life. It doesn't look like there are any hard feelings from the other editor, so I would just take this as a learning experience, take a break from WP altogether if you need to, and maybe focus on writing for a bit rather than reviewing. It'll always be there if and when you decide to give it another shot.-- Beloved Freak  19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists are not allowed?
Is it true that lists are not allowed for GA? I looked at the criteria but I wasn't sure. Thanks, MacDaid (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in Good article criteria, under What is not a good article?: "Lists, portals, sounds, and images..."-- Beloved Freak  20:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. That's clear but I didn't catch it! Thanks. MacDaid (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Harel Skaat
I want to thank you for your detailed comments about the article on Harel Skaat. I realize it took a lot of time and I appreciate your effort. I've tackled most of the problems you've identified and hopefully have fixed the majority them, but there are a few things you identified I don't know how to address, so I'm hoping you can help me out.

I had intentions to write several articles on well-known Israeli singers on Wikipedia because many are non-existent (Rami Kleinstein) or seriously underrepresented but I've faced an aggravating problem. It turns out that English and Hebrew don't easily mix. Seriously, they repel, the Hebrew letters literally scrambles around and I have to use all kinds of tricks to make it work. A lot of my edits were due to this. It looks fine in the edit box but scrambles when it transfers to the main page.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. It's made me aware of things I hadn't thought of before. Take care. Hjquazimoto (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I've copied the above to the review page, as discussed, and will continue the discussion there.-- Beloved Freak  15:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Betty Shabazz
Thank you for your comments. I'll address them over the next day or so. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe your concerns have all been addressed. Could you double-check? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! -- Beloved Freak  20:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Okay; sorry 'bout that. I was just reading the filters on IRC   Mr. R00t    Talk  21:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:
You're welcome for the review, I'm just doing my part, cause I got some nominations and because my "job" requires it, and also because you reviewed my episode articles, and I'm just repaying the favor. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I just follow what the reviewer tells me to do. :) It's alright, you're not the first one to be confused with what I write. I try to explain to them was written, but they get it after it's been explained and stuff. Yeah, there are a couple of websites that have the episodes available, but you have fill out surveys and stuff. If you go to the NBC website they'll have recaps of the episodes. The fourth season did air overseas cause of this. Maybe you can rent the DVD when it comes out. Anyways, thanks for another review, it is most appreciated. ;) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I must admit it looks quite good so I'll probably have to get the DVD box set at some point. I'll just have to leave it long enough that I forget the stories of the ones I've reviewed! I expect I'll get onto another one of yours before long, perhaps after a couple of others for variation!-- Beloved Freak  18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

RE:LOL Smiley Face review
I've made fixes to what needed, and left comments. I'll reduce the image and audio files soon. Candyo32 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The files are reduced now, so everything should be done!Candyo32 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I'll look at it in detail this evening.-- Beloved Freak  08:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll reply to the other fixes needed to be made soon, but about the heading and the charts, most music editors use other GA's and particularly music FA's like 4 Minutes (Madonna song), and Irreplaceable, that use particular tweaks such as the heading, and written-out chart movements. Candyo32 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I'm still planning to get back to work on the LOL fixes, and reply to the personal question. Just don't want you to think i've dropped the ball yet lol! Candyo32 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Let me know when you're ready, otherwise I'll have another look in a few days.-- Beloved Freak  12:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied to the only outstanding issue, I believe. Candy  o32  14:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I'm working on a featured article and that has absorbed most of my energy on here. I ended up removing all DJBooth references. Candy  o32  19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the assistance! Candy  o32  20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the assistance! Candy  o32  20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Merrick artice
Thank you for agreeing to take part in the WikiProject on Disability, and for the comments you left on the article on Merrick there. I agree that the article should not refer to Merrick as a freak - although I did think some of the language was a little too florid for an encyclopaedia article in the early stages, and I do not know of any sources that refer to him as "John Merrick". I see the article is rather long, so I have not finished reading it yet - I hope to give a fuller assessment when I have finished the article. Many thanks for your interest, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments; I will be interested to hear what you think when you've finished. Any suggestions are very much appreciated. I've been taking a mini-break from it a bit but hope to push it to GA and FA, with additional sources which it's taking me a little while to get hold of. Frederick Treves first referred to Merrick as John, (as you will read!) and the mistake was repeated. As far as I know, Montagu's The Elephant Man: A Study in Human Dignity calls him John, although I've only looked at that book once, quite some time ago and need to get hold of it again. I'm not sure how many sources refer to him thus, so "a number" may be overstating it; I will have to work that one out. Anyway, thanks again for the comments!-- Beloved Freak  21:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The film called him John; as that's almost certainly where most readers will know him from, the Joseph/John thing needs to be explained early on. Otherwise, it will get constant well-intentioned "corrections" from people who know his name was John because they saw it in a film… – iride  scent  21:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I see someone tried to today! Beloved  Freak  21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, would it make sense to get rid of the infobox and just have a larger lead image? There's nothing in the infobox that isn't already in the lead anyway so it doesn't add anything, and the usual justification for them ("they help people compare articles on similar topics") doesn't really apply since he's not part of a series. Given that his notability rests entirely on his appearance and reactions to it, a larger photo would probably benefit readers more than a repetition of his birthdate and parents' names. (Articles of this kind can get on fine without infoboxes; compare probably the closest related article, Daniel Lambert) – iride  scent  21:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh... but I like infoboxes. But, yes I think you're right. I hadn't really paid much attention to it anyway up until a few minutes ago and really, it doesn't add much. His parents' names don't mean much in the grand scheme of things, and his occupations don't need to be listed. I do like having the birth and death dates listed there under the image, but I'm happy to sacrifice that. How big do you think I should have the image?-- Beloved Freak  21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The MOS says a maximum width of 300px, but it's quite a blurry image so it might look bad at that size. Play about and see how it looks at various settings. (Daniel Lambert is at 300px, if you want an idea of how big that's going to display.) – iride  scent  22:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'll leave it at 200px, 300px seems to big. I think the Daniel Lambert one works fine, not just because of his stature, but because it's a painting, and of a decent quality. The Merrick photo's not great.-- Beloved Freak  22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another artist: Minnie Pwerle
You recently reviewed a couple of articles at GAN that I nominated, about Indigenous Australian artists. I have recently nominated another one there - still an Indigenous artist but unrelated to the series from which the other two came - and I wondered if you would be interested in reviewing it: Minnie Pwerle. I'm hoping to take it to FAC, so would welcome feedback. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I've had my eye on it for a while. Wasn't sure if you'd want yet another review from the same editor, but I'm happy to do it!-- Beloved Freak  17:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I've had a run through all your comments. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am grateful for the review, the suggestions, the GA pass and of course for the barnstar. See you next time perhaps. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I'll look forward to it!-- Beloved Freak  11:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Matty Johns Show
Thanks heaps for your thorough review of this article. I'll get to work! - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Let me know if you want anything clarifying or if you'd like me to have another look later.-- Beloved Freak  08:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable buildings
I think it must, although I can't find anything to confirm this in Wikipedia terms. After all, we're talking about a building that is, at the very least, "nationally important and of special interest" in order to qualify for the basic Grade II status. I don't see how that wouldn't be accepted as proof of notability. Let me know if you run into difficulties with deletionists! Thanks for the GA pass, btw - there's a lot more to go, but I'm making good progress. BencherliteTalk 12:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive my intrusion, but I agree. The definition given above should be enough to refute any challenge against deletion.  That does not necessarily means that every listed building merits an article; there's often not enough material to make one worthwhile, but if there's enough material, the notability requirement is IMO covered. And they must of course all be included in lists.  Good luck with them.  What area(s) are you intending to cover? (You can reply here; I'll watch the page).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your intrusion Peter, it is most welcome! It was actually your Listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) that has inspired me to do this! The first foray into this area that I'm thinking of is Listed buildings in Blackpool. I've worked on it a bit offline already, just want to add a few more details before creating the article. One example of a building without an article yet is the Miners' Convalescent Home, which I think I should be able to find out enough about.-- Beloved  Freak  13:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You've taken on quite a challenge — there are many more listed buildings in Blackpool than in Runcorn! And as my birthplace was Preston I shall be interested in your progress.  If you want any help, let me know and I'll do what I can.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will let you know how I get on!-- Beloved Freak  12:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thank you for the Barnstar! I was overwhelmed! I'm going to move it to my user page where I can see it every day. It's the kind of thing that is motivating and makes me want to do my best! Again, thanks! And I will find something else besides 'tots'. How about 'very young children'? :) Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! I think that's the point of barnstars, both to say, "job well done", and to motivate you by reminding you of what you've already achieved. You really seem to be getting through those Beatrix Potter articles! I think "very young children" would be fine. As I say, it's partly personal taste, me not liking "tots", but I also think it's best to avoid colloquialisms where possible.-- Beloved Freak  16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind about colloquialisms. Good advice! Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Matty Johns Show (again)
Okay. I've gone through your peer review and edited the article, and I'm exhausted. Would you like to take another look at this? Also, could you grade it? - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will take another look.-- Beloved Freak  13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've amended it again, as per some of your suggestions. I respectfully disagree with some suggestions you've made, and some other matters are out of my control. Still, it's getting better. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I nominated it as a good article, as well. We'll see what becomes of that. The more people who have input, the better it will get. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, well disagreement is, fine, of course! If you want to outline what you disagree with or what is out of your control on the peer review page, that might help. I could either point you to relevant policies or guidelines that led me to make certain suggestions, or see if I could help, or maybe even agree with you! No problem if you don't want to. Good luck with it at GA anyway.-- Beloved Freak  10:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to put any work into disagreeing, I'd prefer we took that time and spent it editing the article instead. You're welcome to go over what I've done. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine. Was just worried I might not have explained something properly. No problem!-- Beloved Freak  16:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)