User talk:Belovedfreak/Archive 20

WP:FILM January 2011 Newsletter
The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 03:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

February Disambig challenge
Greetings! I've challenged my fellow disambiguators to help knock out more than a thousand disambig links a day for the month of February, and every bit helps. Please check out the list at Disambiguation pages with links and see if you can get in the game for this month. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Good article nominations
Thanks for letting me know. Hugahoody (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) -- Beloved Freak  23:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

P90x Link
Hello, I noticed you removed the link to fitnesstrainingreview from the P90x article. First, let me explain that I know Chelsea from that article, as she was in a class of mine. She was always talking to me about p90x whenever I was complaining about my shape. She gave me a link to a website she was starting (fitnesstrainingreview) as well some other info on P90x. About a week later I was doing more research on P90x and came across the wiki article which had the phrase "The program has three “rotations”—classic, lean, and doubles" said citation needed. Fast forward a few months, I ended up buying P90x and doing more p90x searches on google when I considered creating my own blog to hold myself accountable. I saw that the p90x wiki was still saying citation needed for that quite and remembered reading that exactly on Chelsea's blog on her new post. I then decided to link her site in the middle of the summer.

Now your reasoning was that it was not a reputable source. First I want to begin by asking what exactly is a reputable source as far as a workout video goes? I personally know that Chelsea is about as filled with p90x knowledge as anyone possibly could be. She has been able to answer any question I throw at her immediately about p90x. She even leads p90x workouts on our campus. Recently she was talking to me about people who had emailed her questions and mentioned finding her site via wikipedia and thanked her so much for all of her help,. Lastly I wanted to say that this link has been on the wiki page for about 6 months and has been through just shy of 200 revisions.

I honestly think that taking this link and source away from the wiki article is just hurting potential visitors of the wiki. As you can probably tell I am very inexperienced with wikipedia, and I probably wasn't supposed to just undo people's edits. I am sorry I did not contact you here first. Let me know what you think about all of this, and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.74.245 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 February 2011
 * Hi, don't worry about being inexperienced - everyone is at first! I don't know Chelsea, but I don't doubt what you say that she has a lot of knowledge about the P90X, and I'm sure her blog is a great resource for people interested in it. In the real world, as you seem to have found, it may be that her blog can be considered "reliable" and "reputable". On Wikipedia though, our guidelines for what to use as a source are very strict. You can read about them at Identifying reliable sources. Blogs are very rarely considered "reliable" enough to use in articles here. They are often self-published sources, meaning that somebody writes something and publishes it themselves, for example on their blog or website. Sometimes people write books and publish them themselves. They don't have anyone whose job it is to check over their work, and they are not backed up by a reliable company. What Chelsea has on her blog might be factually correct, but how can we know that for sure. Someone else could write a blog and say things that are incorrect, or even worse, they could lie, and then they could add their blog as a source to Wikipedia. How would we know which one is better or more accurate? Sometimes we allow blogs as sources, but only if they are part of another company, like a major newspaper that has journalists writing blogs for them, or if the blog-owner is a well-known expert on what they are writing about. In that case, we would need other sources that say the person is an expert.


 * So, unfortunately, we can't use your friend's blog here. We need to be careful for articles about workout videos, just as we would for other articles. If your friend ever gets a job for the New York Times and writes about the P90X, or has a book on it published by HarperCollins, then we might be able to use her blog as a source. I realise too that she will be getting some good traffic from her link being here, but unfortunately that's not what Wikipedia is her for. Think of all the other people blogging about this topic - why shouldn't they get free traffic too? :) I know the link stayed in the article for a long time, but that's just because no one noticed it. Wikipedia articles are works in progress and it takes time to get them right. I hope this helps to explain our guidelines. I don't think potential visitors will be hurt by us not linking to blogs. People that can use Wikipedia are also pretty good at using google to find the resources they need. -- Beloved Freak  17:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand where you are coming from with the rules of Wikipedia, however in practice in certain topics they actually hurt the article. When you are looking for credible sources you want things from books etc. because they are well researched and the authors usually have tons of hands on experience with the topic.  When you look at the articles on the P90x page that come from "great and reputable sources" such as the articles from CNN and WashingtonPost, they are actually the worst articles that provide the least information.  Often times these authors have spent about 45 minutes online researching their topic and have often times never even used the product let alone tested it extensively.  You also did not remove by far the worst blog source on the whole wikipedia page "http://www.90dayworkoutplan.com/workouts/."  That website is almost a direct ripoff of the infomercial and actual website.  It provides no unique content that cannot be found elsewhere.  It is 100% regurgitated information for the sole purpose of selling p90x.  I do not understand how you can consider these resources more reputable and reliable in my opinion.  I am sorry if I came off harsh, but I really believe in certain times like this, blogs can actually be some of the most credible and reputable resources.  Please re-consider adding it, and re-reviewing the other sources to see what I mean (especially 90dayworkoutplant)  Thank you very much for your time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.74.245 (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice you had replied - I must have got a more recent message and only seen that one. I do understand where you're coming from and yes, sometimes articles from so-called reliable sources are actually substandard. Unfortunately that doesn't mean we can accept sources that don't meet the reliable sources guideline. Your friend's blog may be the best source out there for this subject, but how do I know that other than your say so? It doesn't surprise me that there are worse sources still on the page, I actually find it hard to tell whether some of the sources there are legitimate or not. To be honest, I don't have any interest in the topic, and no special knowledge - I only watch the page because it's one that has a great deal of spam added to it. I won't be re-adding your source, but I will, if I get some time, re-review the other sources on the page at the moment. You could also feel free to remove any that you don't think are reliable, or drop a note on the article talkpage. I'm not going to change my mind on your friend's blog, I'm afraid, but I'm just one person. If you think others might feel differently, you can start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard - other editors hang out there answering questions on different sources. Someone there may be able to provide insight that I can't and, at the worst (from your point of view), they might be able to explain better than I have. -- Beloved  Freak  16:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I know a lot about P90x, I also care about it because I use it daily. I add a link that was very helpful to me through my p90x journey, and will be helpful to all other wikipedia readers, then a moderator comes along who knows nothing about p90x, and has no interest in it as well. The moderator then deletes the best resource, and leaves the worst resource.  What a great way to better wikipedia.org  Maybe people who edit pages should actually have to know something about, or at least have an interest in the topic before editing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.74.245 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 February 2011
 * I'm sorry that I've not said anything you want to hear. No, I don't know anything about P90x, but you know what? That's your thing, something you care about, and Wikipedia's something that I care about, it's one of my hobbies. So, I do edit articles other than the ones I'm particularly interested in, I care about helping to make Wikipedia work as best it can. You'll find that a lot of Wikipedia editors that spend a lot of time here, as a hobby, edit all kinds of articles to keep them in line with our policies and guidelines. I'm not a "moderator", I'm just an editor, like you. As I say, please do feel free to get other people's opinions. For that, the reliable sources noticeboard is probably your best bet. I've explained our guideline the best I can. Other than that, there's not much I can do for you.-- Beloved Freak  21:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your revdel requests on butterflies
Hi there, I started handling your requests on the Xylophanes but I'm having second thougths about just how much of a pure description of a species really qualifies for copyright protection. I've halted the revdels and instead asked for more eyes at WT:COPYCLEAN. Feel free to chime in :) MLauba (Talk) 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I've commented there and will be following the discussion. -- Beloved Freak  22:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

International Federation of Accountants
You had taged International_Federation_of_Accountants for possible copyright violation. I have copyright edited the article at the temparary page Talk:International_Federation_of_Accountants/Temp. Kindly review it and move it to the original namespace. R.Sivanesh ✆ 07:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Belovedfreak and R.Sivanesh, Thank you for the clean-up on my CopyVio in International_Federation_of_Accountants. I have not reacted sooner, because I am a very occasional contributor... User:GillesAuriaultGilles 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Articles copied or closely paraphrased from CATE
Ah, yes, I thought it was a compatible licence. Although I think it might still be okay to use the texts, because I suspect these are the original texts that were published when the species were described, meaning that they would be PD-Old for a lot of species. I will try to find out. By the way, I mainly used text from CATE if I could not find decent other sources, because the CATE texts are a little too technical for wikipedia. Sorry for this. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No luck in finding the original descriptions yet. In the meantime, I will do my best to rewrite the texts. Is what I did here: Eupanacra cadioui ok? I am aware of the fact I am still using some of the words found on the source page, but it seems impossible not too, since these body parts are known by that name. Furthermore, a colour is a colour, you can not say something is red in another way. Hope this is acceptable. If so, I will continue making the articles like this. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, I've replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. -- Beloved Freak  12:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ami (Magazine)
Hi! I was skimming through the SCV listings and saw that you tagged this article copied from wikibin as "No copyright concern." I'm afraid that's not quite an accurate statement (at least not before fixing the article somewhat). Wikibin only licenses their content under GFDL (violating the license since they don't attribute the authors here, but that's beside the point). This makes it a problem because we haven't been able to accept GFDL-only licensed content since November 1, 2008 - it has to be CC-BY-SA. So for articles like this which aren't G4'd (or otherwise promptly deleted) we need to restore the history from the original article so that the original authors are appropriately attributed here on Wikipedia (I've done that in this case). Since a copy from wikibin shows up every few days I thought you should know. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, and thanks for letting me know. I didn't know that about the GDFL. This copyright business is a steep learning curve!-- Beloved Freak  22:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not say it here
Hi Belovedfreak I read a comnent you made to two warring egos, then looked up other inteerventions you've made and thought I'd drop you a line. If everybody here had your sense of fairness, balance and tolerance, this would indeed be an information gathering paradise. Um abraço, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I can't imagine what you're referring to... in any case, that's a lovely thing to say, so thankyou. -- Beloved Freak  16:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join project
Otelemuyen 13:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Poulton-le-Fylde
I see you've gone for the big time! Things have moved on since the Runcorn lists you mention. For the accessibility techniques have a look at List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England and copy what's been done there. I think you will also need to add titles (in a similar manner to this list) above the Key and above the actual list. That should keep you quiet for a few minutes. I haven't looked at the list in any detail, but it sure looks good! Hope you do not get too much angst in the reviews. I'll keep an eye on events. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks, that's a big help. I don't know why, but I didn't think to look to your more recent lists, but I was struggling a bit with the accessibility. I have no idea if it will pass or not, but I'm sick of looking at it & wondering what else I can do! Even if it fails, at least I will know what else it needs! :) -- Beloved Freak  12:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll fail, but it often seems to take an awful long time to get reviews and a conclusion. By the way, I think you will have to add alt text to the images as well. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I forgot about those. Thanks! Hopefully I'll sort it out before anyone turns up to review. -- Beloved Freak  14:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think the way I have done the dates looks messy? Do you think I should just stick to the earliest construction date as you have in the list linked above?-- Beloved Freak  16:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No strong feelings, really. I think I went for "earliest" date for simplicity, and to aid sorting. You can always include stuff about later developments in the Description column.  And it does look a bit crowded and a bit incomprehensible as it is.  Or you could wait for reviewers' comments. (I'm still learning, too!) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I probably will change it as I don't really like how it looks right now, but I'll probably wait for a few more comments first!-- Beloved Freak  09:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you've had comments from The Rambling Man, one of the directors of the project. His comments are few, and should be reasonable to deal with.  I see that he makes no comments about accessibility, so I don't know how "essential" that is. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, some helpful comments there. Hopefully, I've managed to address the access issues by looking at the list you linked above. I'm still swithering over the dates thing, because even if I remove the additional dates, it will still look a bit messy because of the "probably"s and date ranges. So, I don't know. I'll see if anyone else mentions it. -- Beloved Freak  18:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Don't worry if the comments are "challenging". FLC can be a helluva learning process. The reviewers are very experienced, and the list can only get better in the process. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just realised you invited Rod over there, so thanks for that! It is a learning process indeed, but the article has already improved, so I'm glad I nominated it. Even if it doesn't get its gold star on this go, it'll still be better for it. -- Beloved Freak  20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll get it; just give it time (and a bit more work). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's got it! Congratulations. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoo hoo!!! Brilliant - onwards and upwards eh? -- Beloved Freak  10:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter
The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 03:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Grace Mildmay
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Again

Vision of Love
Hi there. I have a question. On the page that you took a look at, I could have sworn was in review by someone a few days ago :S its weird.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   09:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor had dropped by to say "great article", but did not actually intend to review it; I don't think he/she understood the process. Same happened with another article at GAN. Obviously, appearing to be "on review" would put off any potential reviewers. An admin deleted the review page so that it can be started again by someone who is actually going to review. Just now, I realised that the talkpage templates still said "on review", so you probably noticed me deleting that. I wouldn't worry though, the drive means that nominations are getting reviewed pretty quickly at the moment. -- Beloved Freak  09:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh gotcha! Thanks for the explanation :) Another editor already graciously stepped in. Thanks!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   17:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

FLC
You may be interested to know that I have nominated List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England at FLC. Your nomination seems to be progressing OK. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, I'll definitely have a look at this one while it's still at FLC! -- Beloved Freak  22:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Namibia
Hi Belovedfreak, I just now realised that you recreated this portal last year after it was deleted in 2009. I haven't worked with portals before. Could you please check my changes to Portal:Namibia/Did you know (I created entries /3 to /7 and will add more soon) -- Is there any possibility to have a DYK with picture on top, and to avoid duplications other than adding more DYKs? Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am/have been quite busy, but I will try to have a look at it today. -- Beloved Freak  10:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. It is not urgent--after all, it has been sitting like that for a year now. --Pgallert (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your additions look great. To avoid duplication, I've adjusted the "start" and "end" numbers at the top of the template (you should be able to see in the edit window). As there are currently 15, and you want 5 listed, it makes sense to have them in sections of 3. As you add more, you can adjust it as you go. If you decide to have, say, a list of four, you could have them in sections of eg. 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 10-15. As long as the sections are roughly equal, they all have a similar chance of being displayed. As for the image, I just swapped entry /1 with entry /7 so that whenever the one with an image appears, it will be at the top. If you add more with images, swap them with /2, /3 and so on. I hope this makes sense! If not, do let me know. I probably put a bit more work into Portal:Tanzania/Did you know, so looking at that one may help too. -- Beloved Freak  12:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, that solves the duplication. I will try to fix the rest as well (selected articles, pictures, and so on) and will come back if I cannot make it ;) --Pgallert (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, let me know if you come unstuck. -- Beloved Freak  21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Co-ordinated organisations User:GillesAuriault/Sandbox
Hi Belovedfreak, I would like to recreate this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Co-ordinated_organisations&action=edit&redlink=1 which was deleted by User talk: MLauba on 23 February 2010. I have put the new proposal in my Sandbox, it is a translation of an old page of the French Wikipedia. Unfortunately, MLauba is on "indefinite Wikibreak" (which is a pity for the Wiki community I think..), so could you have a look at my proposal or indicate a way to have it checked? Thanks in advance for your time and help, User:GillesAuriaultGilles 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, I didn't see this message at first, then I did, but forgot to answer! I will try to have a look at your article tomorrw.-- Beloved Freak  21:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sheriff Hill Request
Hi. You may recall reviewing this article a weeks or so ago after I submitted it for GA, which you declined (at length!). If you have the time, I should be grateful if you would have another look at it here and let me know what you think of the amendments I have made in light of your comments and to suggest any further improvements, especially re the external links section (which may be too big) and the overall article length (again, i think it's too long). If you don't have the time, no problem: I'll submit for peer review in the usual way. Thanks Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm glad I didn't put you off the whole experience! I will certainly have another look. I'm quite busy in real life, getting to WP things when I can, so I'll try and look at it over the next couple of days. At a glance I'd say that it's looking really good, and I can see you've been working hard on it! Yes, there are probably too many external links, although I haven't looked at what's there really. I don't think the overall article length is a problem, it looks a reasonable length when compared to other settlement articles. I will leave any comments on the article talkpage. I'd still recommend peer review though as it's always helpful to get more than one person's view, and you won't lose anything. Peer review is usually a quicker process than WP:GAN too, and the article will probably get looked at within a few days. Up to you though! -- Beloved Freak  20:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Real life takes precedence, of course, so I'll submit for peer review and if you can have a look when you have the time, that would also be great...many thanks :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to read through the article again- your help is greatly appreciated! I have a little time spare this weekend and will address the stylistic points you have raised.  Again, many thanks. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Let me know if you have any queries or if anything's not clear. -- Beloved Freak  10:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Saville
Hi thanks for your message and the link. After further consideration I think it would probably be best to put the GA review in abeyance and in the meantime I may have a go at improving the article myself. Thanks. Jprw (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...
...what a thoughtful and helpful review this was. I've had the editor's talk page watchlisted since leaving a note there a few weeks ago, and I think your comments were spot-on. Hopefully they'll be taken on board. 28bytes (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's nice of you to say. I hope they will be taken on board too! -- Beloved Freak  11:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter
The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 21:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, i dont know if you remember but you gave Al Pacino a peer review about 10 months ago and it proved very helpfull in my quest to improve the status of the article. Just today it was promoted to GA. Thanks again for the review, couldn't of done it without you.Monkeymanman (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks! I'm glad you got there. -- Beloved Freak  11:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive


On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
 * 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
 * 423 GA nominations passed.
 * 72 GA nominations failed.
 * 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Another FL
Thanks for your review and support at FLC for List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England. This has (at last) been promoted; a task made more difficult by the CCT completely changing its website in the middle of the process. Only one list left now to complete the set — SE England! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey that's great - congratulations! Not that I'm at all surprised... what are you going to concentrate on after the final one's complete? -- Beloved Freak  08:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

March 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive award
And apologies for accidentally posting it your actual user page. My fault. –MuZemike 17:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Beloved Freak  17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123
I've made a pledge not to review anymore GANs, or do any "bad" edits until this time next year. I'll just focus on writing articles in userspace, and then promoting them for a bit. I'm also going on a two week WikiBreak soon too. Userboxes can be misleading. Age. Sorry,.  Rcsprinter  Gimme a message  15:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you're going to try. I hope you don't feel ganged up on, but several editors have been trying to explain things to you, or try to ask you not to make certain edits, for quite a long time now on your talkpage. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say about userboxes and age, unless you're saying that you lied about your age. I don't know why anyone would do that, but the issues with your editors aren't about your age (real or claimed) but about competence and willingness (or otherwise) to listen to more experienced editors who are trying to help you.-- Beloved  Freak  17:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for revision deletion at Super (2010 American film)
You are certainly right in saying that the text at Super (2010 American film) infringed copyright, though only on a small scale. Nevertheless I have unfortunately had to decline your request for revision deletion. If you read criterion for redaction number 1 you will see that it says "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion can not be used", which rules out this case. Usually this is a suitable method for dealing with copyright infringement only when the infringing material has been present very briefly, and removed with no significant intervening edits, whereas in this case it was there for only just short of a year, and there had been numerous intervening edits. If you think it is worth the effort you can look for other methods of dealing with the problem at Copyright problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks.-- Beloved Freak  22:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)