User talk:Figureskatingfan/Archive 3

List of people with hepatitis C
I've replied on my talk page. Colin°Talk 22:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And again. Colin°Talk 17:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mary Angelou
With regards to my suggestion to split the article, I've responded on the article's talk page. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wiggles
Congrats. Its now on the main page! --Efe (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome. --Efe (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wiggles
Hi - yes I've had the privilege of knowing Murray for about 25 years now - we lived in the same share house in Camperdown (Syd) when he was playing in Finger Guns -- this was between '84 and about '88. Bang Shang A Lang is a relatively recent group -- hence my amendment of the article. Anyway congrats on the front page. Dunks (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Tipping Point
Thanks for the props on the criticism section. No problem with your tidying up my references - I always seem to have trouble with the formatting :-) --Gilgongo (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, glad to be of help. This page helps me a lot. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Works of Maya Angelou
This article listed at WP:DYK must "have 1,500+ character non-stub text that brings out interesting, relational, and referenced facts from the compiled list that may not otherwise be obvious but for the compilation." Currently I count 1145 characters (counting spaces) in the text. maclean 05:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will add content to the lead, which should qualify it for DYK. Please give me a day or two to get to it. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:I must admit it...
Thanks! I hope to get fast enough to revert vandalism before it happens... ... disco spinster  talk  03:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You should try Huggle. I find that it's much faster (although I use Twinkle for other things as well). ...  disco spinster   talk  03:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of people with hepatitis C
Hi there, figureskating fan. Just wanted to let you know that I undid your edit in which you removed people's comments. Please leave reviewers' comments on the page so the closing Featured list candidate delegate knows whether all points have been addressed or not. It also helps other reviewers to see whether there are outstanding comments, or to partake in the discussion of them. It's best to leave it to the person who left the comments to "cap" them, as User:The Rambling Man did, or strike them out if they feel their concerns have been addressed.

I left a message at WT:FLC as well, to try to drum up some reviewers for it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yah, I removed part of the page by mistake. I vandalized my own candidacy!  Sorry about that.  And thanks for the support! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, np. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Field
I found a Artical on Anthony he is Writing a book!! can you put it in his page? I might mess it up Wiggle Anthony Field's a good breed  Thanks!! --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jena. The article didn't say anything different than what was already on his WP article, but it's a better source than the one that was there, so I changed it.  While I was at it, I also made a couple of improvements to the article.  I just love the name of the book Anthony's writing.  When it's published, you know that it'll go there.  BTW, have you seen this video?  Hubba-hubba! ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL Yes I was the First Person Fitz gave the Link to when she put it up! She is going to See Anthony again THIS FALL MORE HOT VIDS!!! thanks for doing it for me!! Ps I need to be Addoped again.... know anyone who can help me? --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok Thanks Christine --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sesame Street
Thanks for your recent help in revising the article. Just curious about this edit... if a press release is unreliable, how is an article entirely derivative of that press release reliable? Sort of a catch-22 thing there, almost. (Just for point of reference, I found an article on website "A", it was sourced to website "B" (can't remember what these news sites were); the article on website "B" was sourced to Electronics House; Electronics House's article was sourced to the press release. --  Zanimum (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. To answer your first question, that article would be eligible for an AfD.  I know I've read it somewhere, but I believe there's a WP policy out there that states that press releases aren't reliable sources.  I think a case can be made for PRs being a self-published source.  Using a reliable news source, even if it uses a press release as a source as you describe, is "better" than using the press release because news sources are supposed to check their facts.  That's why I deleted the press release in this article, and replaced it with the Electronics House article.  Eventually, I'd like to see all the unreliable sources in this article be replaced by reliable ones, and if a piece of data can't be backed up, it should be deleted, as per WP policy.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? I knew press releases weren't liked, but making an article instantly an AfD candidate seems a little extreme. So we automatically assume that this source has checked its facts, even though it likely hasn't? Sigh, I guess that works. --  Zanimum (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, personally, I wouldn't nominate this article for an AfD. I also think that AfDs should be relatively rare.  Press releases, from what I understand, aren't "liked" because they're self-published, and they can say whatever they like, even if it's not backed up by facts. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Angelouspeech.jpg
I nominated this image for deletion on commons because you did not write its source. Please go and explain where you found it, so that it will not be deleted. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There really needs to be more than just "White House". What specific website did it come from? (Note that even government websites sometimes use copyrighted images.) Or if it came from a printed work (doubtful considering the border?), what work was this? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiggle Pictures
I think I found some new Picks for you .... in a few days you should get some... --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem
Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Stanford Memorial Church, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting and robotics
I'm sorry, as soon as my current copyediting assignments are done, and we reach the Oct 20 deadline for WP:V0.7, I will be devoting myself to collaborating on AI, robotics, and human-interest robotics stories. Best of luck at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiggle infoboxes
I think Jeff and Sam's infoboxes are messed up it looks diferent from the other ones.. it dose not hafe the yellow coler band on it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONIOROCKS (talk • contribs) 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jena, yes you are right--the infoboxes on the members of The Wiggles aren't uniform. I will fix that!  Thanks for pointing it out. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thaks and sorry forgot to sign again.. --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Glorious Singing of Caged Birds
Yes, it's true – Ms. Angelou is a magnificent lady and she's been a crucial inspiration for me in a hundred different ways. So although I am officially out to lunch, I will help out with the article. It may be a week or so before I can get started, but as soon as I've finished the review I already committed to, I'll have a look. In the meantime, could you summarize the areas you feel (and others may have indicated) need work? Since you've clearly put it a lot of effort already, it'll be easier for me to help if I know where we've come from and where we need to look. Scartol •  Tok  11:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yippee! Thanks so much.  Take as much time as you need; believe me, I know about being busy.  To answer your question, the most work that this article needs is a thorough copyedit.  Others have said the same.  I'm only an average writer, so there are real weaknesses in the language as it stands.  I think that the content I've included is good, and as complete as the last FAC requested.  All the references check out; I believe that they're as good as they're gonna get.  (There are a couple of other sources out there, but they start to get repetitive.)  I'd like to see this article become a source for students, as well as an example of the kind of scholarship and summary of reviews about the book, which is why its language needs tightening up.


 * Scartol, I too have been inspired by Dr. Angelou, her life, and her work. She's had a profound effect on my life, especially in the last several months as I've worked on her articles.  Her bio page is a mess, mostly because it has huge gaps about her biography.  As its main editor, I want to at least read all her autobiographies before I fill up those gaps.  I'm only as far as Gather Together in My Name, an article I created.  She deserves high quality articles about her on WP, so I appreciate the expert help. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's fair to call me an expert, but my ego is big enough to keep me from disputing it. =) Since it's clear you've done a lot of work since the last FAC, I would recommend going to those editors who objected last time and getting their opinions; do they agree that enough content has been added? Do they think the sources are sufficient? I know how annoying it can be, but it's better to get their take now when we have time, rather than face more possible objections during the next FAC, when the pressure is on.


 * I have an easier time working on articles that are important to me, so I'm looking forward to this. If only I didn't have so much work in real life, I could jump right in. =) Thanks and I'll be in touch. Scartol  •  Tok  15:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey there. Just a note to say that I haven't forgotten; I've just been really busy with many things. I should have some time this weekend to get started, though, so insh'Allah I'll have some thoughts before long. Scartol  •  Tok  17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox
With regards to Sesame Street history sandbox, I don't believe it's appropiate to create a sandbox in the main-space. I suggest moving your sandbox to your user-space and working on it there. --Millbrooky (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right. I apologize--I'll go do that right now! And then I'll request that my error be deleted.  Thanks for the correction. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I figured it was an accident since you already have a few sandboxes.  And fyi, I went ahead and requested a speedy deletion of the redirect that was leftover.  --Millbrooky (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-toolist
I think I'm going to have to change my user name. Your revert was kind of harsh, considering that this was likely a "good faith edit" or whatever one of the other tools allows as how. I checked and it is indeed what you changed it to, 'Diiie', but you likely knew that already. (You seem to know much about her?) Of course I'd really likely think it a misspelling. I'll have to remember to apply the same care to titles I already do to quotes. Anyway, if there is a button in TW that translates to "good faith edit" don't wear out the vandal button. Also, you might want to go fix the other 'Die' to be 'Diiie'. Seems other people saw it as a misspelling also. Shenme (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see your comments on their talk page, which were considerably nicer than 'vandal', and your link to a previous discussion. Good stuff. I still don't like the tools. (grumble)  :-) Shenme (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yah, I pressed the "vandal" button in this revert. I like Twinkle 'cause it makes reverting malicious vandalism easier, although I see your point about it seeming harsh. Sorry about that.  My contributions list show, I think, that I'm not about reverting vandalism, though--I'm into improving articles.  Maya Angelou is one of my pet projects; her book I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings will become a FA.  Dr. Angelou's article is heavily vandalized, in some pretty horrendous ways, so I tend to be a little protective towards it.  I use Twinkle because I'm basically a lazy person, so I apologize if my use of the vandal button ruffled your feathers (pun intended).  Although please understand that if you had made the edit while logged in, I wouldn't have been so quick at pressing that particular button, since it's typically anonymous IPs that have done the most malicious vandalizing.  I also changed the one instance of inconsistency. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

New Anthony Article
I found this Just now it Rocks,Blue Wiggle --Jena  I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Maya Angelou
No problem! And indefinite semi-protection is generally given to only the worst cases of vandalism; for example, the recent U.S. presidential election candidates needed indef. semi protection. This isn't called for yet, but I'll keep track of the page and we'll see whether it calls for it. Anyway, keep up the great work! :D Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is indeed great work you've been doing. I want to apologize yet again for taking so long to file my comments. However, I finally broke away from my real life duties and added my feedback! Please let me know if you have any questions about any of it; I presume we'll have lots to talk about on the article's talk page. Cheers! Scartol  •  Tok  16:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Scar, thanks for your comments. It's my intention to address them, but the flu has spread through my little family and I'm feeling a little under the weather today.  The changes you made to I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings look great.  I especially liked the "plan of action" you spell out, and some of the aesthetic changes you've made.  Oh, and thanks for the nice comments, too. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Whenever you can get to it – fortunately there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Get better! Scartol  •  Tok  22:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stanford Memorial Church
Shoessss, there's no hurry in reviewing this article. I'm in the middle of addressing some of a previous reviewer's comments, which has been going somewhat slowly due to RL concerns. I'm hoping that I can complete it by the end of the weekend, and then it'll be more ready for the upgrade. So take your time! ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that I've completed addressing the comments I need to address. It has been substantially improved, I think.  So have it!  Thanks for offering to review this article, I appreciate it. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'll have it done for you by tomorrow. ShoesssS Talk 14:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Goon morning User:Figureskatingfan. I have finished my review of Stanford Memorial Church and have passed the article to GA status.  Let me begin by saying, you have done a great job in researching, - citing – referencing and writing the piece and should be commended for the time and effort you placed into the article.  However, I do have a few suggestions concerning the flow and structure of certain paragraphs and headings.  I would mention in the opening paragraph the design architect.  Likewise, in the history section.  I would move the paragraph, starting with “In 1898”, up in this section.  In addition, I would just use a sentence or two mentioning the earthquakes, than breakout the explanation of the damaged caused by the quakes into a separate heading.  Also, I would like to see an expansion and separate heading with regards to the history and use of the organs.


 * As I stated in my opening remarks, you have done a great job. I believe with some expansion, and a few tweaks here and there, you may be able to get this to Feature Article status.  Good luck to you and again, nice work. ShoesssS Talk 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Christine
I've been bad I have not done any of My assignments sorry! BUT I Hope This Cheers you up! --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC) (oops forgot to sign)

Cadbury .PLC
Hi I put new zealand on there as a country with cadbury drinks and you put that down as vandalisim, can i have a reason please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.142.201 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi to you. The reasons I reverted your edit were: (1) It was grammatically incorrect ("...in New Zealand And Australia", "And" shouldn't be capitalized); (2) you didn't include a source for your assertion that Cadbury sells in N.Z.; (3) you happen to be an anonymous IP.  I have no apologies for the first two reasons, but I admit that I happen to be biased against editors who don't bother to sign up for an account.  Which I recommend you doing, by the way.  Oh, and reading before you decide to contribute to Wikipedia.  And while I'm at it, please make sure you sign your posts; a bot had to come along and sign your post on my talk page. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Blues Clues
The article has been getting regular vandalism, but it's not quite yet to the level where we normally protect. However, I will add it to my watchlist, to get another set of eyes on it. If it keeps up, I will protect - or feel free to drop me another note if it picks up while I'm not online.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again. The "official" standard for semi protection is "heavy and persistent" vandalism.  This is generally interpreted as a level of vandalism that makes it difficult to find a clean version of the article or which becomes burdensome on the regular editors of the article.  As this article has had some persistent vandalism, I would say that if it got hit by 3-4 separate vandals in a day, it would reach the point that protection should be considered.  We might also look to see if any IPs or new editors were making good edits, or if it were all vandalism.  You should see what goes on with sex or body function articles - in the rare moments that they are not protected, they regularly get hit dozens of times per day.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Angeloupoem.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Angeloupoem.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)