User talk:Junipers Liege/Archive 1

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Formating articles for GA/FA status
Having looked over the Pauline Fowler article, I (suddenly) noticed that there is no "storyline" section, and that rather the storylines have been worked into the development section. Obviously, given that the character has died, it makes it easier to do this as there are to be no future storylines, but I was also wondering if perhaps it was done because of the aversion to "plotting" that many non-soap wikipedians had and that this increased the articles chances for passing review???

If so, should the same be done for certain other articles (eg: Dennis Rickman or Chrissie Watts)??? What do you think? Familiae Watt§ (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If it can be done, then yes there's no reason why not. But it just all needs to be sourced. I've been thinking about this recently when updating characters like Max Branning because quite often, the actors do interviews when the big storylines are coming up, so there's normally always something that can be included in a development section. But I agree that it's more difficult to do for a character who is still in the show, and I feel they would be less likely to be updated regularly. I don't know if a separate storylines section would hinder an article's chances of being promoted to FA, but GA is no problem - just look at Danielle Jones (EastEnders), Whitney Dean and Ferreira family. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * it seems like such a long time since we went to FA with Fowler, must be something like 3 years ago! (Can u believe it AP??) But we had a separate storylines section originally, plus lots of development, which covered some but not all of the plots she was in. During the FAC someone complained that the storylines were just repetition of the development but written in an in-universe fashion, and that any storylines not covered in development were not pertinent to the character anyway, so why cover them here. This in hindsight was fair enough, but there was a lot of opposition to the exclusion of the storylines, and you can read all about that on the archives of the EE wikiproject, Paulines talk page archives and the two attempts at FAC and peer reviews that are linked to on Pauline's talk page.


 * More recently, Frickative did something similar with Nick Cotton. So yes it can be done, and I think it probably makes the article more encyclopedic, but it's not that easy to find sources for all the characters. I dont know whether getting o FA with a concise plot section would not be possible, it's just that a mionority of the reviewers we attracted at the FAC were quite vocal about it. So we changed it. I suppose there's no harm in trying for an FA with a plot section and see what people say. If development can be extended, i'm in favour of doing that by any means though, with or without the plot section. Like AP says, it's never been a problem for GA, and even Pauline got to GA with a somewhat huge plot section IIRC.  GunGagdin Moan 00:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is how Pauline Fowler looked when the page was promoted to GA standard. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ^^My, quite a difference isn't it. Ok, well then I am inclined (out of shear laziness) to just leave the storyline section in, but to probably incorporate as much sourced storyline material in the development section so as to keep the storyline section as short as possible. With something like the Sharon article, which is still open-ended (the character is more than likely to return at some point, as personally I'm inclined to think she may well end up back in the show sometime towards the end of n ext year or in 211, as Letitia Dean is starting to make more "solid" remarks about a return), so the storyline section should definately remain for her article. I'm going to leave te section in for the Chrissie article as I can't be bothered to go back and try to integrate it into the development section and see how far we can get with that article. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Character profile pictures
I also just had a look at the pages for Desperate Housewives characters Lynette Scavo and Bree Van de Kamp and really feel that the "widescreen" pictures they have in the profiles are alot better than the squishy portrait ones we have. I understand, obviously, that we take screenshots, but perhaps for the higher quality articles we have completed we could try and do some "widescreen" screen shots too???

I believe (??) that EastEnders is shot in widescreen now, and the opening titles picture we have on the EastEnders article is "widescreen".... what do you think. Obviously, it's not an urgent matter. :)

I will try and do a widescreen shot of the Chrissie Watts screenshot and upload it for us to "have a look" - can be reverted if necessary. I have the episode from which the current screenshot is taken so will just duplicate it. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Gungadin is in charge of EastEnders screenshots so I have no idea how she does that but I assume they are originally widescreen and she crops them so it's just the face. Maybe it's difficult to find a single widescreen shot with just the character's face in a fairly neutral pose. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What AP said. I take stills from my PVR, so they are digital stills as seen on TV and I crop them so it's just the face. Other people seem to be uploading lower quality pics presumably from iplayer, which is fine if they portray the character better, but often they dont, which is why we revert some of the uploads. No point having a lower quality image just because it's more recent than a better quality image taken two months ago... I'm not keen on images with loads of clutter because we need to see what the character looks like, not any scenery. Also, I think it depends on what ratio u have your pc screen set to. I have a big screen, so on my PC the images seem really large, but when I have looked at them on a laptop for instance, they seem much smaller.  GunGagdin Moan 00:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the practicalities of it.... it would be somewhat difficult to find scenes that give a good enough portrait shot.... I will just try with the Chrissie Watts one, because I have the scene so just want to see what it looks like. Also, agree that the images should be of the best quality available rather than the most recent. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you posted a reply to my talk page and not here. But anyway, the Chrissie widescreen shot looks good! You should upload it over the current Chrissie image and I'll delete the "temporary" one for you. By the way, non-free images shouldn't really be used in the user space. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know why either - not much sleep last night. The thing about the user space also occured to me as I was uploading the image, but just too tired to think of something different. I'll bear it in mind in future though. :) Thanks. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also just uploaded a wider screen shot for Sharon - this one is from the same scene but not exactly the same shot. However, I did do one of the same shot which can be uploaded if you or Gungadin prefer the "original" profile. It doesn't matter too much to me - I just thought this shot was a little bit more flattering to Letitia Dean. ;) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sharon's picture is fine with me. Would you like me to delete the temporary Chrissie picture? (Oh, and thanks for fixing the error on my cast list) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh gosh - sorry I didn't actually realise the cast list was a user page... I was just following the links for Sarah Preston and I ended up there somehow (am tired!!). ANd yes, please delete, thanks. :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's ok! I'm hoping to eventually put it in the main space anyway. Sarah Preston wouldn't have been there if you hadn't added her character to the minor characters list. I was quick to update all the articles! Image is deleted. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not too keen on the wide screen shots. It makes the images look very small and squashed on my screen, but it's not really that important and am happy to go with consensus.  GunGagdin Moan 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Small and squashed? Do you mean the faces are disproportionate? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... out of curiosity what is your screen resolution, Gungadin? I have really only been using my laptop to access wiki (1200x800); but when I get home I will try on the desktop which has a widescreen monitor. It looks really good on my laptop, but I didn't actually take into consideration different resolutions. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont know how to find out the resolution. Bu it's an LCD monitor about 10x13 inches visible screen. In my screen, Chrissie looks very far away and it looks a bit blurry - sort of reminds me of those episode caps the BBC site used to put on their episode web pages.  GunGagdin Moan 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Try http://www.whatismyscreenresolution.com/ - mine is 1280x800. I assume that's what Familiae meant as well. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

1024 X 768 apparently--  GunGagdin Moan 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not good.... I have to admit that the images could probably do with a little bit of sharpening, but I don't have a sharpening tool in the graphics program I use; certainly they don't appear on my screen as they do on yours. I will capture a screenshot of how the wiki pages for Chrissie and Sharon look on my laptop and link them from somewhere - and when I get home I will check on my desktop too. (yeah, you are right AP - 1280!) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will change my resolution to that and see how the images look. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It won't work because the ratio is wrong for your screen. Everything will be slightly too big and stretched out. Gungadin obviously has a different monitor size to us. But I wouldn't have thought it would make any difference to the images on Wikipedia. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right.... I'm not going to make a habit of this (and I know it's a bit of an abuse), but this issue is bugging me a bit so I've just uploaded 2 screenshots of my monitor (which can be deleted soon after - sorry to be the source of paper work!) The first is of my normal screen and the second is when I changed the resolution (which as AP noted didn't make much of a difference).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chrissiepage1.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chrissiepage2.jpg

I know its bad of me, and won't do it again, but just want to see what is going on here. Is this what you are seeing, Gungadin... and what do you think of how the images appear anyway? (Remember not to view it just as thumbnail!) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't look like what Gungadin described. I changed my resolution as well and I got something worse than what you got but still not what G described. But that's because the ratio was wrong for my monitor size, not because of the resolution. So I don't know what might be going on on G's computer, but it doesn't sound right to me :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more like the second option. Just looks small, maybe i'll increase the size. No matter. if y'all are happy then best to leave it.  GunGagdin Moan 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just a shame we can't fi it. :( (Could you please delete those screenshots above, AP :) Thxs.)Familiae Watt§ (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They are deleted. Last night someone uploaded another Sharon image over the widescreen one, so I'm wondering if others are having problems seeing them properly. I deleted all the old revisions but I can undelete if we decide to go back to portrait. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if they actually left a comment to say why they changed (even if just "I prefer older one!"! Familiae Watt§ (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps we could set up some kind of poll through the project page?? Familiae Watt§ (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess so, if you want more people's input. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of discussion going on here that would normally take place on the project page... I feel very left out! Seriously though, I have the same screen resolution as Gungadin and have the same issue with the widescreen images looking a bit squashed. It's not all that noticeable though. I wish the BBC released more high quality press kit images we could use. Frickative  17:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * lol - thank you Frickative.... could you possibly capture a screenshot of what you see - I am really curious to see what it looks like! (Oh, and you are more than welcome to comment on anything you've read here - I just didn't want ot clutter up the project page with my own queries! lol Familiae Watt§ (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think we might be getting somewhere - half way through sorting a screenshot, it occurred to me to check my preferences for image settings. For some reason, my image size limit was set to the lowest option. Not entirely sure why that would effect the ibox display, seeing as it should just be for the desc pages, but I changed it back to default and as far as I can tell it looks pretty normal now: . I don't know, I've been staring at the same image for so long I'm starting to lose all sense of proportion! Frickative  17:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know EXACTLY what you mean about staring at the same image! lol. But that looks how it does in mine too.... it is a little blurry and could do with a tiny bit iof sharpening (but I don't have a sharpening tool) - at the same time, it also looks a little better for TAO - like she's been aiorbrushed! lol But thank god - I was starting to worry that I would have to go back; I just feel that the widescreen shots are much better suited and look more stylish. Thanks Frick!! Familiae Watt§ (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you added a picture of Amanda Parry. There's a few problems though. Firstly, this one IS squashed! Secondly, being widescreen it makes the infobox wider than the others on the page. And thirdly, we're not really supposed to add images to the lists of minor characters and over the years there have been lots of debates over this. The ones that are there are only there because of characters that had their own articles and we recently decided to merge them, so kept the image. That's why we don't upload pictures of minor characters anymore. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No probs - delete. It wasn't a very clear image anyway - and I noticed that it did enlarge the table - was going to fix it later, but doesn't matter know so am glad I didn't bother. :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a 1280x800 laptop and the image still looks puny. I think I just prefer the longer rather than wider look anyway, as it shows the character's face, not the scenery.--  GunGagdin Moan 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it really matters but we don't want people seeing puny images. I just liked it better because it shortens the infobox. I don't know how you can compare it to the tiny images we used to get from the official website - this one has a higher resolution and fits in the infobox properly. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I meant in size. still, even if it does look better than the ones from the EE website, doesnt mean it looks better than non-widescreen shots in the infobox. makes it very small looking, compare Chrissie Watts to Amira Shah for instance. It looks puny in comparison. The widescreen image is fine when u are viewing the file page alone, but that's not what people really look at when they go to this page, and in the infobox, it doesnt look that good imo.  GunGagdin Moan 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess. Looking at Chrissie, she is very slightly squished, but I wouldn't say the picture is puny. But I'll undelete the old version anyway. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You have the same resolution as me, and the images look fine.... but it is not that important. I do believe, as AP has noted, that it does make the info box look better, but also concede that widescreen shots include a little bit of scenery; I'll have a look at seeing what can be done to have widescreen shots that primarily centre on the face - but sometime down the track. Don't have the time now. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted both images to the non-widescreen versions. Is the Sharon image looking right to everyone now? It's all gone wrong on my screen. Scenery though shouldn't be an issue, as long as we can see the character. I can't see anything wrong with the picture of Lynette Scavo, for example. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Pie in the sky?! - Watts articles as GA/FA standard
Finally, having looked at the Watts character articles I see no reason why (except for Vicki) they all can't be GA or FA articles.

This may strike you as "pie in the sky" talk as I have no real experience with getting articles listed as GA/FA and so I may be just dreaming - but it is the time of year for optimisms!!!

In particular I feel that Sharon Rickman and Den Watts articles to both be worthy (and should) be featured articles. I don't know if you 2 are responsible for the coverage of their early development, but it is superb - all the articles need is to have the later character stuff expanded a bit and polished up imo (and, if as noted above, storylines should be integrated through the whole, then that should be done too). The Den Watts article in particular - there is heaps of stuff to cover his later time in the show, which would augment the already exceptional coverage of the first few years.

Again, pie in the sky stuff, but i see no reason why Den Watts, Chrissie Watts, and Sharon Watts can't all be FA articles.

Dennis Rickman and Angie Watts probably not as there simply isn't enough range of material perhaps to get them there. But they could still be GA??

What do you think.

It's my personal project to get all the Watts articles up to good status. :)Familiae Watt§ (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, I want to see EastEnders articles reach the highest possible standard they can, so go for it. I would personaly go for GA because FA is extremely difficult and is reviewed by multiple people. GA is just done by one individual. I've considered nominating my Ferreira family article for FA but I'm just not prepared for the work I'd have to do based on the feedback I receive! So if you are prepared to deal with that, go for it! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we wrote the development for Sharon and Den, they were some of the earliest ones we did because, being original characters, they were featured quite prominently in the behind the scenes books so there was a lot to add. I personally think they need a lot more work before we try for GA and certainly FA. The Sharon article I have heaps to add for development etc, but havent had enough time to do it and the plot is probably too long, and it needs cleaning up for apparent POV etc - we weren't as wiki savvy on fiction policy back when they were done back in 2006 or something !!! Good goal though, it's what we should be aiming for on all the character pages if possible. I just wish I had some more free time so I could start to edit more often again. Hopefully things will calm down a bit and i'll be able to in the new year.  GunGagdin Moan 01:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Den article is in a good position - it does need a bit of work, but all the early stuff is covered so doesn't need to be touched, just the later stuff that needs more sourcing and polishing imo. I have a bit of time until Feb which is why I am sort of putting these as goals to do. The Sharon article I agree will be far more fidly. But I'm not going to bite off more than I can chew. Chrissie Watts first - and then I will see how things go with that and take it from there.

Thanks for the comments guys. :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dennis ee.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dennis ee.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review - Flag of Scotland
Hi.

Thanks for your efforts re. the above. I have hopefully done enough to address your points and look forward to your comments re. recent changes. Regards. Endrick  Shellycoat  12:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem - I saw you had waited a while for a review to take place. I'll pass the article asap. Congratulations. ✽ Familiae Watt§   (TALK)  13:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated! Endrick   Shellycoat  13:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

HMS Indefatigable (1909)
All issues addressed. Please pass GA. Thank you for the review and further comments are welcome of course. Mephiston999 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nice work. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  18:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:It's All Coming Back to Me Now/GA1
Thanks for your sweep - I believe that I have addressed your concerns. My motivation to participate in the GA project was greatly hindered by the poor performance of one of your colleagues last week. The JPS talk to me  23:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry to hear that you have had a bad experience in this matter; I would only urge you to remember not to judge the whole barrel by a few bad apples, though I understand how exasperating things can be sometimes. I will reassess the article asap. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  23:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hello Junipers Liege, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 00:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Summerteeth
I simply removed the uncited section that caused you to delist Summerteeth as a GA. I can also spend the next few days addressing any other issues. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. I have not actually removed "Summerteeth" from the GA list yet - so will just reverse the GAR reassessment once the improvements have been made. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All the "citation needed" tags have now been addressed. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ If the B-rating doesn't reverse back to GA after a day or so, contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  02:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Snake scales
Your review points have all been addressed. Please give your GA Review opinion. AshLin (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Article has been passed. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  00:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space
Hey there Junipers Liege, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Junipers Liege/ratings. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

19th century task force
Though I don't really have the interest to coordinate or work specifically in that period, if you need help working on a specific article, then I would be willing. Sadads (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. :) There doesn't seem to be much activity at the Novels Project.... or is that just me??? ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  08:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Completed!
Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles
On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 30 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 00:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Brougham Castle
Hi Junipers Liege, Thanks for the good work you're doing on Brougham Castle. I've just undone one of your changes. The word "Picturesque" was there in its artistic sense. Under that subheading in the article, paragraph 2 says "During the late 18th century, the Lake District became a popular visitor attraction and the sensibilities of Romanticism glamorised historic ruins such as Brougham Castle" which is in the same vein. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand where you are coming from, using the term in its 19th century aesthetic sense. However, I think to play it safe it would be wise to somehow explicity incorporate the term in the section somewhere. However, it is a fairly minor thing so up to you really. If you want to bring the article up to FA, it will have to be considered, but as is will not stop the article passing GAN. The article is otherwise splendidly put together; my changes are almost entirely to do with fixing clauses and integrating sentence fragments into pre-existing sentences or fleshing them out so they are no longer fragments. It was a very interesting read - I've always liked the Clifford family! Currently I am just finishing off and expect to pass the article presently. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  11:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Chrissie Watts
Hello! Just popped by to say that I'm reviewing Chrissie Watts, the article you nominated. The review page can be found here; feel free to leave any comments. The review will be done soon, bye - we eb il oo bi l  ( talk ) 19:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please feel free to ask me any questions is you have issues or concerns. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again! Just a quick note to say that Chrissie Watts passed. I think the image dilemma is something that would need to be reviewed before FA nomination, but for GA it's acceptable as it is. I hardly need to beg you to review a Good Article nomination yourself, seeing as you already do so. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Bye! - we eb il oo bi l  ( talk ) 18:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Quicksilver (novel) review
Do you have any suggestions that weren't GA worthy to note? I am thinking about putting the article up for FA review.Sadads (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, not really. The article seems pretty comprehensive and covers all the novel sections. It looks pretty good to me. It certainly doesn't appear to be lacking anything. I can't see any objection to it. I will be interested to see how you get on. I plan on taking ''She: A History of Adventure to the FAR after the GA too. :). ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  20:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of She: A History of Adventure
The article She: A History of Adventure you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:She: A History of Adventure for eventual comments about the article. Well done! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Chaeronea
Thanks for your review of Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC). I fully take your point about relying too heavily on Cawkwell, and will try to integrate some more modern sources into the article.

Thanks again, regards, M.F.B.T.  Yes, Minister? 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive award
Greetings, I apologise in advance if I have "talked" wrong, I am at day one here, have no clue what to do or what talk ettiquette is.....I am a public artist seeking to publish a bio of my work on wikipedia. I need someone to help me do it right, or even verify if I CAN put my own Bio here. Please check out my website to verify.... I thought you might like me because I have created a contemporary portrait of Euterpe in Park City Utah.........

rachelslickartwork.homestead.com thank you, RachelSummerkitchenstudios (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

New ubox and top-icon for WikiGryphons

 * Please forgive the talk page spam. There are new userbox and topicon selections for editors who identify themselves as Wikigryphons; see User:Ling.Nut/Gryphontopicon2 and Template:User wikipedia/Gryphon2. Cheers! • Ling.Nut 02:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Soap characters
See TFD. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
 WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Junipers Liege, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Junipers Liege/Slater family. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

EE Newsleter June 2011
Hi just asking if you want this newsletter. If not tell me, if yes tell me! Mayhem Mario  15:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Soap Operas alert
As a member of the WikiProject Soap Operas, and in accordance with the appropriate notification in deference to canvassing, I am alerting your attention to several current discussions for deletion pertaining to soap opera characters. This is an invitation to participate in the discussion. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 20:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Fight4.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Fight4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

E.K. Johnson
Hello,

I have been contributing to the french page of She: A History of Adventure and would like to use the engravings by E.K. Johnson you have put on the english page.

Would you be so kind as to move them to Commons so that I could insert them into the french page ?

Thx

--BiiJii (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}