User talk:TwilligToves/Archives/2008/January

David Lovering
I believe I (or Grim-Gym) have taken of the issue you raised here. Could you perhaps reconsider your assessment. Thanks for the review! CloudNine (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom
A nomination and a creation on the same update. Nice one! --JayHenry (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edits
at The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power. Your copy-edits to the Intro make it sound a bit better, thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

Day
I think they can be combined: but I find it all a bit confusing, especially with the alternating of "ABC", as if it was one thing, and "ABCs" as if there were a bunch of ABCs. So I am not certain that a patent to print the "ABC with Little Catechism" is covered by the monopoly for "ABCs". Particularly as I was just this afternoon reading about Day having to concede some rights to ABCs, but also that that he kept control of his bestsellers, which would have included the "ABC with Little Catechism" (it might just be that since this was a combo book, a specific patent applied to it alone). Clearly Day was granted patents for this one under Edward VI, but I imagine Mary rescinded them, and so Cecil had to grant them to him again under Elizabeth. All this aside, we can certainly find the wording to combine those two sentences.

I hope you didn't mind my butting into the article. All your work was excellent, but I was just anxious to finish it off in time for the front page. I'm more or less finished now, except I want to add something about Turner accusing Day of pricing his books out of the reach of everyday Protestants. qp10qp (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wormshill
Hi, since Raul has rebooted the above's FAC, I'd be grateful if you'd take another look and see whether your previous concerns have been addressed. Many thanks Dick G (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Online disinhibition effect
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Online disinhibition effect, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Street cries
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Street cries, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ryu Goto
An editor has nominated Ryu Goto, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Another look at Macintosh
Hey again. I was wondering if you could take another look at Featured article review/Macintosh and perhaps offer kp or rm. Although the balance is with rm, I am not convinced. I think the article is much improved. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Extra!
BJ, I just rolled back your additions of Kaypoh's pages to FAR, because: FAR is overloaded; a nominator who can't be bothered to add it themselves is no good for the page (not you--the guy you added it for); "dump" nominations (multiple, from same user, at once) are not encouraged. Did you notice it from here? That really is an excellent tool. But the existence of a review subpage does not mean it should be on FAR.

In better news, thanks for the comment on Macintosh. I had wanted to tell you that your contrib's have been really appreciated. You're one of the most thoughtful editors who's stopped by FAR recently! Marskell (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Jennings
Thanks for reducing the image. I forgot about that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Pryce
I've already spent so much time on that article that half an hour more cleaning up refs is nothing. Although i've learned my lesson, from now on i'm writing ALL the information on the first time. Any other comment is more than welcome, and thanks a lot for what you've done so far :D --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 11:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
I looked at the admin list tonight and didn't see you. If you're interested, ping me. Marskell (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. When a good editor appears on the radar, you want to encourage them, which is what I was intending. I did look at your contrib's and your earliest seem indicative of someone who already knew the rules, suggesting a long term editor. (Not at all an accusation!)


 * I waited two years for adminship, long after I'd already contributed, and part of me still feels non-adminship is better. So I understand.


 * If nothing else: keep up the FAR comments! The process does need them, and your work to date has been certainly appreciated. Marskell (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice Requests for rollback is up-and-running. It's really the only universally useful tool. Marskell (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

John Day (printer)
The new and improved JD is on Veropedia. Awadewit | talk  06:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow FAC
A bit late for a note, but I feel I've addressed your concerns at the FAC for the aforementioned article. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 07:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)