User talk:TwilligToves/Archives/2009/February

Personal communication as a Wiki reference
Hi, In cases where the "personal communicator" is the key/sole source to a text statement, and no published reference supporting the text exists, is a personal communication (e.g., "J. Seymour, Army National Guard Historian, U.S. Army Center of Military History, personal communication, January 2, 2009") acceptable as a source per the MoS? I can't find it mentioned, but there are so many MoS sites. Thanks! Tfhentz (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting further information
Hi. I'm requesting further information about the copyright concerns you have with Age of Empires (video game) at the article's talk page, here. As noted there, I'm having some trouble investigating it. If you can help out with that in any way, I'd be grateful. :) I'm watchlisting your page as well as that one, so I'll see any response you may be able to offer here or there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Respect

 * Thanks, qp! Budding Journalist 16:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Freelance Police FAC
Hello BuddingJournalist! Just dropping in a note to say that two other users (Gary King and Ashnard) have gone over the article and copyeditted it. Hopefully it should have dealt with your concerns regarding the prose. -- Sabre (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, SideSHOW Bob!
I've done a thorough copyedit to Sideshow Bob, pursuant to your concerns at FAC. Perhaps you'd care to have a look. Cheers! Scartol •  Tok  19:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. I enjoy copyediting (go figure — English teacher nerd alert), so helping articles pass FAC is just icing on the cake. =) Cheers! Scartol  •  Tok  19:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Parallelism

 * Thanks for the note. My problem with the earlier edit was the tying together of sexuality and religious beliefs. It simply came across as an odd pairing, no matter what the rules of grammar are. I see someone else has adopted your first option, with the repetitive "his" - which (IMHO) is much better.  Good work. Smatprt (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Idlewild Park
Thank you for the review. Do you feel that addressing the comments you made as well as a thorough probe of the prose would be sufficient to merit a Support from you in FAC? Thanks,  Grsz 11  04:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your message on Lunes of Hippocrates
I provided references and footnotes there, and if you try to re-read the entire document and compare it to http://www.maths.uwa.edu.au/~schultz/3M3/L3Hippocrates.html, everyone of us will notice that it is not ENTIRELY copied from such website. Thanks.--Johnlemartirao (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, look what you done? I had spent much time for it, yet you reported it for deletion. How can I return it back? I had followed the rules... it just so happened you do not know that some parts of the article came from it... not entirely whole!!!


 * Please check again..And return it back. God bless for us. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlemartirao (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

reverting back what you said, you are suggesting that i am imposing grave threats, what is the matter of the word "us"? i do not know who am I going to blame on, i don't think if that will be sarcast.. or something like that, maybe you should contact me first before doing that deletion request so that I can fix that problem as much time as possible. i made that article just few minutes ago and now that was lost. who reported that for deletion? i am sorry to say, i am not an american i am an asian, so we are in different cultures now, don't know what feeling is that you want to do something helpful, yet others might prevent it. i wished you informed me first since i think you were only one of the two people who first read and find my article after it was born, so that i fixed the problem first right at this moment. so have a good night sleep.--Johnlemartirao (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson, Jr. FAC
Thanks for giving me some suggestions for improvement. I have responded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

History of Mumbai
Thanks for your comments on the FAC. Are U sure Origin of Bombay was published in 1900. The About says the book was published in 1993. The author of the book Gerson da Cunha is still alive and is 74. How is it possible that this book was published in 1900. Please help me. This article doesn't even cross the Reliable Sources stage. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC
Hi, as someone who previously commented on Featured article candidates/John Wilkes Booth, you may wish to revisit this page, as the FAC has been restarted and additional content to meet the concerns expressed has been added.  JGHowes   talk  23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/These Are the Voyages...
Hey, just a heads up that Drilnoth said that he addressed your concerns. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Henry Cornelius Burnett FAC
Do you still intend to do a full FA review of Henry Cornelius Burnett, as stated at its FA nom? If not, have I sufficiently addressed the concerns you have already raised? If so, I could you please strike through them so the closing admin can see that they have been addressed? Thanks! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 03:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add. Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No connection between topics
You wrote; "You know full well that my opposition to 1f has nothing to do with being opposed to the use of high quality sources, Ling. Your characterization of me is disingenuous and hurtful."
 * You drew a logical link between the two topics I was discussing in the same breath: a) the fact that in my mind only two (including you) were still Opposed, and b) the fact that some people thought 1f would preclude pop-culture articles from getting FA. I suppose i can see why you would draw tht connection, since as i said, I mentioned both things in the same post without drawing any distinction between the groups. But I was not thinking of you when i was writing of the folks who were in group b. In fact, I wasn't exactly saying folks were Opposed to raising standards (though one or two very clearly are); I was saying they were afraid that I wanted to exclude pop culture. But either way you cut it, I wasn't putting you in that group. instead, you are in a different goup: a group that  sees a modification of 1c as being sufficient. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 23:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Surrender of Japan FAC
Can you please revisit your comments at Featured article candidates/Surrender of Japan Raul654 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)