User talk:Lquilter/Archive 010

Anarchism Task Force

Hey there, so I figured I'd send ya a cordial invite to join our little project, since you've been making such good edits on anarchism-related articles. Hope to have ya! Murderbike (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Murderbike - tx! i've appreciated your work too. i'm happy about the task force! --Lquilter (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well phrased

Hit the nail on the head. And have a Merry Christmas. Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Lquilter (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Elizabeth Hodgson

Hello again. I wonder if you would do me a favor. I'm thinking of nominating Jane Elizabeth Hodgson for GA status. Would you take a look at the article and let me know what you think. Best regards, —G716 <^T·_C> 01:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G716 -- I'll comment on the article talk page. --Lquilter (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominionism thanks

Hi Lquilter. I'm not cool enough to give out barnstars, but I want to thank you for the way you've been refereeing the Dominionism dispute recently. I'm tired of it and stepping away from the discussion for now, but please let me know if I can be of assistance. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BlueMoonlet! That's cooler than any barnstar. Maybe by the time I'm tired you'll be ready to go again. <g> Lquilter (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help a newbie

Can you help a newbie to Wikipedia? I've just received a notice on one of my biographies and I'm not sure what to do to improve the article. Any suggestions? The bio is for Kelly L. Moran. Thanks for your time. CallieCalickamo (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on Talk:Kelly L. Moran. --Lquilter (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars by subject

Hi, Lquilter; thanks for the note!

If you agree that moving it all to Category talk:Scholars by subject is appropriate, then perhaps this indeed may atract more interest and good suggestions for solutions - at least if one put a note on the various concerned category talk pages. JoergenB (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to you

WikiThanks

I'd like to thank you for all your help and support in making Emma Goldman a Featured Article. Huzzah and cheers! – Scartol • Tok 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yaay! the divine ms. g, indeed. --Lquilter (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Meyer / Paula White / T. D. Jakes

I wanted to involve a third party in a possible edit war over a few articles. The articles are Paula White, Joyce Meyer, and T. D. Jakes, which was recently deleted and had to be started over for copyright violation. User Cats77 repeatedly inserts criticism about education. They use sources that do not confirm the criticism. An Administrator came by one article and reverted my revert due to a source being cited for the criticism, but I don’t think they checked the source! For Joyce Meyers he uses Joyce Meyer’s own website which, of course, doesn’t reference any criticism of herself.

According to wiki policy, “controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately”. I posted a note on Cats77 discussion page but they didn’t respond. They just keep re-inserting their edit.

Would you double check this to confirm I am not in the wrong in how I am interpreting wiki policy? Thank you. Bwalker5435 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EG / Attentat

Hi. Congratulations on the featured article recognition of Emma Goldman.

With respect to Attentat: I'll respond at Talk:Propaganda of the deed#Attentat redirect. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philately orgs

Hello. Thanks for your message of about a month ago. I'm afraid I've been offsite and only just seen it. I'm fine with your proposal so please go ahead (I bet you've already done it by now!). Best wishes for 2008. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! You have my full support, mate. I've already thirded the rename proposal! All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Former Featured articles

The project above which you had indicated an interest in joining at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page, is now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Former Featured articles. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying

Hi, Got your notes, and I will endeavor to reply in the very near future. Keep an eye on your email, too! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

category revisions

Hi. I saw your revisions to the category "events by topic." your edits were very skillful and needed. thanks for making them. I had a feeling a category like that was needed, but I wasn't totally sure how easy it might be to get others to accept such a broad new category, so it's good to have another person's input to make the category useful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There's a good bit more work to do on Category:Events, so your thoughts would be welcome. In particular if you'd like to weigh in on Category talk:Social events, we have an open question -- an anonymous editor has moved items into Category:Social events that I think are better stored in Category:Organized events (as opposed to, say, Category:Natural events); in effect suggesting that Category:Social events should be the top level of the tree for things that are organized by humans. That seems confusing to me, but the editor hasn't responded to my queries. So a third opinion would be helpful, and if you've worked on Category:Events you may have already developed some thoughts. --Lquilter (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! it is good to hear all of your ideas. I will take a look, and try to think about this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Periodicals

You might want to take a look at the CfD for [1]. I applaud simplification, but is this overdoing it? DGG (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I did point out the benefits of having multiple titles but there seems to be a tidal wave towards periodicals. You should weigh in! --Lquilter (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NCTE-logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:NCTE-logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Jane Elizabeth Hodgson

Thanks for your comments. I will work on them as time permits. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 04:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier), 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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

"Cite needed" for the idea that lesbian separatists didn't invent all-female planets!

I've read your review of Rouge Queen, among others. The articles on lesbian separatism and lesbian science fiction have been slapped with "cite needed" tags for my having made the observation that all-women societies were nothing new to SF prior to the rise of lesbian separatism, albeit usually depicted unfavorably and/or as asexual. Could you give 'em a couple of good, solid cites? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

will work on that soon. --Lquilter (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

films

thanks! Reggie Perrin (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]