User talk:Random Passer-by

If you post a comment here then I'll usually reply here, unless you specifically ask me to post a reply elsewhere, because I find it easier to keep track of a conversation when it's in one place (so you might want to watch this page temporarily). If I've posted a comment on your talk page then you can decide whether to reply here or after my original comment on your talk page and, unless you specifically ask me to post a reply elsewhere, I'll reply on your talk page. :-)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Random Passer-by, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Darwinek 10:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Specifically what content provided by me is slanted. Perhaps your lack of knowledge on the subject is the problem.[reply]

Copyedit

Hey, thanks for your copyedit on the AC/DC article, it's very apreciated. I hope an editor on the LoCE comes soon. Thanks again. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure. I never would have read AC/DC if I hadn't edited it and I found the article informative and interesting. Good luck with further developments. Random Passer-by 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better, Random, but still has a ways to go. I hope you didn't feel I was singling you out: I don't think FACs should rely on LoCE to bail them out; rather, they should seek out good copyeditors before approaching FAC, and you had a tough roe to how. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think it could be better but I don't do large rewrites on articles unless I know the subject well. I didn't feel you were "singling me out" and I'm interested in other people's editing notes. I enjoy wikipedia as a co-operative enterprise. Random Passer-by 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, not sure if you've seen Tony's page, User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll take a look at that out of curiosity but I doubt I'll ever feel motivated to go beyond basic copy editing and into full rewrites. I know the limitations of my patience. :-) Random Passer-by 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moron (psychology)

Hi. Thanks for the heads up on that. To be honest, I don't know whether that link is a breach of copyright or not. I guess I assumed it was hosted on the Google site with the owner's permission but I couldn't find any confirmation of it, so I've removed the link and just left it as a text reference. Cheers. SilentC 00:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I did a bit of research and found out who made the film and when and have updated the cite. I now know more about the subject than I ever thought I needed to! SilentC 02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? What drugs are you taking? :) I got the details of that doco from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399704/. I created the page by moving it from Moron which I made a disambiguation page but I didn't author the contents of it. I've only ever removed vandalism from it. Why do you think the ref is bogus? SilentC 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're confused by the location of Canada. I believe the BBC referred to is BBC Canada: http://www.bbccanada.com/ SilentC

Thanks for the advice. Yes I usually do provide an edit summary, unfortunately I have neglected to do so on more than one occasion - not because I'm unaware of the importance of doing so, rather because I am often somewhat absent-minded. A tip for you to show that I'm a giving kind of person too: if you ever suspect someone of being a hoaxer or similar, view their contributions and you'll pretty soon see what type of contributor they are. Saves all sorts of angst as people often get the wrong end of the stick in these matters. SilentC 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Waters

Happy New Year to you. Just wanted to let you know I put a hang-on on the artical Joseph Waters that you cited for deletion. I understand that it is poorly written, however I do belive the orginal author could make a case for noability just based on Mr. Waters founding of the organization. Thanks Shoessss 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that an article on Joseph Waters could have a place on Wikipedia but that article had a long history of problems including spam and an attack on a living person so perhaps it might be better to start a new one. I see an admin has now speedy deleted it anyway. Random Passer-by 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you so much for the Barnstar! You've truly made my day. :-) -Severa (!!!) 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShopUnitedNetworks.com

We believe our content for shopunitednetworks.com to be informative rather than advertising. The only objects that could be considered advertising are the links to the site, which are fundamental to any online post.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitednetworks (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 January 2007

Two editors and at least one admin believed it was WP:SPAM, however, so it has been deleted. Random Passer-by 18:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviatrix

[edit] QUESTION -- Early milestones for women in heavier-than-air flight

==

12:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)~NOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_Peltier The above site credits Peltier with the first solo flight by a female. Below, you have her only as a passenger in 1908. Why? -- Delaware Dolores 12:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC) dol_sol@hotmail.com

++++++++++ Noproblem, the formatting looks great. Where in the US are you? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you concentrate on French aviators? I hope we can collaborate on a few news ones, let me know.
Damn, who knew about the spelling of License vs. License! Thanks

AFAIK, please leave a message on my talk page if you have better evidence.)

Binghampton NY

ATTN USER RANDOM PASSER-BY.

Please pay attention to your page history before you incorrectly accuse me of vandalism on the Binghamton Page.

By properly looking at the history you will see that my ip is 67.188.205.170 and that my edits on 18 Jan 07 were in the Trivia section, any and all information placed there is factual per my knowledge studied while at Binghamton University.

You will notice that the vandalism which was removed was placed with the ip 66.24.109.1, clearly quite different than mine. Not to mention that this vandalism was om the history and famous peoples section.

I do not choose to set up a username, I will continue to use my IP address.

I do not appreciate being blamed for vandalism which is clearly not my fault.

If I see one problem which is continuing to evolve on Wikipedia since its inception is the empowerment of members who feel that their word is the word of an 'editor' and therefor is almighty and correct in all cases.

Just so you know, Binghamton was in fact the regional headquarters of the KKK at one point in time. Should I also add that there was a very large profile case in which many nationally known mafia bosses were arrested then released in the 1950s? But I wouldn't want to place any information which might be controversial... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.205.170 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I mistakenly issued a vandal warning to this IP so I have removed the warning and apologised on this IP's talk page. The Wikipedia editor who used this IP to edit Binghamton, New York has my most sincere appologies. I'm sorry. The vandal warning for vandalism on that article was intended for IP 66.24.109.1 (I have issued over 150 vandal warnings and this is, as far as I know, my first error.) I'm not sure why you're taking me to task about the KKK information because I restored it to the article, despite the fact that it's unsourced, when I reverted the other vandalism to the article. Random Passer-by 13:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Reche

Just wanted to point out that SmokeyTheCat recreated it. I'm going to AfD it, and if you want to up that to speedy, feel free. Shorelander 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links to MMM Commentaries (on .mp3 files)

I see you have been through the Doctor Who episode areas and removed references to an online review/alternate commentary for many DW eps - how is the work of MMM less valid than reviews at other websites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.186.134 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 24 January 2007

I didn't remove your external links because they are "less valid". I removed them because they are against Wikipedia policy (see WP:EL e.g. WP:EL#Rich_media). Random Passer-by 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I can see on those pages warrants the removal of the link of the review of the episodes. I'm not linking to rich media and the links are directly relevant - as relevant as reviews of the episodes on the other sites. Tell me how the MMM review links differs from the review links for other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.186.134 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 24 January 2007

The links I removed were links to .mp3 "commentaries" added with no edit summaries or, in my opinion, justification per WP:EL. I suggest you read the policy again. If you have a problem per WP:EL with other links on those pages then you can edit them out although I suggest you discuss it on the talk page of Wikipedia: WikiProject Doctor Who first. I also suggest that you should discuss adding links en masse to Doctor Who related Wikipedia articles, which might be considered WP:SPAM by some editors, on the talk page of the same project before you do it again. Please sign your comments on Wikipedia talk pages as the message on your talk page requests. Random Passer-by 13:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that I wasn't the only editor to revert one of your links as Science4sail removed one from the Blake's 7 article. Random Passer-by 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Unsigned comments magically signed

It's easy to mark unsigned comments. Just add {{subst:Unsigned|name of user who didn't sign}} at the end of the comment. K a mope · talk · contributions 00:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentines Day!

I wish you and your family have a wonderful Valentines Day!

Kamope · talk · contributions 02:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (although I'm fairly sure you're early). :-) Random Passer-by 16:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From user "Samantha Dean"

STOP YOUR VANDALISM Please read the talkpage on Paternity Fraud. After all, you wanted me to use it. The section you keep providing is in violation of Wikipedia policy because it is unverifiable and is a link to paid content. Are you the person selling this linked content?Samantha Dean 02:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your repeated vandalism to the article Paternity fraud (removal of content and introduction of deliberate non-neutral point of view), which I arrived at on a recent changes patrol, and hope an administrator will deal with the problem. You seemed to have some interesting content to add and it's a pity you didn't add it without resorting to repeated vandalism. Random Passer-by 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you justify to yourself, your removal of all the content I added which is well documented and factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha Dean (talk • contribs) 02:26, 27 January 2007

You are a vandal who has deliberately and repeatedly removed content from Wikipedia and deliberately rewritten an article to reflect your personal point of view. As the administrators appear to have decided to pretend you're not a vandal, there's nothing more I can do beyond ignoring your ridiculous behaviour and replacing the material you remove whenever I can be arsed to do so. If your leave further comments on my talk page for my amusement then please have the common courtesy to add them in the correct place and sign them per the Wikipedia "policy" you're so keen on deliberately misinterpreting. Random Passer-by 15:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! Kamope · talk · contributions 16:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You earned it. Random Passer-by 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes

The problem is that WP:AIV is really for cases of obvious vandalism. While some things may be obvious to you, they aren't to an admin who is just looking at the content. I'm sorry, but when I looked at the user's edits, it wasn't a case of obvious vandalism. Even misinformation is hard to detect and requires more investigation, much more than "immediate response" pages like this one are supposed to handle. What if we end up blocking a well-intentioned user? WP:AIV is for one admin to look at something, judge that it is obvious vandalism, then block. For cases of content dispute, you should look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. For cases of "non-obvious vandalism", which you're apparently saying that yours is, I suggest you report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where, if it requires more heavy investigation, admins can take the time to look at it and, if necessary, discuss it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already listed the repeated content removal vandalism on the appropriate page but then noticed that page was undergoing an apparently successful Articles for Deletion process on the grounds that Admins don't check it or deal with any of the cases of complex vandalism. Thank you for this response though. Random Passer-by 02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome back Random Passer-by! How was your wikibreak? > Kamope < 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful. Thank you for asking. I hope your wikiediting is going well? I'll have to check what you've done to your user page since I last saw it. Random Passer-by 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a major change to my userpage... > Kamope < 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about Tam Lin (novel)

Hello, I'm sorry about my incorrect edit in the article Tam Lin (novel). It's been a while since I've read it, and I remember an awful lot of references to The Revenger's Tragedy and other plays. I suppose I must have forgotten a lot too. I guess it would have helped if I had a copy of the novel at hand. Again, I'm sorry. --Kyoko 13:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. Wikipedia is a co-operative enterprise. If that section is expanded, and it should be, then that link should definitely go in as part of a more specific discussion of particular quotations and allusions. :-) Random Passer-by 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when I eventually reread the book, then. Thanks. --Kyoko 13:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 19 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hilda Hewlett, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Trolls

Thanks for adding a Novels template to the article. Just to note the official template is {{NovelsWikiProject}}. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll never remember all the different WikiProject tags and I've never found a good way of searching Wikipedia for that sort of information. I literally just keep trying different tag syntax until I find a tag which substitutes itself. Thank you for the reminder though. I can look here in future. :-) Random Passer-by 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We hates the copyeditor, we does..."

Hiya! I picked up the "Malorie Blackman" article off the League of Copyeditors backlog but checked the history before going to work on it. I notice that you've spent time working on it very recently. Are you still at work?
I'm a fairly brutal editor, and off the bat I can see some things I'd like to do with this article but wanted to touch base with you first.
Please forgive all the baseball metaphors! Or are they cricket metaphors...
~ Otterpops 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only tidied it up a bit and corrected/added some details. I still think it needs considerable work (although I moved the copyedit tag down to focus on the worst sections). I also think it desperately needs splitting but I was going to ask WikiProjectNovels about naming conventions before I split the Noughts and Crosses books off into a separate article. I love good copy editors. The only thing I'll interfere with is factual information. I dislike copy editors who introduce factual errors in their revisions and I've seen several editors from the League of Copyeditors do that to articles so I remain wary of overenthusiastic rewriters. In summary: I'm finished there apart from a possible split so go ahead and be bold! Random Passer-by 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I put in will have citations and references, totally checkable. I looked at the outside links while waiting to hear from you and listened to a couple interviews with the woman. She's fairly impressive education-wise and intellectually, plus seems like an honestly nice person. I really hope she doesn't read this article before we can get a decent bio on it (speaking of racism). I think she'd be hurt and very angry.
My biggest snag right at the moment is that we're in the middle of moving! So I'm not going to be able to sit down and plow into it three or four hours each morning as I'd love to do. If you want to chop off the novel summaries and take them to spawn a new page, go for it - I've never created a new page before on my own. If you can't get to it, I will but it's going to take me some time.
Did you say there's a Project for Novels? That would be really good, give clear instructions about sections and format.
Okay, excellent! Here we go. Tap me if I put in any bad lies. :)
~ Otterpops 03:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admirer of both Malorie Blackman and her work. She's highly notable by any criteria and deserves a good wikipedia article. You've earned a barnstar for your tranformative work. I see you're encouraging me to split the article, which I will, and I'm assuming, as you've taken the inuse tag off, that I can edit it. Don't worry. Apart from the split I'll only be making minor edits and I'll try not to ruin your prose :-). 1) I'm going to Anglicise the spelling. 2) I'll standardise the section formatting to the standards set by WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Novels. 3) I'll add persondata if it's not already there (I haven't looked yet).

Oh my goodness! Thank you!

I'm so touched, I feel happy! I've only just started on the Blackman article and was thinking about what if she came along and read it late last night so I couldn't sleep.
Thank you so much. I've never gotten a barnstar before. :)
This morning I'm putting in references to the factuals I added last night, never fear.
~ Otterpops 16:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. What was the story with Imus Ranch? It sounds like you dashed in with your sword afire, trained tiger on a golden leash...

You earned that barnstar. I'm sorry if I was in your way over at the article. You inspired me to further action. Now it's your turn to edit it within an inch of its life again! I'll go and refresh my memory on wikipedia policy for splitting articles. (Imus Ranch was vandalised by one person with multiple accounts and, unfortunately, the vandalism wasn't noticed for over a week. Kamope indulges in random acts of kindness to make wikipedia a happier place and so she gave me a barnstar. I choose to see it as symbolic of all my other anti-vandalism work here.) Random Passer-by 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha!

You got sucked in. :)
While your Inuse is up I've been getting ISBNs and organizing titles on the bottom of my Talk page. Go look there if you want, so we're not both slaving over the same Amazon.com pages.
~ Otterpops 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackman

On my page you wrote:

Second note of the day so I've indented it for clarity. Sorry if I was getting in your way over at Malorie Blackman. I hope you don't hate what I've done too much. I haven't touched the "to split" section yet but you'll probably want to go over what I've done in the top half and re-edit it with in an inch of its life. I'm not happy with the punctuation of this sentence but I can't manage to rephrase it better so you might want to look at it:

"Blackman has written more than fifty children's books, novels, short story collections, television scripts and a stage play, and won over twenty awards for them."

Random Passer-by 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you weren't in the way at all. Actually I was enjoying that we can work on it together, see what each other were doing (each time you saved things magically appeared here and there, another human at work...) and all without screaming! Sandbox is probably a better place for me to work on the notes, but then you couldn't see what I was doing.
You're right about that enormous sentence, it needs a treatment. We'll think of something. There are others in there too... For myself, I wanted to get some respectable facts in there fast, then work on overall structure (since a big part of it is going away) and then finally refine language.
OH! Do you love traditional footnote-style citations? I'm kind of into the Harvard reference system, which is approved by Wiki but looks a bit funky, it's where the citations look like this: (Carnegie 1962:51-53), and then if the reader wants to know more about the source s/he looks for the "Carnegie" listing in the Bibliography. That way a numbered footnote is clearly an additional comment from the writer or editor. I lean to the Harvard style but wouldn't fight for it to the death. We should pick one of the two styles and stick though.
I'm going to go see what you did today now...
~ Otterpops 08:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally prefer negotiation to screaming :-). Anyway I WANT my contributions improved! On long articles, such as Malorie Blackman, I like notes I can click on a wikilink to go to and return to my place because repeated scrolling is a waste of my time. I'll put a note on your talk page about this because I think it's important. Random Passer-by 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did split it off, but all I did was cut and paste. Notice that the new article is under the name "Noughts & Crosses" rather than "Noughts and Crosses". I like the book covers, do we have permission to use them? Not sure what the legalities are on that. Talk to you soon.
~ Otterpops 10:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you split content it's a good idea to say that in your edit summaries so people who need to check the history can see what was going on. The legalese for the book covers is on their respective pages. Random Passer-by 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Psst...

I'm getting differences between list I got from the (3rd party) bio page and the Amazon.com listings. With no ISBN I can't leave that Doubleday publisher listing in. Trying to get these in some order, then I'm going to check against a link MB left on her site for the UK Amazon. ~ Otterpops 19:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Oops, good point about the split. Sorry. I can only defend myself by saying it was 3:00 a.m. ~ Otterpops 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You already have the ISBN for the Doubleday edition. I've explained on your talk page. Random Passer-by 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackman

Did you see that I copied the pertinent (non-personal) portions of our discussion to the MB Discussion page? People who come by and want to contribute should know we're here and what we're working on. I'm sure I got copies of your signature everywhere something you said was quoted. I only took the stuff from my UserPage though, I didn't mess with yours.
~ Otterpops 15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I edited out some of the less relevant material so as not to spam the page. I hope you don't mind. I think they were mostly/all my comments anyway. :-) Random Passer-by (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I once read (maybe on Wikipedia!) about a woman who was not a pilot herself, but did some serious parachuting during WWII - she was working with the Maquis, the French resistance, getting supplies and information in and out of occupied France and Holland. I think she was not French. Her name was something like "Lily Vox" and she was very beautiful as well as being dangerous and brave. Someone gave her a Medal of Honor (???) if I remember correctly (I'm sorry, I read it so long ago). If you can get any leads on her from this you might like reading about her.
~ Otterpops 15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A surprisingly common story. Thanks for the tip. Sorry for the short answer but I'm tired. :-) Random Passer-by (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN Doubleday

Good enough for me. Where are you getting good and complete publications histories? I'm going piecemeal through various booksellers' sites. ~ Otterpops 15:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

amazon.co.uk cross-checked with the British Library. If you ever do a similar marathon of U.S. first editions then you can cross-check amazon.com with the Library of Congress online, I think? That's where I look for public domain photos of early aviators too. Random Passer-by (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should

make a special time each night just to sit around the fire and congratulate each other for intelligence, insight, talent, hard work, literacy and general good-person-ness. I think we both deserve it.
And I did flinch every time I took out one of your ref's, I know you worked hard on that, and I wouldn't have known how to do that myself. What do you think? Did you already revert it? ~ Otterpops 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I reverted it. Wikipedia requires citations. Random Passer-by (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had already left explanatory notes on the article talk page (and on your talk page but I see you've edited those out). Random Passer-by (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate book cover

Could you add the rationale yourself? I'm not good at these legalese things. --Andromeda 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Default category sorting

Thanks for the tip you left on default category sorting. Every little helps!

Brother Francis 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing Moonheart

Hello, thanks for fixing the details and adding so much more to Moonheart. I didn't know it had won awards (OK one award) like that! Thanks for randomly passing by and fixing another of my edits! --Kyoko 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied to Kyoko's talk page) I love Moonheart so, when I saw you'd made the page, I hoped you wouldn't mind if I added to it. I couldn't find a picture of the first edition cover though. I also remember you did nice things to Tam Lin (novel). :-) Random Passer-by (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I love Moonheart, though it has been quite some time since I last read it. No, I don't mind your changes at all. I hope to flesh out that article sometime in the future, along with sooo many other articles. Have you ever read the sequel to Moonheart, Spiritwalk? --Kyoko 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied to Kyoko's talk page) I have read Spiritwalk but not for years. My favourite de Lint novel is definitely Moonheart although I think Memory and Dream is probably his best so far. Random Passer-by (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Moonheart is also my favourite de Lint novel, though I enjoy both Yarrow and Memory and Dream very much too. I felt let down by Spiritwalk, and I felt that some of his more recent work had somehow lost the magic that Moonheart had. I can't put my finger on why that is, but that's why I haven't read anything of his since, let's see, Trader. --Kyoko 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied to Kyoko's talk page) I don't read every de Lint book but some of his more recent stories are a little too similar to each other to satisfy me. I agree with you that Moonheart is his most magical book. I wasn't too disappointed in Spiritwalk because I didn't expect the sequel to please me as much as the original did. For me, Moonheart is one of the most perfectly escapist novels I've ever read (and I tend to re-read it when I need a dose of magical escapism). It successfully takes me somewhere else for a while. :-) Random Passer-by (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty for your WikiLove

"Hopefully this one has made your day better" - yes! Bennelliott has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions

Parent Categories

No I will not stop removing them. It is a general Wikipedia principal that a page should not be in both parent and sub-category (see Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories). There are exceptions, but these set of categories are not them. --UpDown 13:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks. Trying to find a Wikipedia policy amongest all the many guidelines is always like trying to find a needle in a haystack!--UpDown 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of Category:Women television writers

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 21#Category:Women_television_writers. Having nominated the category for deletion review, I am notifying all those who participated in the original CFD, plus the closing admin and the independent reviewer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High five to BHG: it's back. — scribbling woman 16:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boomtown New Orleans

Looks like a recreating of an article you tagged for SD earlier. You might consider this one for AfD. Rklawton 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's less spamtastic than the article I nominated for speedy deletion so I cleaned it up instead. You can, of course, still nominate it for deletion if you please. :-) Random Passer-by (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADAC photo link

Had I thought your edits were not in good faith, you would be receiving your third vandalsim warning here. But just because a user makes a good-faith edit does not mean the edit should stand soley for that reason. I asked you to discuss this, but you reverted instead. I have posted my concerns on this issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Pic caption debate, as the articles fall within the scope of the WP:AIR project. Feel free to address your concerns there, and be aware the project will expect its consensus to be followed, whatever that may be. - BillCJ 01:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're calling a wikipedia article "spam", you have a misunderstanding of what spam is. Please stop removing completely appropriate wikilinks. Akradecki 02:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

This is not an advertisement, it's real

Looks like you're going to have to track me...but now I want to read your discussion page for fun!!! You said "Heavier than air"...I said "Huh?"...just about two months ago I went wow dragon-riders of pern...but in INDIANA!!! I'm working so hard, nocturnally, to cut down the flak. The WWII jokes are so not funny anymore. Apparently my biggest problem has been with vanishing too fast, but now I'm 45 and living A Life. I'm here, you're still here, so here's my inbox: rlb85@hampshire.edu. ~ Otterpops 03:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Sorry I took out all your reference footnotes...I was looking for a long-term solution to the refs problem by using the Harvard citation system. American... rlb :)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Blanche Stuart Scott.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Blanche Stuart Scott.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Blanche Stuart Scott.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marie Marvingt stamp French 2004.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marie Marvingt stamp French 2004.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:An Eye for an Eye by Malorie Blackman.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:An Eye for an Eye by Malorie Blackman.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Knife Edge by Malorie Blackman.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Knife Edge by Malorie Blackman.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Knife Edge (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Knife Edge (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knife Edge (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]