User talk:Ricardiana/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

requesting some assistance and advice

Ricardiana, I've rewritten the Unification of Germany article, and nominated it for GA. It's been reviewed a couple of times, and suggestions to take out headers, etc., have been incorporated. I've also shortened it to a brief 88. (!! yes, I know, LONG). A potential reviewer has told me that it should be shortened, or split, and that I should add headers and subheaders, because it is too long to read. Well, it is long, although only slightly longer than the one on Italian unification, and it's a big topic. so I need some advice, or possibly a GA assessor who isn't intimidated by a long article. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Auntieruth55 - sure, I'll review the article for GA, if you don't mind it taking a few days (I have a schedule of work I have to do for my dissertation). The topic is interesting to me, so I won't mind the length. Let me know if the time issue won't be a problem for you. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

no, of course time isn't an issue.  :) I've mentioned the problem to another history project member, and I think he might look at it as well -- not sure. This first possible reviewer is 16--do you suppose that might be part of his issue? I don't think anything about reading something 17 pages long, but, like you, I'm a doctoral student....soooooo.....:) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then I will read the article and make comments over the next few days. Since the first reviewer doesn't want to, like, read the article, I think he'll have to withdraw from reviewing so that somebody else can be the official passer/failer. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, yes, I agree. He didn't actually put the template on the review notice, so there doesn't seem to be a problem. Jackyd also said he'd take a look in the next couple of days. He's a dedicated history geek, and does good work, like you. I'm off to be a disciplined dissertation writer now, so talk to you later! --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your comments on the Review page. Let me know what you think...added images as well--so it's back to 88 kb.  :) And adding to the praise (below), that HB article is wonderful! Ruth--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Best, Ricardiana (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on the well-deserved star for The Hardy Boys. Finetooth (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Finetooth! Your thoughtful comments were invaluable, and I really appreciate the time you put into the article. Ricardiana (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I too, would like to congratulate you. Great job on The Hardy Boys! WHLfan (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, WHLfan - I appreciate that. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Congratulations on doing a great job on The Hardy Boys. Jonyungk (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonyungk - your review was very helpful. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature/Selected quote

Thanks again for your work at Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature/Selected quote. Were you thinking of adding in sourced quotes for slots 16 through 20? Cirt (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was, but I got sidetracked by various things. Would that be helpful? I could add more, if you want.... Ricardiana (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that would certainly be helpful. I initially added slots up to 20 because 10 is usually seen as a minimum number of entries per selection for WP:FPORT, and 20 or so is ideal. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see - well, I will start looking for pictures to go with quotations and try to get the list up to 20. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much! Cirt (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see we are now up to 20 quotes. Thank you! Cirt (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure! It was fun. I'm working on adding to the anniversaries now. Please revert if I do anything wrong. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Extra spaces in Chinese classifier

I've been having trouble getting rid of that; particularly, there's one at the beginning of the Neutralization section that seems really obvious. I can't get anything to work, though; it seems to be a problem somewhere in the {{lang}} template, but I'm not sure just where. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, I think I fixed it here. Wasn't a template problem, it was a problem from my keyboard...I had accidentally typed a Chinese space instead of an English one :P rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see - I tried to fix one too and reverted b/c my change didn't work. I forgot about the Chinese spaces - my desktop has taken to using them as the default, for some reason, and I'm always having to toggle back over to English. Ricardiana (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

I see you've passed Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Thank you for your magnanimity, considering how we disagreed about the plot summary. Of course I may find the article's GA a poisoned chalice, if I have to spend much time defending the article against fancruft :-/

Please don't take offence at at what I 'm about to say. I think it would help if you relaxed a bit. Some of your phrasing in the review struck me as stiff and authoritarian - and I admit I can be prickly about such perceptions. Talk:Flatworm/GA3 and Talk:Ctenophore/GA1 are recent reviews where the reviewer and I had a little fun over our differences of perspective. When GA reviewing others' articles, I'm always ready for a joke, and I preface many of my critical comments with "I don't see how .." or "How does ...", etc.

I admit I'm still uneasy about the length from the plot summary in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and have been through it several times looking for things I can cut without making obvious holes in it - which someone would then patch, probably verbosely. If someone edits and / or posts a specific suggestion at the Talk page, I'll consider it seriously. -Philcha (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not offended; perhaps you're right; this past month has been particularly stressful. I see your point about cruft; good luck with re-working the summary. Perhaps someone will come up with a wonderful suggestion. Ricardiana (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope so, I'm clean out of ideas. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Stanwyck

There are several things wrong with the edits you made to this article. First of all, changing the references to include a list of books and articles that are not being used in the article is incorrect. They aren't references that are being used in the article. If you want to put the material on the talk page so that it could possibly be used, or make it a further reading section, fine, but don't imply they are references used in the article. Secondly, we do not put the "thumb" limiter in the infobox, it has its own default sizing. Thirdly, IMDB is fine as a source for film credits and awards. The reliability factor comes into play with biographies, trivia and other such user submitted data on that site. If you want to challenge the All Movie reference, put a verification needed tag on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I have changed the references to "Bibliography," which is an academically-accepted term for relevant but not necessarily cited sources.
2. I have been specifically told during successful GA reviews/FAC candidacies that IMDb is not acceptable, ever. Nor is All Movie. Sorry.
3. Citations are not required in the lead, and thus neither are citation needed tags. Ricardiana (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Then add the references when you use them, in properly formatted style and do not tell me to go read WP:Reliability. That is an essay, it is not a policy. You must mean WP:RS. You have been incorrectly about IMDB, I have been told in FA and GA reviews that IMDB is acceptable for film credits and awards, so it seems that reviewers have different viewpoints on that. As it is, IMDB film credits and the like are submitted from proper sources and vetted against actual credits listings. When content in the lead is not contained in the body of the article, then citations most certainly are required. Finally, in general on Wikipedia, the term bibliography is used to indicate publications by the article subject. You should be very aware that there are interested editors out there who take quite an interest in the Barbara Stanwyck article and will likely have comments of their own about what is done. A huge concern will be about images and how they are sized and may not know what to make of edit summaries like " This article really needs refs so we can talk about Stanwyck without whinging that she wasn't - horrors! - gay". Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for providing the incorrect link. We'll have to look into the IMDb matter, but for now, WP:LEAD is pretty clear that there should be no information in the lead that is not in the article. If others have concerns about the article, or misunderstand my edit summaries, they can say so. Ricardiana (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: IMDb, this user, a frequent and rightly respected reviewer of sources at FAC, deprecates the use of IMDb and similar sites for any but the most basic information, and even then a book source is preferable; I should note that at least one book exists detailing Stanwyck's film career, making IMDb superfluous. Ricardiana (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Symphonic Poems (Liszt) at FAC

You've really done a lot for this article already in peer review, but I have submitted it to FAC and would really appreciate your vote and feedback—Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Symphonic Poems (Liszt)/archive1. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jonyungk - I will take a look; it may take me a day or two. Ricardiana (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate it. Jonyungk (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Snowman (fairy tale)

Hi, Ricardiana! Thank you for reviewing the above. I've reworked the article with your excellent recommendations and look forward to your feedback! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - I look forward to taking another look at the article tomorrow or next day. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for passing the article to GA! I'm thrilled! My first GA! You're a great reviewer with a lot of insight and knowledge about what it takes to build a good article! And I love your review format! All the best! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Ricardiana (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tom Swift

The article Tom Swift you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Tom Swift for things needed to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ricardiana. Guess you've noticed by now that I passed the article. You've done some good work with it - congratulations. I'm eager to see what peer review comes up with.

Anyway, I just put Isolina Ferré on hold, and I noticed that you were the original reviewer. I don't think you should get involved in this again, but if you like, feel free to take a look at my comments there. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Nikkimaria, thank you about Tom Swift, and thanks also for the link to your comments on Isolina Ferre; you're right, any statement from me at this point would only raise hackles, but I'm interested to see what happens and I hope the editors treat your suggestions with courtesy, as they deserve. Thanks also for your thoroughness at the Tom Swift review; obviously I didn't agree with a few of them, but I appreciated your sharp eye for detail. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Five

Thanks very much for looking over this article—though frankly the more feedback I read, the more I may wait and totally rework the article when I can give it my full attention, instead of squeezing it between Symphonic poems (Liszt) in FAC and Choral symphony back in peer review. For this reason, if I don't respond to your feedback, please do not be offended. I really appreciate the time you're putting into it. Jonyungk (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. This is a great way for me to brush up on my music history, so I'm enjoying it. Thank you for the heads-up, though. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Lucy poems

Is there anything major left that needs to be addressed? I wont be around much this weekend, and I wanted to make sure that everything was covered before then. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything major, no. Ricardiana (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then hopefully Kafkaliz and Ceoil can take care of anything else. I updated the list at the GA review and I think everything is covered (but covered in a good way, well, who knows :) ). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I covered anything outstanding now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

on The Hardy Boys making featured article of the day. Jonyungk (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonyungk - that's very kind of you. All the vandalism is kind of pain, but it's still nice to see it there. ~By the way, I finally finished reviewing Tchaikovsky and the Five. I'm sorry it took me so long; I had to do a lot of work on my dissertation over the past few days. Ricardiana (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right place, but indeed I see how my reference of the Hardy Boys being mentioned in EPMD's song is not a reliable source, though I know it is true. Can the song be the source? Patro (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable; you don't own articles, and others are allowed to edit them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are. They are not, however, supposed to repeatedly deleted SOURCED info. Ricardiana (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends, but if you find yourself in a content dispute with another editor, the best course of action would be to discuss it with them in a professional and civil manner. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to discuss with anonymous ISPs. In any case, I am currently discussing edits on the article's talk page and I have also tried to discuss some changes on editors' talk pages, without response; and while my edit summary is inappropriate, your claim that I don't wish for others to edit the article is simply false. The edit history shows many edits remain in place; I have undone only those that a) added information that cannot be reliably sourced and b) that deleted sourced information. Next time, please check that what types of edits are being made and if discussion has been initiated before chastising me. Ricardiana (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not chastising you at all. Do you think "Seriously, fuck off" is a civil and professional remark? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see above: "my edit summary is inappropriate." Why are you beating a dead horse? Further, your initial comment did not focus on the summary but on my editing, and, again as above, to claim that I think I own the article and am not amenable to dialog is contrary to the facts I've outlined. Ricardiana (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Congratulations on getting the article on the main page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm disruptive???

I have read the policies. And I am not afraid to take the same tactic with your edits. You do not own the article. The change I made was minor and did nothing to take away what you apparently want to have said. However, the heading was more factually correct. I won't repeat what I said on the talk page, but you are being disruptive yourself. Allow others to at least have some input. User:Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See my reply on the article's talk page, and please actually address my comments and the policies rather than repeating yourself ad infinitum. Ricardiana (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. [comment from User:Don'tKnowItAtAll]

Three Revert Rule

Please be aware that you have violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule at The Hardy Boys. Since there is clearly a heated discussion going on at the moment I will not be reporting this assuming no more edits are made. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't keeping track -- sorry about that. Thanks for the warning. Ricardiana (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Great news

I was going to drop you this link and this one and make some comments about your objectivity and willing to be constructive as an editor, but I saw your messages here and on your page and I realized you already know that. Bon voyáge on your departure form here! Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand how this got where it is. This guy seems nice from his talk page, and of course I've always worked well with you. It sounds to me like this dispute really needed a third party. I only wish I'd taken the article on sooner. Serendi^podous 22:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so. You did great work, by the way. The article is looking great now. Ricardiana (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Email

I've emailed you. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Awadewit. I've replied. Ricardiana (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardy Boys

Please see my note. None of my words were intended to disparage you but only a comment on the current state. The edit warring and removal is really problematic and unfair. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ottava - thank you, I appreciate that. Ricardiana (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your continuing contributions to and tireless thrashing through choral symphony, Symphonic poems (Liszt) and Tchaikovsky and the Five. You have really helped out a lot and your efforts have been truly appreciated. Awarded by — Jonyungk (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Exploration_of_Jupiter

I admire your patience in sticking with this GAR. I also liked your concluding comment "looks to me like it is now a Good Article - your Good Article [i.e. Serendipodous'], however, not the original editor's". I'm afraid I already know the original editor's pattern - mine some existing GAs (relatively recent ones that pass current criteria) and produce a pastiche, as I've previously seen in a dinosaur article and in a Roman history article. The predictable results are duplication of content and pastiches that lack both breadth and focus in coverage. --Philcha (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Philcha - I've felt rather like an idiot not letting it go, but on the plus side the article is much better now. Thanks for your kind words. Ricardiana (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re "felt rather like an idiot not letting it go", I'm even more guilty - probably too reluctant to fail articles where I can see the potential but the editors don't deliver, or deliver very slowly. --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your brilliant work and superb articles! Great 'reads'! Thank you! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Choral symphony support

Thanks very much for your support of this article at FAC, and for all the work you put into it in peer review. It sounds from your comments that you re-read the article before posting. If that is the case, then thank you for taking the extra time and effort to go through it—it shows a lot of integrity and a willingness to go "above and beyond the call" that are both greatly appreciated.Jonyungk (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're very kind. I sort of cheated on re-reading the article - I went to the history and did the "compare selected versions" thing, so I don't really deserve credit for a true re-read. I saw lots of changes to the prose in particular that I thought were really helpful - breaking up long sentences, adding little unobtrusive side explanations, etc. I hope you get your star soon! Ricardiana (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I left a few comments on the peer review page for Tom Swift. Nice work. Jonyungk (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome - many thanks - I'll try to work on your comments soon (need to write a few more pages of my dissertation first). Ricardiana (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Hi Riardiana, I just wanted to thank you again for your review of The Lucy poems. I know this note is long overdue; please accept my apologies. Some Real Life stuff has pulled me away from Wikipedia for a time, and will keep me away for a while yet. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bartered Bride

I have nominated at FAC. Thank you for your contributions and encouragement at peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I hope you get BB gets the star it deserves soon. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lucy poems

Hey again Ricardiana. I'm not decided on wheather I'm over entusactic or just an pain idiot, but I've re-nomed the above at FAC, again. Well, lets see how it goes. Anyway, I wanted to thank you again for such a spot on GA review; it was very gratifying that you went to such detail, and much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and thank you for the kind words. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude..

What is "keep reading, friend?" supposed to imply? I just asked why the citation was missing for Franklin Dixon pseudonym? Why be so control freakish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.29.27 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tom Swift barnstar

I was most honoured by your award of a star for my Tom Swift review. With some articles, working on them is its own reward, and I look forward to your further output. I fear I am a poor distributor of barnstars (I've never worked out how to do it properly) but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate your comments and support for my own articles. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for the barnstar - hopefully The Hardy Boys will calm down soon. :) Who knew, eh? Awadewit (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You were right

about the vandalism on Symphonic poems (Liszt) since it became featured article for the day, but at least people are reading it and some of the changes people have made have really been helpful. Thanks very much for the congratulations. BTW, are you going to send Tom Swift to FAC anytime soon? Just wondering. Jonyungk (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't thought it was worth sending Tom Swift to FAC since the section on the fifth series is so short. Maybe I will though, since you mention it. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Chan/GA1

I hope you don't mind, but I decided to review this page. I looked at it once before a while back, and no one reviewed it yet. The only major problems that I see is that the lead is short and there is a section that is missing some citations. For the lead, I would have three paragraphs - 1. the character and the books. 2. the adaptations. 3. the critical response. About 6 sentences per paragraph. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ottava, for this. I'll try to work on your comments soon. Ricardiana (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to mark it on hold or limit you time wise. Just whenever you get around to it drop me a line. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I appreciate that. Will do. Ricardiana (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is GA quality and I can pass it right now without you having to fix two of the concerns (mix references and notes is a null concern and just for aesthetics, and the other about a tiny section doesn't matter for GA). By the way, if you want to expand that section, this might help. Some other bits can be found here. Mention of the board game here. But yeah, the page is now GA quality, or, as far as I am concerned, a "good article". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Passed. If you want to take it to FAC, I would recommend hunting down some encyclopedias dealing with the comics and working on changing the lead a little so that the Chinese reception is with the controversy (both represent cultural discussions as oppose to the Chinese reception being included with media appearances). Cheers. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a nice surprise - thanks! especially for the references. I will see if my library has them and if not ILL them. I will continue working on the lead, as well - I hadn't quite gotten to the end. Thanks again. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the article interesting and it is definitely a good article. It was mostly one to begin with and only needed a few tweaks. Good luck. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

noun plus -ing

Hi Ricardiana—I feel guilty having left you hanging on this topic. My intransigence was mainly because I felt confused by the grammatical issue you raised: your posts certainly made me think it through again, although I'm not sure I've arrived anywhere yet. People have started another thread on my talk page, but unfortunately I'm going away for 10 days. I've left a morsel there. Tony (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tony - thanks for your reply; it's very kind, and I'm glad you haven't forgotten. ~ I will check out your talk page when I get a chance (I'm finishing up teaching a summer course, so this is a busy week for me). Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

support for FA on German Unification

Hi, me again, with the r e a l l y long Germany article.  ;) It was not promoted to FA last month, ostensibly because there wasn't enough support (only 2 people read it, plus one person read a part of it and made a series of strange edits). If I nominate it again next week, would you take the time to read and comment? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've renominated the Unification of Germany article. I think we're reasonably good on it. I'd appreciate your support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I will try to take a look at it in the next few days. Ricardiana (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom Swift alt text for images

I will fix these if you like. Great article, I will be supporting shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian, that's very kind of you - I appreciate it. Ricardiana (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Chinese classifier

Hey Ricardiana,

Since you commented on the last FAC, I thought I should inform you that this article is up for FAC again, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese classifier/archive2. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rjanag - thanks for letting me know. I will definitely look at the article again and comment at FAC. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Anna George

Hi Ricardiana! I otice that last month and this month you politely informed Anna George that she should not add bookstore and other advertising links to articles on Wikipedia. I think that you should also have added appropriate user warnings. She continues to do the same thing elsewhere on Wikipedia. I have retroactively added a {{uw-spam1}} warning to your July admonition regarding Hardy Boys; another {{uw-spam1}} warning for your August comment regarding the Hardy Boys; a {{uw-spam2}} warning for your comment regarding Nancy Drew; and, finally, a new {{uw-spam3}} warning for her linkspam addition to Agatha Christie. Thus, the next time it occurs, she should receive a {{uw-spam4}} warning, which will result in her access to Wikipedia being blocked. Thank you for your July and August comments to her talk page. They were very conscientious! — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, SpikeToronto, and thanks for the update and for taking the time to post here. From now on, I'll know what to do! Best, Ricardiana (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I received an email from Anna George regarding the warnings given to her for placing linkspam on the Agatha Christie, Hardy Boys, and Nancy Drew pages. I believe it to be a good faith attempt to comply with wikipolicies, albeit while also benefitting her employer. However, I did not want to respond via email to someone on whose page I have escalated the warnings to level three. Heretofore my actual email address has been protected by Wikipedia’s email response system. Thus, I cut and pasted the enquiry to her Talk page here, and responded to it as best I could. Also, I felt that wiser heads may have a better answer to her enquiry than did I. In any event, you may wish to peruse it for any errors on my part as well as adding in your own 2¢ worth, should you so choose. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats on Tom Swift becoming an FA. Jonyungk (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonyungk - I appreciate that. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Chan PR

Thanks for the note. I actually check my contributions, so I saw you had replied, but I don't always catch PR replies. I enjoyed the article and hope my comments help improve it further - if I have any further thoughts I will bring them up on the PR or talk page. I do recal that there was one place that needed a ref (I think it was the board game). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chinese classifier

Thanks, especially for all your help in the GA review! And I'm glad you find the article useful and informative—as far as I'm concerned, that means a lot more than the little star! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi Ricardiana/Archive 2! An article you have been involved with has been tagged as being in need of further sources to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Double-barrelled name.

Hi there!

I hope I'm not coming across as a cantankerous person who throws in an oppose at the last minute. I genuinely believe that if you incorporate these and other sources, you'll have a great article. You may need to do some detective work, and it may take some time, but I think it could be fun.

Regardless of how the FAC turns out, if you need any help with the sources (in accessing them, for example, or in discussing them), please let me know and I'll be delighted to help. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. This is a busy weekend for me, but I am going to the library tomorrow and will do what I can; if I run into a snag locating something, I'll drop you a line and take advantage of your kind offer. Ricardiana (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Chan

What would be a preferable way to illustrate that section? The games maybe? Pepso2 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In order to use a copyrighted image, you have to explain on the image's page why the image is necessary to the understanding of the article - not that it enhances it, but that a reader couldn't possibly understand the article without it. These images don't qualify. Soon I'm going to nominate the article for Featured Status, so the question of images will come up then, and you can see what others have to say besides me. Ricardiana (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3