User talk:Kweeket

Welcome

Hello, Kweeket, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 05:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Happy to help. And if you have an article with lots of references, and you want them to display smaller, you can use the template {{reflist}} in place of <references/>. Best--ShelfSkewed Talk 02:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weeley Railway

I made the image thumbnail smaller. Does that fix the sidebar problem? (It looked fine to me, but...) --Burger ca t 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WikiProject_Novels_announcements}} there.
While you are updating your userpage, don't forget our userbox {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach/User WPNOVELS}}.
The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but other methods are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines / template outlines some things to include.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style guideline

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Yon Ill Wind; Pet Peeve; Mitchell Hurwitz; The Source of Magic; Justin Grant Wade; Eleven on Top (novel); Night Mare; Top Banana; Midget; The Color of Her Panties; Tor Books; Ian Roberts (actor); Question Quest; Recurring character; Benjamin Pierce (governor); Development-induced displacement; Not Without My Daughter; Shakti (band); Zombie Lover

Cleanup: Adam McKay; Jeffrey Tambor; Jordan wood
Merge: Shadow Hearts; The Second City; Orion Syndicate
Add Sources: Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre; Dandruff; William Bonin
Wikify: Joseph Cosey; Best in Show (film); University of Peshawar
Expand: Doorbell; Claudia Schiffer; Demographic history of the United States

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007

The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Gently

I happened to see the script output on the page. "It has been" is used twice.

Due to these malfunctions, it has been ejected from civilisation with only a horse, as horses are rather cheap to produce. — Clearly not weasel words, but a statement of the plot.
Chaos theory, as it has been popularized, is therefore an appropriate context for this novel. — Not weasel words, per se, but it is an unsubstantiated opinion due to the second half, "Is therefore an appropriate context for this novel". I'm not sure what to do about it. Does that need a source?

In either case I crossed that line out of the review, as weasel words are not the issue. 67.85.254.111 18:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007

The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live and Let Die (film)

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your work on the Live and Let Die (novel) article. Keep it up. SpecialWindler talk 06:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationales

Here's a small thank you for giving so many images fair use rationales. Enjoy!--Bláthnaid 13:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie is seconded! Well done explanations of fair use! Haldrik (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Fair use" images

Thank you for assisting with Image:Loudspeakerrecipes.gif - even after several months of membership, I haven't had the time to respond to all possible critiques. Thanks! Ancjr 01:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Objects in Space"

Nice work, interesting read. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thanks

Hey there, just wanted to say thank you Rebeckah for helping with this fair use stuff on the Image:JeanPaulGaultier.jpg, wouldn't have done it myself tbh :D Nice webby you have there btw. thiste 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical analysis on individual episodes

I appreciate your motivation, but there is no way that critical analysis about a given program should be posted to articles about the individual episodes thereof. A link to analysis about the First Slayer might be appropriate in that article, but definitely not in the article about Restless. That stuff will have to come out of all the articles you've been putting it in.--Orange Mike 16:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC) _{Can't stop the signal!}[reply]

I agree, that's why I moved that analysis from Restless into the First Slayer. What do you mean, "all the articles you've been putting it in"? Kweeket 20:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wikistalking you, but I get the impression from your contributions in recent days that you have been rather enthusiastic in adding material to articles about individual episodes. I just wanted to caution you about only adding material which contributes to the readers' understanding of that particular episode, to avoid the problem we had here. --Orange Mike 22:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yes, I did go on a bit of a roll putting stuff from interviews and essays into the Buffy articles; honestly I think much more needs to be added. Right now the episode articles are little more than plot summaries, inexcusable given that Buffy - unlike many television shows - actually has a good amount of out-of-universe analysis already published. That being said, I'll try to ensure future additions are specific, and looking my past contributions over I think what is left is specific enough. Thanks for taking the time to wikistalk me :) Kweeket 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Revert

Sorry. I thought that "prostitution" wasn't supposed to be there. Oopsie. :-) —« ANIMUM » 22:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WttH

From what I've seen of the Buffy articles, they are total crap. Articles are not something you can just "template" together and leave empty sections for, each one requires thought and care, and though a template can be useful it should not be concrete. Anyway, I was only editing that to give a friend of mine who decided to join Wikipedia an idea of our policies and what stays and what goes. I personally have no interest in Buffy, although the state of every "buffyverse" article other than the main page for the series has shown me that the Wikiproject either doesn't care about making quality articles, or hasn't even tried --Lu c id 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an article isn't something that can be "templated" together. However, the fact remains that many people look to the project templates as an example of what an article should look like, and until that template changes, the missing sections will just be re-added over and over because people think they are doing the right thing. I was just trying to be friendly, pointing out that if you think all those sections are useless then it would be more effective to get the "standard" Buffy article changed than chip away episode by episode. And yes, some of the Buffy articles are crap, but the whole point of Wikipedia is that they become less crappy if we all work together. I am not a member of Project Buffyverse, but I think they do try and do care, despite what you believe - I just think some of their goals and standards are counter-productive (for example, having a "to-do" list for adding quotes and trivia to articles). Kweeket 01:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007

The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale disputed

The fair use rationale you added for Image:0762423641.01. SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg is disputed, as it is believed that the image does not meet the requirements for use of a nonfree image. You may state why you believe the image is appropriate under the nonfree image requirements if you wish. Also, please note that you may not display nonfree images on your talk page or outside article space, I've removed one left for you in a message. If you place a colon before the "Image:" in the wikilink, only a normal link, not the image itself, will appear. This is fine for non-article space. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vurt

"Do you think the new page should be Vurt (novel) or just Vurt? At any rate, I'd like to see it started; I found an interview by Jeff Noon where he talks about some of his inspirations, and a review by Time magazine. Kweeket 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"

In response to that I would say it would depend if vurt as a noun were ever going to need its own page, but I think that is unlikely, so just keep it as it is. Calg1 12:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The sources you turned up at Talk:List of Angel episodes look excellent. I was wondering, do you think you find some which offer analysis on specific characters as well as episodes (especially Buffy and Faith, as I'm rewriting their pages in my sandbox)? I'm asking because I'm terrible at finding reliable sources myself, all I seem to find are websites selling the DVDS or plot summaries. Anything which establishes the notablity of lesser known characters like Dawn and Xander would be extremely helpful as well. Thanks, and if you're too busy, I'll understand. Paul730 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad my googling was of use :) I recommend you look through Slayage, a peer-reviewed journal for "Buffy studies" first, because there are so many great sources there.

I also used Google Scholar to turn up these sources:

* The book Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale has several chapters devoted to Faith, for example "Also Sprach Faith: The Problem of the Happy Rogue Vampire Slayer" and "Faith and Plato: 'You're Nothing!'"

* The book Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in BtVS also discusses Faith, for example "Patterns of Mortality in Buffy" and "The Containment of Girls' Anger in Buffy"

* "Tomlinson: Responsibility and Murder in Buffy" contrasts Buffy and Faith's views on murdering humans (accidental or not)

* Sex and the Slayer: A Gender Studies Primer for the Buffy Fan analyses Dawn's role as a "Good Girl" (and Faith, of course, is a "Bad Girl"); Xander is analysed both a "Tough Guy" and a "New Man"

Kweeket 06:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. :) That will be a great help. Another editor actually recommended Google Scholar, but I didn't realise how helpful it would be. I'm especially glad to have the Xander/Dawn stuff, because I was having a friendly argument with the same editor about whether or not they were notable enough to have their own articles. I knew they were, I just couldn't prove it without sources. Anyway, thanks again! Paul730 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Somebody says Slayage isn't a reliable source on the Willow Rosenberg page because it's a blog? Just wondering whether you think it's a reliable source. Paul730 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I left on Webwarlock's talk page:

I saw you removed the analysis from Slayage from the Willow Rosenberg article, saying it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability because it is self-published. I had a look at the policy on self-published sources and it does point out that personal websites and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources - but "may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I think Slayage qualifies for that exemption, as the site owners, Rhonda V. Wilcox and David Lavery, are published authors in the field ("Why Buffy Matters: The Art of Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "The Forces: What's At Stake In Buffy The Vampire Slayer?") and many of the articles are copied with permission from other (non-self-published) books. It also appears to have a reputable editorial staff. Kweeket 23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've moved the discussion to here. Please take part. :) Paul730 23:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Bad

Hi Kweeket. Linking to comments sections or forum posts like that is unlikely to ever be acceptable on Wikipedia for a few reasons, the main one being that with a Buffy viewership in the millions, the opinions of four or so people can't possibly help "establish the general response of fans". In fact there are three positive comments about "Beer Bad" in there too, so you could conceivably use the same page to argue that it had a good response. With such a tiny number of people it's really not saying anything other than "A few people on the net say they dislike it, and a few people say they did like it", which'll be the case with every episode. The other problem is that we don't really know who these people are, they're essentially self-published, which is against Wiki policy on verifiability. Notable sources that comment on fan opinion are fine, but trying to gauge it ourselves with reference to a handful of essentially anonymous posts is not going to work. --Nalvage 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Angel

I've never watched the episodes you suggested. I can help out, but I really wouldn't know where to start. Let me know how I can, and I can take it from there. I have a strong reluctance to edit anything where some like BigNole seemingly spends the entire life willing their way across the articles with timeless devotion. --SquatGoblin 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I think wikipedia will be fun. Oddibe 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question I Hope You Can Help With

I know this is going to make me sound like a big dork, but just what -is- Wiki's policy on the hugely extensive plot summariers we have seen in the Angel TV series section? I know, this question doesn't make sense but I'm confused to, I just did some research and I've discovered a huge contradictory policy. Lots42 09:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it might help if I linked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot seems to be saying 'The more detailed the better' and that just doesn't sit right. Of course, my attempts to find one of those crazy 'This plot is too long' warnings I've used to see everywhere has failed. Lots42 09:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not an expert in Wiki policy by any means, but the plot guidelines for television episodes say "As a rough guide... no more than ten words per minute of screen time. For example, a 45 minute episode would warrant no more than 450 words." The guideline you linked above recommends plot summaries be "between 400 and 700 words." So I think a reasonable length for a 50-minute Angel episode is no more than 500 words, unless the episode was more simple than most.

For example, "To Shanshu in L.A." (at 490 words) is acceptable, although I think there is still some extraneous detail that could be easily cut without affecting a reader's understanding. "Eternity" is 540 words, so it's a bit too long. At a whopping 1,840 words, "Blind Date" is verging on copyright violation because the derivative work stands in for the commercial product.

The tag I think you're looking for is {{plot}}, which produces this:

Would you want to go through the Angel episodes tagging the ones that exceed 500 words? Actually, what would probably be even more helpful would be to compile a list of the worst offenders (the 1,500 ones) and post it on the List of Angel episodes talk page or on WikiProject Buffyverse. Kweeket 19:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What copyright did the expanded summary of Somnambulist" violate? Kweeket 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In researching your question more throughly, I have discovered a vast contradiction in Wiki-policy, so I shall be backing away from the whole topic for some time until I can figure out what in the name of fish sandwhiches is going on. Lots42 09:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked which copyright the expanded summary of "Somnambulist" violated because I thought you had discovered it was ripped off another site. I see now that your concern was that the excessive plot summary itself was infringing Angel's copyright. I think a 500-word-or-less summary of a 50-minute episode constitutes Fair use under United States copyright law, but you might want to do some digging into copyright issues as well as the Wiki policies surrounding them. Hope this helps! Kweeket 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007

The October 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for the comments! Brad 10:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your comments regarding episode articles on the admin board

After becoming embroiled in the seedy underbelly of Wikipolitics following TTN's attempt to merge all Angel episodes, I was starting to become discouraged from editing. What initially attracted me to Wikipedia was the idea that working together, we can incrementally create a great article - but some experienced editors on the discussion that followed made it sound as though official policy was merge/delete everything except GAs.

I just wanted to say that I think you've outlined your position very well on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes, basically articulating everything I wanted to say about the spirit of Wikipedia but didn't know how. So thanks. Kweeket 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I have been trying very hard to get this problem addressed, There are over 15,000 edits to be reviewed as this mass deletion had been actualy going on for over a year. People started with less popular shows. -- Cat ^chi? 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I do want to add that I am just one person, feel free to participate in the discussion agreeing/disagreeing with any of the points mentioned. -- Cat ^chi? 23:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Angel

My opinion has always been, merge all that clearly fail, leave ones that do not. If there are "on the fence" articles, then leave them long enough for editors to focus on those articles. If/when they are pushed over the fence to satisfy all relevant guidelines, then research some more and determine which episode that previous failed is more likely to pass with the new sources. Then start working on that episode till it is up to snuff, unredirect it from the LOE, and then repeat the process until you can safely say that no more episodes can meet the guidelines/policies at this time--which you'll never do because notability can happen at any moment, and for all we know all 110 could become notable in 5 years time. To answer you final question in a more clear manner, I think the ones on the fence are the ones that need the most attention. The ones that clearly fail have too many problems to focus you attention on, when you have ones that may just need a few weeks of work in order to get them over the hill. If you meet NOTE, RS, and V, then you're good. EPISODE is just a combination of those, plus a bit of MOS. You don't need to satisfy EPISODE to have an article, EPISODE is a content guideline and helps direct the article to more of a GA/FA structure. You can satisfy NOTE, RS, and V and just need general cleanup, which is where EPISODE comes in. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I will focus on group 3 first (those that have at least 2 sources, but need more reliable sources to establish notability and provide an out-of-universe perspective), as those articles tend to be tantalizingly close to meeting the necessary guidelines. I also corrected some of the problems you identified in "You're Welcome". Kweeket 00:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the correction, and appreciate the fact that my opinion was valued in that matter. You did some really good work fixing those articles too. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say great work on the Angel episode articles. :) Members of the Buffyverse Wikiproject mostly just update story sections and revert vandalism - It's reassuring to know that there are other editors concerned with making the Buffyverse pages fall into line with policies. Paul 730 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kweekit - yes, I'll do what I can to help on the Angel episodes. Thanks for the to do list - it's very helpful.VsevolodKrolikov 17:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that - what is your advice on integrating critical analyses of episodes? For example, one academic article cites the events in "Billy" with regard to post-feminist masculinity; another that Billy's uncle being a congressman is part of Dystopian themes in Angel overall. What section should these kinds of things go into? "Readings"? "Interpretations"? I can only take my leads from articles on literary works.VsevolodKrolikov 18:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to put that sort of thing in either a "Writing" subsection (under "Production details") or in a "Reception" section. I'm really glad you're interested in helping out! Also, if you find information but don't know where to put it, you can always use the Talk page for that episode and we can move it over later. Kweeket 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome--again

Actually, you did thank me, very nicely. But I'm all for spreading more goodwill throughout Wikipedia, so I don't mind being thanked again and replying that you are quite welcome. I hope you're having fun editing. --ShelfSkewed Talk 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faith

Thanks, I was going to move it over to the mainspace tonight, as a matter of fact. I've spent most of today prepping it, fixing sources, etc. I'm just waiting for Bignole to look over it and give me tips on what to do. I was working in my sandbox because it was such a total overhaul that I wanted to take my time and not feel pressured, I think it's presentable at the moment though. Do you have any opinions on it before I move it over? Paul 730 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved it over, if you want to look it over. It isn't finished yet, I'll continue working on it in the mainspace. Paul 730 03:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wyrms osc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wyrms osc.jpg. 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) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIX - December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 11:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XX - January 2008

The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read all of the Dianne Wynne Jones books, I was looking them up to see if I wanted to get them and was dissapointed by the dirth of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.200.52 (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robia La Morte Fact

I read that fact about Robia La Morte in an FAQ on IMDb when somebody asked why she never made any further appearances as the First. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.76.197 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXI - February 2008

The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --11:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy episode reverts

Hi, just to comment on your revert on Bad Girls (Buffy episode)‎ and Bad Eggs (Buffy episode)‎; I was slightly confused as to what the template might be referring to. (I've just realized that the disambig software I was using managed to replace the whole article! diff, and I've just fixed that (keeping your edits)). Anyway, I noticed that the article, after my initial linking has two links to the TV series - and I just was wondering as to whether one of the links should perhaps refer to the whole franchise: otherwise one of them is redundant, hence my revert.

In case you were wondering about that huge page change: the software is here (CorHomo) and the bug is documented here. Thanks The Missing Piece (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Content

This site pays anyone to write articles on any subject. The writers are paid by the numbers of visits their stories receive. Thus it qualifies as both self-published and spam, as they have clear economic reasons to create these links. This is the full reason I removed it in the first place. If there is no source to back it up, it should not be included. Please see Admin Noticeboard. I do believe that there is a growing consensus on this. I am reremoving the link, and would point out that it already has a reference. Stealthound (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIII - April 2008

The April 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008

The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested Development Taskforce Invite

Hey there. I couldn't help noticing that you appear to be interested in Arrested Development. I am interested in setting up a Arrested Development Taskforce to improve articles related to Arrested Development. At the moment I am just looking for people who are interested in joining. If you are interested in joining, please add your name here or contact me on my talk page. Thankyou, Joelster (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel timing template?

I noticed you removed the timing template from at lest one of the Angel episode articles. Was there a discussion I missed about this? Those were one of the most useful features of the articles. — Aldaron • T/C 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was during the big furor when a handful of people were trying to merge every Angel episode for being non-notable. Bignole thought the timing templates in particular were a clear indication of why all the Angel articles were poorly written fancruft, and while I was doing work on the articles I took them out because I didn't have strong feelings one way or another. Incidentally, the merge controversy (over Angel and other TV series) is why I've left Wikipedia; I don't want to deal with those who think every article has to be either flawless or deleted. If you want to add the templates back, feel free. --Kweeket ^Talk 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, deletionists are ruining Wikipedia. — Aldaron • T/C 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXV - June 2008

The June 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveBot (owner) 02:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all active WP:NOVELS members

WikiProject Novels Roll Call

WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved!

Next month we will begin the coordinator election selection process. We hope to have more involvement and input this time around! More news will be forthcoming. Thanks, everyone! María (habla conmigo) 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - September 2008

This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

GA reassessment of Live and Let Die (novel)

I am conducting a review of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. There are several concerns which have been left at Talk:Live_and_Let_Die_(novel)/GA1, which need to be addressed if the article is to retain GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Vancouver International Film Festival; Bodhmall; Redemption; Murk; Liath Luachra; Night Terrors (Buffy novel); Melmoth the Wanderer; After Image (Buffy novel); Four Star Mary; Loren D. Estleman; Helmond; Filler; Sweet; Jack Faust; Constantine I; Watcher; Sire; China Relief Expedition; Dana

Cleanup: Buffyverse canon; Christian Kane; Y'all
Merge: Aaron Echolls; Dividend imputation; Against a Dark Background
Add Sources: Pylea; The Bronze; Mister Trick
Wikify: Alien hand syndrome; Self-Strengthening Movement; Old Coulsdon
Expand: The Magic Box; Fray; Old One

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:UCBSupercool.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UCBSupercool.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2010 (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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Memoirs of a Survivor 1st edition.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Memoirs of a Survivor 1st edition.gif. 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) 17:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]