User talk:Belovedfreak/Archive 13

1310:

a completely different climate to Europe. Both gardeners I added are published and well known within the organic movement so I thought would satisfy the 'notability' required (C Dowding writes for magazines and appears on television) so I am unsure what I am doing wrong? I am enthusiastic about no dig gardening especially because it is so useful for sufferers of arthritis and other such illnesses like myself, but I am definately not either gardener (and I'm a woman, but that's probably not obvious from my name.) Would it help to create a 'stub' or entry for the gardeners in order to demonstrate their notability? Best wishes

310:. There is a fascinating story I found out about while doing research for the Bilche Zolote article, involving Ukrainian Jews hiding in some caves during the Holocaust. Their story was discovered and made known to the world by an amateur American spelunker named Christos Nicola. At any rate, Christos Nicola apparently added a link to his home page, where there is further information regarding this story and the caves he explored while getting it, which is actually a very relevant and very cool link! 31: 1363:. For example, the article mentions Esther Dean, someone who doesn't have an article, and says that she was a pioneer and inspired other gardeners. this is unsourced, which is problematic in itself, but there is at least reason for mentioning her. If you want to contribute to the article by improving the coverage of British no-dig gardening, you might be better off looking for newspaper or magazine articles or books about the topic and including that information. Regards, -- 1951:

strategy to increase the number of visits on the McCord Museum Website. Neither was it done with the intention of selling products. Our objective is to give access and to share well-documented resources and a valuable image database of over 135 000 images. The majority of these resources were made possible and images digitized with public funds. It is part of the museum's mission to let people know these resources are available. If you look at the link I had place in

1756: 2187: 2118: 1615: 1542: 711: 429: 362: 1813: 109: 1935: 949: 517:

reasons. Multiple messages, including warnings, on his talk page have had no impact. My revert was a knee-jerk reaction motivated by frustration. But, at the same time, my recollection was that the film had British financing, and since he offered no explanation for his change, I reverted. If I am incorrect, please revert me. Cheers! ---

1865:- We now have some clear leaders on the board in all three Gold Star categories, and many people have qualified for the various barnstars. It is not too late to participate, as it takes just 2,000 words (pre-edit) to qualify for a barnstar! Don't wait! Start participating today. Remember, the ultimate winner is Knowledge. 1960:

cost. Again there is no intention of selling a product or making any profits. Like you suggested, I will not re-add the links without discussing it on the article's talk. I have also created I new account WebPoisson, which I will now be using. Should I always discuss it before adding external links to article. Thanks--

1005:

of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page.

905:

Given recent history, I'll restore your BLPUnreferenced tag once the ban has ended and may ask your opinion on other articles where I strongly disagree with another writer. I don't feel a bio can be written successfully in the situation before the semi-protect but felt I had to do something about the

313:

However, I noticed that you tagged his links as being a possible conflict of interest, which I agree with you - it very well may be. But as the main contributor to these articles, I actually would love to have those links there - they'd contribute a lot to the support for the article - and would lead

1309:

Hello, I am not sure why my post was deleted but it's my first go so I have probably made some kind of error. I was wanting to update the no dig gardening page to include well known British no dig gardeners because the site mainly mentions gardeners from New Zealand and Australia which of course has

807:

Hi, thanks for those links. I don't think it's too much of a mess, because I think that the Knowledge article as it is now pretty much reflects what happened, although needs a bit or rewording. The AfterEllen link I added, while not good enough for the direct quote, gives a good explanation I think.

584:

Thanks for your reply. When I have a moment, I am going to look for a source for that film and try to settle the issue. In the meantime, administrator intervention may be necessary. I am going to talk to a couple editors who have also attempted to speak to the problem-makers, and we will see what we

206:

Aah, i must have missed that particular part. I believe that AIAV was a tad backlogged when i handled the report which may have caused me to work a bit faster by going directly to the users contributions. I gave the warning because i saw another count of vandalism which had not been reverted yet; It

1950:

Hello Belovedfreak, I received your message concerning the external links I had added to some articles. The McCord Museum is a public research and teaching museum dedicated to the preservation, study, diffusion and appreciation of Canadian history. The external links that I added were not part of a

1088:

it's always best to err on the side of caution. I actually noticed that edit and intended to investigate further with a view to removing it, but got sidetracked and forgot. If you're ever in doubt as to whether your removal of information might be contested, it's worth leaving a note on the article

683:

I understand it may be frustrating because your link has been up for years, but unfortunately that is not a good enough reason to keep it. It just means that no one got around to deleting it before. As I say though, please feel free to add useful content to the article. it looks like you know a lot

1048:

article seems a little too suspicious to me. First, I haven't been able to find any corroborating source for it; second, Mr. Torres was recently traded to the Buffalo Sabres; and third, reviewing the article history, that particular section is a favorite target for vandalism; fourth, the next edit

824:

article is ok to leave as a reference because although they've taken her out of context and we can't really trust their declaration that she is bisexual, there is a direct quote from her saying "I'm not a lesbian. I'm bi"; so it shows where the misunderstanding arose. Let me know if you think more

1959:

article gave access to over 200 images of moccasins. For this article, I noticed that the only link that was deleted was the one I added. As you will also see, we are using the Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works License from Creative Commons, which permits sharing of these images at no

901:

Hi Belovedfreak. I much prefer shipwrecks and maybe writing about politicians and hating personal attacks don't go together. Andrew Roth's one liners are quite often used, this is the first positive one I've ever seen and I got overexcited. H2G2 kindly moved it to mid-article and I'll follow that

780:

Hi Belovedfreak. I note you seem not completely happy with the bisexual refs in this article. I think things are even worse than that. The Diva interview is not even with KH, it's with her co-star, and although it says she's bisexual, it does not actually quote her as saying that, and may well be

176:

you can see that this is likely an IP switching vandal who's ISP is Grameenphone Ltd, located in Bangladesh. The vandalism from the range seems to have died down for now though so i don't think a range-block will be that effective (If they stopped editing blocking the range will only hit innocent

1350:

If you are indeed a different person, then I apologise for my wrong assumption, but I'm sure you can see where it came from. You say that Charles Dowding writes for magazines and appears on television; he may well meet our guidelines for inclusion, although that is not guaranteed. Have a look at

1330:

a) it didn't seem to add much to the article. You basically named two people who practise no-dig gardening, with no context and nothing to say why they are notable. Individuals do not necessarily need to have an article already to be mentioned in another article, but there should be a reason for

267:

Hello. Yes, in some ways you're right. It's generally not required to add citations for the plot or synopsis section of an article about a book or a film. It can be assumed that the work itself is the source. The problem is that the article is completely unsourced. This means that the article is

320:

I'm going to go ahead and (on my own without any prompting from anyone) re-instate the links to Christos Nicola's home page in those articles - I honestly think they improve the article. Since it is I - not Christos - who is doing this, I am of the assumption that there now will no longer be a

2055:

2. I disagree with the (very generalized and inaccurate) accusation of dominance over other editors. The changes being made by some editors suggest tag-team efforts. Example are unsubstantiated mass reverts and unsupported deletions that appear to support personal opinion. This is what I have

541:

Hey, thanks for the reply. I can certainly understand, it can be very frustrating when an editor has a mixture of constructive & unconstructive edits, with no communication. I've reverted it for now because the IMDb entry says its only American. Of course, IMDb doesn't always have all the

516:

Thanks for your message. In reply, the editor who made that change has a habit of repeatedly changing categories, infoboxes, templates, etc., in film articles without explanation. He never uses an edit summary, and makes the same changes again even when other editors revert him and give their

873:

Hello, sorry I've only just read this message. I see that the page has been semi-protected for the moment so hopefully there won't be problems for a bit. I'm don't totally agree with you removing the BLPUnreferenced tag as it still required more references and it is still a BLP. Having the

1984:

there. That's not to say that your suggestions will automatically be dismissed, but where there is a conflict, it's best to let others decide. Sometimes article talkpages aren't very active so if you don't get responses, you can always check on the value of adding a particular link at the

882:

on negative information, but I'm a little surprised you edited the article so that it started off with "Described by Andrew Roth in The Guardian as "One of the best educated and most internationally experienced MPs..." - that's not a very neutral way to start an article! Anyway, with the

1680: 1975:

Thanks for your message. With regards to adding links in the future, it's a good idea to check with other editors, particularly if they are familiar with the Knowledge article in question. I appreciate that you had good intentions when adding links to your website. Knowledge

1068:

I've manually reverted the edit in question but, since I'm new to Knowledge, I wanted to give you a heads-up here on your talk page, just in case I'm wrong. If I am, then please let me know either here or on my talk page (constructive criticism is always welcome). --

2015:. A new editor has got into it and is making extensive changes (and behaving pretty dominantly towards other editors). I'm not sure if the changes are neutral, and thought I'd let you know as you're likely to be a far better judge than me. Cheers 1989:. Make sure that you make clear your involvement with the website, and I'm sure editors will appreciate your openness and give you the right advice. You're obviously on the right tracks though, so thanks for your willingness to learn the ropes! -- 619:

my link to my website has been on this wikipedia Euston arch page for many years and now just because I have a change of url you want to delete it. must have been a link to my site on this page for around 5 years. why now do you want to delete

1252:

You're welcome, glad to be of some help. Good luck with the GA process; it's probably a good idea to let the "dust settle" and work on something else for a while. Getting a bit of distance can help you look at it with fresh eyes again.

855:

and removed libellous material. Unfortunately what I regard as POV unbalanced quotations are still being added by IPs ahead of the UK election -and removed. I've requested a neutrality check but any other suggestions would be welcomed.

280:. This will help demonstrate notability, and depending on what you find, could help you to expand the article further, if you so wish. If you can't find any reliable sources, that might indicate a problem with notability. Regards, -- 177:

users). If vandalism continues from that range you might want to ask for a rangeblock - personally i think that the company has divided its range into multiple parts as 119.30.39.0/23 seems to catch every vandal on those pages.

785:

interview, going by the date of it, is probably the one that is being referred to, and although this may be an edited version of the interveiw, it makes no mention of these things. However, she does say things about it in

883:

semi-protection, problems with unregisetered users will have gone away for the time being. I'm not really familiar with the topic, but let me know if you need my help on anything. I'll keep it on my watchlist for now.--

1379:

Thank you, that makes sense now. I am definately not Charles but see what you mean. Will consider what you have said and attempt a repost which is more appropriate in a general British no dig gardening way. Thank you!

122: 790:

interview (fourth paragraph below the red car) that somewhat contradict what were being told. It all seems a bit of a mess, and unfortunately I can't afford the time or effort to sort it out right now. Regards,

1824: 657:

that should be included in articles, and after looking at your website, I can't see anything that makes it a vital addition. If you want to add your link somewhere, you might want to try somewhere like the

1344:

which lead me to make the assumption that you are the same person. If that's not the case, then I'm curious as to why you used almost the exact wording from the earlier edit, and so soon after that was

1857:

If we "concentrate our firepower" we can wipe out Jan, Feb, and March 2008, meaning the drive will have cleared four months off the backlog queue. Please consider copyediting from one of these months.

252:. I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to cite it; my information comes from the book itself, which I own and have read a few times. Isn't it kind of meta to cite the book on an article about a book? 1854:

insane, so a new target was set: we hope to reduce the to backlog to less than 7,500 items in the queue by the end of the month. The number in the queue was 7,950 as of close of business yesterday.

1871:- For those who have indicated that you will be working on certain articles on the drive page in your respective tally box, please ensure that you complete these copyedits as soon as possible. 1184:

I added some new parts and changed others. There are probably still a few errors here and there, but I would like to have your updated opinion about how the article is developing. Thank you.

297: 190:

Thanks for your reply. I thought you'd given the warning as a response to my report, which mentioned the other block, but not to worry; just trying to understand your reasoning! Cheers, --

2071:

I'm not sure how much of that is directed at me; I'm not assuming bad faith about anyone. I'm glad you're willing to discuss this, but I would appreciate it if you could do so at

969: 325: 1224:

I really appreciate any copy-editing that you have been doing on the article. I will run through you suggestions for changes and do some research in the week-end. Thank you.

1760: 1154:

You're welcome. Don't be discouraged; it's a good article (with a small "g"!) and well on its way. Let me know if you'd like me to have another look at it at a later date.--

787: 1024: 1001: 973:. You have helped to ensure our project has a better idea of the articles under our scope. I appreciate your efforts in further helping the project! --Happy editing! 1955:, it gave access to over 2,000 images that could be very useful to researchers, students or any person interest in this subject. Also the link that was added to the 1355:. If he does meet the criteria, then you could write an article on him. Please don't do this though if you are him, or if you are connected to him in any way (see 1078: 1980:

though, so we do need to be very selective. I would also recommend that you always get consensus for adding links to this particular website as you have a clear

1961: 695: 604: 579: 553: 536: 261: 2000: 1341: 2045: 878:. It's best to err on the side of caution with BLPs.As for the POV problem, you are right that it's important not to have unsourced negative information or 2283: 2100: 2086: 1838:

waiting to be edited has been reduced drastically, with almost all of the remaining items having editors committed to getting them done. Good work, people!

1835: 614: 1415: 1388: 1374: 1311: 1238:

Thank you for all your work. I just finished the clean-up of the article and I'll let the dust settle down before applying for GA article. To the next...

243: 152: 148: 1264: 1233: 1219: 1179: 1165: 291: 2297: 1247: 836: 346: 253: 2286:? They're having a backlog elimination drive at the moment, so it should be looked at quickly, especially if you mention that it's at FAC. Regards, -- 1526: 1299: 1473: 1100: 231: 215: 201: 185: 1797: 1148: 931: 894: 137: 2053:

1. The changes are well referenced from high quality sources... and all the sources are listed for verification. Why are we assuming bad faith?

781:

their interpretation of previous mis-quotes. If they have the Diva bit wrong, it makes you wonder how wrong they may have the Radio Times bit.

768: 542:

answers, so you may be right, it may have had British money involved or something, so if someone finds a source to that effect, that's fine.--

492: 1019: 510: 173: 1600: 166: 1759:

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Knowledge, as you did to

915: 812:

about everyone being a bit bisexual, and was quoted out of context. I think there must be another Radio Times article somewhere, but the

302:

Hi Belovedfreak. I noticed that a couple of the articles that I am the primary contributor to had an interesting thing happen - they're

1282: 1605: 1969: 1131: 2024: 1319: 2252: 2065: 1126: 481: 2275: 920:

As far as that quote goes - there's really nothing wrong with using it, just not so much as the introductory sentence. Regards, --

636: 102: 1733: 1633: 414: 2210:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 2141:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 1638:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 1565:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 1456: 1430:

Have a look at the block again; I fixed it later. I was blocking two accounts at the same time and got them confused. Cheers,

800: 734:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 452:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 385:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 2282:

I'm afraid copyediting once an article is at that standard isn't really my strong point. Why don't you make a request at the

2226: