User talk:Limetolime/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

FAC caps

Hi, Limtolime. Please review the instructions at WP:FAC and do not alter, edit or hide other editors' comments. Only the editor who made the comments can hide, cap, strike or edit their own comments, per WP:TALK and the instructions at WP:FAC. Thanks for understanding, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not put comments into any collapsible CAP; only the original editor should do that. I need to see those comments until/unless the original editor strikes or caps. Thanks for understanding, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I am taking a long wikibreak due to huge course and study loads. I will be back in early June. Until then, I will be on only occasionally and randomly. If you want to, you can still leave messages on my talkpage, but I regret that I can't garantee that I will reply in a timely manner.

Sofia (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Sofia

FAC

I think you've got me confused with another editor. I'm the source questioner person, not the prose person at FAC (grins). I'm pretty sure I didn't say there were more concerns I had with the FAC. Were you thinking User:Dominik92 perhaps?

Maybe your browser has a spellcheck option? Or, just select the whole article, copy it to Microsoft Word or similar and find any errors and change them in the article manually, I'm sure there aren't going to be that many, or, you can always ask another user to copyedit for you, I'm not that great with that, but I'm sure you'll find somebody who is. I think the major concern, though, is comprehensiveness, it needs expansion before I change my vote to support. I'm not doubtful that this can be done, I'm sure that the article can achieve FA status and you should keep trying! The Dominator (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oz

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to sound rude, but I am fully aware that you want me to re-review the article. Please be patient, you do not need to repost your message everyday. I have a lot of other things to do, both on and off Wikipedia, so currently I do not have time to review the article again. My main concerns were the prose and the reliability of the sources. I may be able to write a more specific view later on today, or tomorrow. Gran² 06:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation styles

You can use {{cite episode}} for the episodes. For the liner notes on a soundtrack, you'll need to use Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style#Liner notes for an expample. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC removed

Lime, I've removed your subsequent FAC nomination, as that FAC was just archived and you need to take time (typically at least a few weeks) to deal with the issues raised. You might consider a peer review and asking peer review volunteers to comment there, as explained at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. Five editors asked for at least better sourcing and copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you are an active GAN reviewer. Is there any change that I can get you to give The Great American Bash (2007) a pre-GA review? iMatthew 2008 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! iMatthew 2008 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be pushy, but can you give Armageddon (2007) a pre-GA review also? Thanks! iMatthew 2008 01:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP Films coordinator election

It's my pleasure to inform you that you have been elected to serve as a Coordinator of WikiProject Films for the next six months. Congratulations!

If you have not already done so, please visit the coordinators' talk page, where you'll be able to find some open tasks as well as reference material and discussions relevant to you. You might also be interested in a bit of advice that has been written about being a coordinator.

Again, congratulations, and good luck! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

May I echo the comments and congratulations that Girolamo Savonarola expressed. I am pleased to see you in the role of Coordinator with the anticipation that we can work together in the near future. Good on 'ya, we'll talk soon. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

I echo them as well! :) I look forward to collaborating with you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just wondering if I could prod you into weighing in on the appointment thread which is currently ongoing at the coordinator talk page. Hope all's well! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

That site would depend on what you are using it for. Since it just a listing of the cast, wouldn't [1] work as well? (Besides not having an annoying blinking ad at the top? Yes, I'm a website snob!) or better yet [2]. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wonkabar2005.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Limetolime!
We thank you for uploading Image:Wonkabar2005.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ozcd.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ozcd.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Emanddorothy.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Emanddorothy.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MuppetOzlogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MuppetOzlogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Muppetozcd.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Muppetozcd.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oz

If you look at the other FACs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Others at FAC specialize in other areas, User:Tony1 does MOS issues and prose, User:Elcobbola does a lot of work on pictures and fair use. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of High School Musical 4

A tag has been placed on High School Musical 4, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz FAC

As requested I'm notifying you that I have left a few comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz. --maclean 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the only thing stopping me from fully supporting is the completion of the cite templates. I am working through some tonight. -maclean 06:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the instructions at WP:FAC regarding more than one nom at a time: I've removed Titanic (which judging from the first comments, clearly wasn't ready for FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I plink about with the "active" voice changes? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC). See: User:Bzuk/Sandbox/New Article for my trial efforts in revising the article. Give me a couple of days to see all the changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

Consider the exercise an exercise only, take from it only my approach to the article. Use whatever you would like. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

WT:FILMC discussion

Your thoughts are requested! (Please bookmark the coordinator talk page if you haven't already, so as to save time messaging.) Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A-class review thoughts

Please leave your thoughts here: In order to keep the conversation organized amongst the coordinators, I would like to request that comments stay at WT:FILMC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fantastic Four (film series)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Fantastic Four (film series) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue 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. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

I have removed the FAC because it is too soon after your previous FAC archivals to initiate another FAC. I understand you want it on the main page on the 20th, but see WP:TFA/R and consider the likelihood; there are hundreds of articles that have been waiting for years to be on the mainpage. To properly prepare the article for FAC, I recommend reading WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 and following all of the tips there for opening a peer review and inviting all previous opposers, as well as peer review volunteers, to comment on the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Diamond of Darkhold

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Diamond of Darkhold, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Diamond-of-Darkhold/Jeanne-Duprau/e/9780375855719. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sealed lips.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sealed lips.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iron Man (film)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Iron Man (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 5 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

Copy edit from the Assesment page: "One of the last reviewers had commented that this article is not yet ready for another review, and regretfully, I must concur especially in the area of "Reaction" as it is overlong, two or three opinions will suffice and as I indicated earlier, there may be need to continue to work on this as a project. The use of a number of fansites or blog-type reviewers is an area of debate among reviewers and is normally not highly regarded as a means of substantiation. FWiW, I would caution that the article itself is comprehensive but perhaps too detailed for what amounts to a singular project and one that is generally considered a failure. Bzuk (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)."

Copy edit from my talk page: "A failure, huh? Well, that feels GREAT since I've spent 5 months working on it. I will give HIGH regard to your comments in the future. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)"

Dear Limetolime, please note that I am not describing your article nor its continuing rework in any way as a failure, but the telefilm from your description can only be charitably characterized as a "failure" with the public and critics. Note in the present review comments, that another editor identified issues that were similar in nature to my concerns, and that a further earlier comment from another editor in a different review, had indicated that perhaps it was too early to resubmit the article for a review. I have copied the quotes so that you can see that my comments were about the failure of the telefilm, and that there still needs some work in revising the scope of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

Further, I think that your work here is commendable as you have taken an article from its formative stages as a film article and developed a very readable and well-researched essay into a subject. Consider my comments as instructive and constructive and in no way, destructive. Good on 'ya, I hope to see the article wend its way to its inevitable selection as a film A-Class article, in much the same way as it has already received its Arts good article status. FWiW, send me an email to talk more. Bzuk (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

Edit summaries

Please note that "hi" is a useless edit summary, equivalent to not providing an edit summary. It is important that you provide meaningful edit summaries. Edits without edit summaries are subject to being reverted or deleted. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz concerns

I'm looking for help since you seem to have been a significant contributor to the The Muppets' Wizard of Oz article. I've initiated some discussions on the Talk page regarding concerns about apparent disconnects between cited sources and the relevant material in the article. After checking a number of sources, it appears that the article copy does not always accurately characterize the material in the source. It's possible that during the editing process content has been inadvertently moved around, revised, or deleted to a point where relevance has been damaged. I'm suggesting that it might be worthwhile to validate every citation to ensure accuracy. What do you think?
Jim Dunning | talk 13:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just an added note: since you're most familiar with the sources, your help in fixing cites will be greatly appreciated. Please don't be dismayed when you see the article, but there are a number of concerns and I've flagged statements with Fact tags to resolve WP:OR concerns and ensure everything is sourced properly. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued efforts on the article and your coolness under pressure is to be admired. I still have many concerns which I'm sure we can address. I do ask a favor, however. Would you please use descriptive edit summaries? It makes collaborative work so much easier. Thank you.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Review Fires on the Plain

Could you review Fires on the Plain (film)? This is not a review for B class, I'd just like an opinion about it. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit. It would be appreciated if you could get to this quickly. Oh, and if you could give me an opinion on my new section in WP:film talk page "Saving Private Ryan - Sniper issue" that would be appreciated as well. I will ask other editors about this as well. Happy editing! Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Muppets FAC

If you look at the other FACs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Others at FAC specialize in other areas, User:Tony1 does MOS issues and prose, User:Elcobbola does a lot of work on pictures and fair use. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also followed up on the A-Class review further; you may be able to gain that class shortly - the remaining objections are significantly reduced. I'm going to try to nudge the other coordinators to review it as well. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG, don't give up! You have put a lot of effort into it, but keep in mind this isn't a race! Consider how much more experience you've gained, and how much more you know about Wikipedia policies/guidelines/practices. I do suggest that you take a breather and work on strengthening the technical aspects of your writing skills. This seemed to be the area most criticized by reviewers, so take the opportunity to work on improving your writing. This is usually an area most WP editors find that can improve on, so nothing new here. Read books on grammar and usage. Edit other articles focusing on specific problem areas of usage. Get better at it. Then come back to the Muppets. Let me know if I can help with anything.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Limetolime, I am struggling to understand your actions at Featured Article Candidates. You seem very eager to pass an article through the process but I'm concerned that you don't seem to have a firm grasp on the featured article criteria. Has someone encouraged you to write or pass a Featured Article for some purpose? Since witnessing the Muppets one and now Chocolate, I strongly urge you work with an experienced FA writer or reviewer before posting another nomination. At least ask for some opinions on whether the article you are about to nominate is ready. For Chocolate, you should have started with a Talk page post to get the regular editors' opinions, then moved to peer review, then copyediting, source checking, proofreading, and finally FAC. It is a process that takes weeks if not months. --Laser brain (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I have some articles that I'm taking many months to work through the process of going from B to GA to A (and maybe even FA). Although I certainly feel some pride as each article on which I'm a contributor reaches a milestone, my focus is on the evolving quality of the article the milestone represents, not the status itself. Admittedly, I don't have a lot of Wiki-time available, otherwise the process might go more quickly, but I have one article, for instance, that probably has about a week's worth of source material reading I still have to do before I even start working it into the article. And, as Laser brain says, collaboration is important: continue to invite other editors into the editing process and learn from them. As I mentioned above, you should now focus on strengthening your writing skills. Study books on grammar and usage and then look for articles that can be improved by your contributions in those areas. I say this because a GA article should never contain problems with misspellings, capitalization, or references. And if it does, it certainly should not be nominated for FA. Along with references, this was the area the Muppets article was most vulnerable.

A couple other suggestions: (1) use Edit Summaries, and (2) do not archive Talk page posts that are younger than 60 days or relevant to the GA or FAC process. Edit summaries help both you and other editors track changes (and it's rude to not use them). Twice now I've seen you archive discussions at troublesome nominations, creating the impression you are trying to hide past and existing difficulties with the articles. Keep working on articles and strengthen your skills and you will find the WP experience much more rewarding.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate

I see you have done considerable work on the chocolate article. Although my particular bias is against popular culture sections, which dilute the main facts (these say less about the subject than about the popular culture of the day), I thought I'd just check that your deletion of this section was intentional. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime, I was wondering if you might be able to batch up your changes to the Chocolate article a bit more. You've made close to 130 individual changes in the past 4 days. For example today, you made 29 edits in one hour (2008-05-21T20:07:55 to 2008-05-21T20:55:30).--Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

DWP GA Thank-you

Although I still felt (as my note on the talk page indicates) that there were things I still had to do to bring it up to that level, I recognize that other reviewers may disagree, and I don't mind your disagreement. It recognizes a lot of hard work that I did almost obsessively in December 2006-January 2007. It pairs nicely with Anna Wintour, another GA I developed to receiving a WP:BIO A-class.

When the work I want to do is done, now I can look at FA. I'll let you know when I nominate it. It'll probably be a while. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chocolate

Limetolime, I've withdrawn this FAC per this. Going forward, please follow the instructions at WP:FAC to request withdrawal. We should not delete actionable reviewer comments. Please also be sure that the {{fac}} temple remains on the article's talk page so the bot can update the article history. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Halloween_(franchise)#GA_on_hold

Talk:Halloween_(franchise)#GA_on_hold Gary King (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, so what is the current issue at the GAN? It appears from your review that it is the references? Where are they needed more? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate egg merge

On 2008-05-22, at 01:34 I proposed a merge of chocolate egg into chocolate. At 20:20 you said you opposed the merge. Then, eighty minutes later, at 21:42 you went ahead and performed the merge without letting anyone have a chance to comment. I made the merge a proposal out of consideration to the editors of the chocolate egg page to see if they had objections. Giving them a few days to see it and comment would have been reasonable. The page has seen activity by several people over the last couple of months (mostly reverting vandalism); it's not like it was an abandoned page.--Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime, it seems like you really didin't understand what I was sayng.

You replied (on my talk page) and said "I'm sorry this bothered you, but Chocolate egg now has a really nice home here." My issue isn't with the merge -- I'm the one who proposed it. My issue is that you went ahead and performed the merge without giving anyone else a chance to comment -- less than day after I proposed it.

Further you said "I also left a note on the article's history if you would like to read it." If you mean the note you left on the Talk:Chocolate egg, you'd know that I had already read it because I replied to it. Did you check the talk page before you did the merge?

In the future, please try to be a little more considerate and careful -- there's no need to rush. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Ashanti

Category:Ashanti, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

BK GAN

Limetolime, regarding this GAN, please look over the article for numerous copy-edit issues that should prevent it from being listed as GA unless they are cleaned up. The Lead itself has a couple subject-verb-agreement mistakes. Similar problems exist throughout the article (including numerous parallel construction issues that impair clarity and readability).
Jim Dunning | talk 19:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Goodfellas

Hi, I very much agree with efforts by you and other editors to grade articles, including marking the best as "Good articles". I happen to think that we've a way to go with the article Goodfellas. The good news is that if nobody else objects to the content at present (and at present nobody does) in a couple of days I'll not object to marking it as a good article. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Premature Talk page archiving

Limetolime, please slow down on the Talk page archiving. As I've pointed out before, you are archiving recent posts and discussions that may still be ongoing. As you can see, I am not the only one to express concern about this. Thank you.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chocolate

The article Chocolate you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Chocolate for eventual comments about the article. Well done! ——Ryan | t • c 11:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hustler (film) GA hold

I have made some improvements and comments based on your recommedations. Otto4711 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Given the comment added to the review page I wonder if you might reconsider your failing of the article? Otto4711 (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA reviewing

Are you talking about when it was last promoted to a good article? Because I searched for similar evidence but couldn't find anything. Maybe it was inadvertently blanked. ——Ryan | t • c 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

Perhaps we could move its nomination to June 9th, the night it premiered, so we can also have the british monarchs article shown as well. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Halloween (franchise)

More than a week? The GAN has been there for roughly four days. Gary King (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Statusbot

Well, it's not actually "mine" at all. I'm one of many users who have it. And supposedly it updates automatically, but I've yet to see it do so. I still have to do mine manually, because if you have a statusbot subpage it prefers to use that (and that doesn't work). Anyway, have at it! VanTucky 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI SoxBot V seems to be down right now. Once it's back up, the status should be working again. Just make sure you manually create User:StatusBot/Status/(your username) (just put "offline" in or even "online" if you want to manually show you online). VanTucky, the reason you're not getting updated manually is because you're not in the category (see instructions at {{Statustop}}, I've modified the template to automatically include people in the proper category. Cheers, xenocidic (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, how do you do it? Do you just add User:StatusBot/Status/(your username) to your page? (Bonzai273 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Oh, wow! Thanks for the help! (Bonzai273 (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1) GAN

If you have not done so already by the time you receive this message, I would appreciate it if you gave some explanation of why you failed Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1) in its GAN. Thanks. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GA

I wouldn't ask me, I'm not up on the subpage issue. I think it sucks, frankly. VanTucky 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer your question. I'm not very supportive of subpages either. It will only increase the backlog and promote instruction creep. bibliomaniac15 01:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, either. It's just causing problems from what I've seen, and it is a pain in the next. Maybe User:Gimmetrow would know the answer, as s/he runs GimmeBot. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for joining, but I don't really like the idea of the GA sub-page. It creates clutter, especially since most of my articles that are assessed have little comments outside of the GA review. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1) links to the subpage where your GA review is located. What exactly is the problem? Gimmetrow 02:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know either, it looks like we're all a lot of help! I haven't performed any GA reviews in months, so I'm not entirely sure. Hopefully that's fixed though, or that's going to become quite the problem down the line. A new group of editors are working on reforming the process further so the subpage may be scrapped or improved further and this problem will definitely be brought up. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to leave the templates alone for the present and add links manually - Gimmebot will not link properly because it has no way to know the subpage number of the GA review. Per the above advice, I think Gimmetrow and/or Geometry guy would be the best people to ask about this. EyeSerene^talk 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit): Looks like they're already on it ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate feedback

Hi there. I took a glance at Chocolate as you requested and I think a lot of serious work needs to be done before it could be considered for FA. Among a few of the major problems (I will copy these to the article Talk page):

• It appears that the article does not make proper use of any of the major written works on chocolate. This is a major topic and serious research will be needed to a) discover what the canonical works on chocolate are, and b) use them to write the article. You have some possibilities listed in "Further reading" but why haven't they been used to write the article?
• The History section is very light and poorly sourced. Its parent article is also poorly sourced.
• Many other statements are poorly sourced, including two major assertions in the lead that are sourced to a local newspaper and About.com. --Laser brain (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

GA reviewing

Hey, first of all, thanks for helping. Just a note, when making reviews like you did on Talk:Lisa the Beauty Queen, it's good if you give some commentary or suggestions for improvement, rather than just adding the template. Please see WP:RGA for more information, as well as the reviewer instructions at the top of WP:GAN about subpages and the link. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left some comments at the article's subpage. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 00:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. I think you forgot to do this though. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hustler should not have been failed for GA solely because of the format of the Cast list. Film style guidelines are simply guidelines. Besides, if you felt that strongly about it, then all you had to do was reformat the list yourself (GA reviewers are encouraged to improve articles). I do not think the article is quite ready for GA, but my concerns are with writing style (small issue) and comprehensiveness. I applaud your energy and interest in reviewing GANs (something that needs to be done), but I wish you would slow down and use the process as a learning experience. And ask for guidance. Please. Also, you need to use edit summaries. Period.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue 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. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your changes to Chocolate

Limetolime - Please either start taking a lot more care in your edits or refrain from making changes to the Chocolate article. Maybe I have no right to say that, but it is getting pretty frustrating. I have had to revert several of your changes over the past weeks. Just now you made some more bad edits and I had to make the following revisions:

• Don't change the facts that are taken from referenced sources:

• With this edit, you added the statement "Americans spent nearly $1.9 billion on Easter candy, while Halloween sales were nearly $2 billion; Christmas, an estimated $1.4 billion; and Valentine's Day, just over $1 billion" based on this reference.
• I left a comment on the Chocolate talk page saying "Another change you made is to say how much candy is sold on four major holidays, but no indication how much of that is chocolate. What's the relevance of those figures, then?".
• You just now, with this edit, changed the article to say "Americans spent nearly $1.9 billion on Easter chocolate..." instead of candy. I'm sorry, but that's not what the reference says.
• Furthermore, I just noticed that you actually copied the entire exact sentence from the source. Is that allowed?

• Check your references:

• Next in this edit you cited this reference. That reference is a copy of an earlier version of this very Wikipedia article.

• Chocolate isn't just candy:

• You made this edit in which you changed the lead sentence from "Chocolate comprises a number or raw and processed food products" to "Chocolate is a confectionary that comprises a number or raw and processed food products".
• I made this edit reverting your change with the comment "chocolate isn't a confectionary; it is a term that encompasses a number of raw and processed foods".
• You just now made that same change again. Chocolate is the more general term, not just the candy made from chocolate. It's inappropiate to suggest it is just the candy in the lead sentence.

So, please, I'm asking you take more care in your edits. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime, I noticed you added some cites to the Chocolate article. Always be suspect of the verifiability and reliability of a source when you consider using it. For example, the Ancient Worlds page is not necessarily a good source: first, it appears to be an encyclopedia of sorts and encyclopedias are not considered reliable sources (including Wikipedia). Second, always look for the source's sources; scroll down to the bottom of that Ancient World page and you'll see that it used the Wikipedia Chocolate article as a source. So you end up using the article you're editing as its own source. Definitely not good. Note that Ishi Gustaedr reverted a source earlier today for the same reason.

Fact Monster is also not an acceptable source since it uses encyclopedias for its sources.

The Holiday Insights page is not useful at all since we have absolutely no idea where the information on it came from. Look through the website (such as the Contact page) or do a search on the Premier Star Co., and you'll see that the site is really just a marketing page for a business (it would be like using a Hallmark calender as a source for an article on Holidays). If you check out the address, you'll see that Premier is a home-based business. Definitely not what we want as a source.

It's always a good idea to research your sources before using them to ensure that they enhance the quality of the article. We follow the Guidelines about citations, reliable sources, and verifiability not because they are rules, but because by doing so we usually add to the quality of the articles in Wikipedia.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lisa the Beauty Queen

Hi Limetolime, just wanted to say that in my opinion, the prose quality of this article does not meet the GA standard. Many sentences are too long and poorly written, and I don't think the lead adequately summarises the article. I'm going to go through and fix it the best I can, but these are the sorts of issues that should be brought up in a detailed GA review. Somno (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about promoting articles

Limetolime, your enthusiasm is a credit to you, but I really feel that you do not have a solid enough understanding of bringing an article to FA status to be trying to push articles through the process. You have disregarded the constructive criticism a lot of editors have offered you, especially regarding sourcing. You simply cannot look up articles on the Web to source an article like chocolate. You need to find out what the best books are on the subject and hit the library. You need to get others involved in researching, composing, peer reviewing, and so on. I asked you this before but you didn't answer me: Is someone encouraging you to get articles promoted or has someone told you that you can pass an RfA if you write a featured article? If so, they are sadly mistaken and are offering you bad advice. --Laser brain (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Statustop template: alternate updating method

SoxBot V has been taken offline indefinitely, therefore {{Statustop}} now uses a semi-manual updating method taking the status from Special:Mypage/Status. You can use the Qui monobook script written by TheDJ to update this page at the click of a button.

Certain parameters are no longer used, so you may wish to check the documentation of the Statustop template to ensure you are using it properly. Please feel free to drop by my talk page with any questions or concerns or to report problems with the template. Happy editing, xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A little feedback

Hi. Sorry, if I'm too bothersome, but I saw you're the only one in this list that reviews cinema articles. I've got some lists on Bulgarian cinema Bulgarian_films_of_the_1950s and so on. I wanted to know if the list looks well and what needs to be changed (besides the red links which are an almost impossible task). I'd like to know if there's any chance of promoting it to Feature list status according to the criteria. Don't worry if you don't have time for it or something. Just let me know. Thanks in advance :) --Laveol ^T 21:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GA reviewing

When making a review like Talk:Beverly Hills Cop (film series)/GA1, please transclude it on the article's talk page (use {{/GA1}}), otherwise editors will have no idea why the GA failed, and where the review can be found. giggy _(:O) 03:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GAN problem: Did you notice that the Burger King article is far from stable and citations are under dispute?

Limetolime, did you happen to notice the numerous problems with the references to this article? You cannot list an article as GA whose citations are under review/dispute and is unstable due to even "constructive editing" (see Good article criteria #2 and #5). Did you happen to check the article's recent History or even read the numerous posts on the Talk page before promoting it to GA? This is nothing personal, but your actions on recent GANs are of serious concern, especially your "reluctance" to take guidance from other editors. I suggest you quickly solicit assistance from another, experienced editor to immediately reassess the status of the Burger King legal issues article. Since I am party to the current issues with the article I won't take direct action on it at this time.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You were reviewing articles as part of a contest?!?!?! A contest? Did you even see the comments on the Burger King legal issues Talk page objecting to the GA listing before adding the GAN review template? How about the article Diamonds Are Forever where you listed it as GA even though a significant amount of the content is unsourced, section headings and punctuation don't conform to MoS, and the Lead does not summarize the article?
Jim Dunning | talk 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beyond Jurassic Park

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Beyond Jurassic Park, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Unfortunately, no on that one. You didn't sign up first, and that was in the rules. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this to you, but I had to take the other barnstar away, as I see some of your reviews were incomplete, and not full reviews. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you must sign up before doing the reviews. Also, worry less about recieving the barnstar, and more on making sure the work is done correctly. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the rules of the challenge specifically said you must sign up first. If you don't follow directions, I can't reward you, so I'm sorry. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't do anything. If you see a problem, ask Sharkface, the user who owns the award center. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Limetolime, your behavior is becoming increasingly troublesome and you are now popping up on my watchlist with increasing regularity in your quest for awards. I have posted a note about your actions here so the people that run this "award center" can monitor the edits you make in pursuit of said awards. If you continue to edit Chocolate or other articles disruptively while trying to get barnstars, my next step will be to file a user conduct RFC about you to get wider community input about your editing habits. --Laser brain (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you are trying to do well. However, your efforts are misguided in that you are more interested in pursuing awards and "positions" than you are improving articles. In fact, your changes to Chocolate markedly degraded the quality of the article and caused other editors a lot of extra work, which is indeed disruptive. The fact that you continued doing it after receiving advice from other editors proves that you are willing to ignore others' concerns in your quest for power and recognition. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Threatening to report me to an administrator does not help solve the situation. --Laser brain (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have no doubt you are trying to do well. Maybe we wouldn't think you are trying to win a contest or receive other recognition if you changed your Signature. A suggestion: have you considered asking for a WP mentor? That might be a good route to go at this point.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial) GA review

I have finished GA-fine-tuning the article Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial) and left some notes at Talk:Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)/GA1. You can resume the review whenever you feel like it. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

chocolate bar

Hi, you tagged chocolate bar for peacock words and advertisement style. IMHO the use of tags should be accompanied with some entry on the articles talk page, to make clear what exactly shold be changed. -- 790 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Superman III DVD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman III DVD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gusgorman.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gusgorman.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Superman gift.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman gift.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Evilsuperbad.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Evilsuperbad.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Blatant personal attack

Lime, I have removed User:Limetolime/LB, a blatant personal attack (This user hates Laser brain) linked via User:Limetolime/ub to your user page. I suggest you db-author it asap, as a show of good faith. Please see WP:NPA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just speedy deleted the userbox. It was quite inappropriate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that creating such userboxes is absolutely not the way to deal with disagreements on Wikipedia. You are free to think of this as a formal warning. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Titanic5dvd.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Titanic5dvd.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you very much for my user box, i love it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snailsarefriends (talk • contribs) 08:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:JPTrilogy.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JPTrilogy.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue 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. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian Shaw

Hey. I put up Sebastian Shaw, the English stage actor who played Anakin Skywalker in Return of the Jedi, up for a peer review after some changes, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking it over. I saw you were a volunteer. Let me know, thanks! -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Superman3newdvd.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman3newdvd.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Harriette.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Harriette.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tex-mex cuisine

Please take the time to read the naming conventions for regional and ethnic cuisines is name + cuisine. This is part of the food and drinks wikiproject move to standardize the naming conventions of articles under its auspices. Your move goes against hundreds of article that reflect this naming convention.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)