User talk:James26

Hey, sorry for the late reply. If you want I can upload a better quality screenshot? -- Detroitpiston (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering :) Someone963852 (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally found a source for the other part of the definition and retained your edits (as well as, prompted by your edit summary, purging all unsourced entries from the list).

Sorry to have aggravated you, but you may (blissfully perhaps) be unaware of the history behind this article. It came out of this AfD, where we all sort of agreed the phenomenon was encylopedic but the name was not. So when the article was started (and wasn't officially a list), the idea was to focus on characters like Fonzie, Urkel or Alex Keaton who had actually displaced their shows' intended main characters, or one of them. The secondary definition was characters like Stewie Griffin who became fan favorites and went from minor characters to major ones. I put it on my watchlist and it has been there ever since.

It has since occurred to me that the term also seems to be used by TV critics and fans to mean a character who emerges from an ensemble cast to become virtually identical with the show, such as Spock. Blair certainly qualifies, although I'd also like to see the entry note that she is the main character of the books (and being billed second in the show doesn't necessarily mean you're not the main character; SAG rules usually specify everyone gets credited alphabetically after the show's star, unless the producers and the actor agree otherwise (as Henry Winkler did by going second after Ron Howard).

Actually, just looking at the articles on the characters ... you'd have a strong case under the original "Fonzie" definition for Blair in the (currently-deleted) books section based on this source: "'Originally my heroine was Serena,' Cecily says. 'But she's so beautiful and nice and everybody loves her that she's just boring. She doesn't have all the flaws and complexities that Blair has, so later on in the books she just took over and became the main character." For the TV section, given that she's the main character of the books, do we have something by the producers or someone saying that they intended it to be more of an ensemble show?

I'm thinking of perhaps breaking the article up so that the section heds distinguish between characters who took over their narrative from another one and characters who just emerged from the field. That might prevent more future edit wars like the one we just had. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were busy while I was typing this. Good ... this is just what we need. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drolz09 and I have been revert warring over your addition of Blair to the list, with discussions on our respective talk pages (my comments to him here, and his responses here). Since you had been as passionate about her meeting the definition as he seems to be about her not, perhaps you can weigh in? You also probably know more about the subject than I do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot going on there. I personally hate protecting pages but maybe requesting a short one is a possibility? You're more involved in the situation so I'll leave that thought with you. Cheers, RaseaC (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your requests for review. I or another project member will review your pages shortly. For new articles one way you can help is by inserting the project banner on the discussion page by inserting {{Children'sLiteratureWikiProject}} . This will automatically alert us, when the bot next runs, that there is a page in the project with-out an assessment. I look forward to reading your articles. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :) --SilentAria ^talk 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no problem! I just realized that I may have been too hasty since I was rifling through a lot of Unassessed articles, so I backtracked a bit and figured I gave the Need (novel series) article a wrong assessment. :) --SilentAria ^talk 00:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't planned to do so already, consider nominating the article for DYK. The nomination page is at Template talk:Did you know. Abecedare (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Carrie Jones at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered submitting something from the article to Did you know? You have done a lot of work in a short time. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I looked up the DYK nomination. Basically the problem was that what you put in the statement (hook) didn't have an explicit source in the article. I attempted a new hook which has in-line citation. We'll see how that goes. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK appears on the main page (en.wikipedia.org). On the left side there is a Featured Article and right beneath that there are DYK facts meant to entice people to find out more about a newer or newly revised article. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carrie Jones, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on this! Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for everything you did. -- James26 (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your peer review of Pilot (Parks and Recreaton). I'm going to give it one more proofread myself and incorporate your changes, then hopefully in the few days nominate it for FAC. If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate it if you'd make some comments there and voice your support when and if the time comes. My last FAC failed despite having passed a GA and a peer review in the past, so I'd hate to see it happen again. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 03:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, it appears to be in very good shape. I haven't read through it for any prose or grammatical issues, but if it's gone through a peer review, that's already more than can be said for many articles that are nominated for GA (including most of my own). The external links for all the sources seem to be OK. Most importantly, it avoids two problems I've seen with character articles in the past: it's not written in a primarily in-universe way, and it doesn't rely on primary sources (meaning cited episodes). All of your sources appear to be reliable secondary sources, which is really important. I'd have to take a closer look to see if the structure is right for this episode, but WP:TVMOS allows for a lot of flexibility when it comes to the structure of character articles. So, in other words, yeah, looks good! lol. If you nominate it, let me know, maybe I can give it a review. I've been trying to cut down the TV/movies/theatre-related GAN backlog the bit in recent weeks, although it keeps growing and growing. (Which is a good thing! lol) — Hunter Kahn 14:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm pretty sure anybody could assess it. According to WP:Assessment, anybody can rate an article as long as they don't rate it GA or FA, which obviously has to be done through those review processes. If there was a dispute with the rating (some other user felt it should be rated lower), they could change it, and then it might have to go to a WikiProject or something to be resolved. But I'm pretty sure any user at all, even you, could be bold and add an assessment rating and it's no problem. If you want, I could take another more careful look at it and assess it myself. Or you yourself could look at the quality scale and give it the grade you feel is warranted. — Hunter Kahn 23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I think to give it an A grade, you need to have somebody independent of the article review it. But a B grade or lower I think anyone can do... — Hunter Kahn 23:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the article. Are you a fan of Jackson Pearce? UncoolJohn (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss things before you revert, so avoid edit warring. First of all, your latest edit, I've added too as she was mentioned in last nights episode so I think that's good to have. The only reason I added the note in the first place was because it's weird how she was quite a big character then not written out, so it should be noted, but I'm willing to wait until the end of the season, just incase. Also, please don't remove the latest piece of info. Jayy008 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I'm happy to wait until the end of the season, when it comes around the source I'll use for "her being mentioned" is a link to the episode video itself n the CW website. Jayy008 (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^;; Some of the examples seem to be Paranormal fantasy in the category, can you please clean this up so it is focused on Urban fantasy and its definition? i.e. Instead of saying Vampires are featured, mention the life of the city, etc. I noticed you made the recent additions, so I thought I would notify you. A lot of the examples list things like "going to an Academy" but that's not Urban Fantasy... unless it's Kids in an Inner City going to school and dealing with say magic and going to the school. It is OK to mention that in recent times that Paranormal and Urban fantasy have been paired more often, but I think the definitions should be kept distinct... Thank you.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example:

Kim Harrison's Rachel Morgan novels, taking place in an alternate history setting, feature a bounty-hunting witch who battles numerous supernatural foes.[9]

This example is cited, but it doesn't mention the CITY or the CITY problems that that the book features. Rather, it talks about the paranormal elements, which is a witch. This may give a false impression that Paranormal Fantasy and Urban Fantasy are the same thing... but for it to count, it has to have Fantasy and Urban... Urban is a WHERE part of the who-what-where-when how. So which city did it take place in? I hope that clarifies. I'm not disputing they are Urban fantasy, I'm disputing that the way the example is given is misleading. Thanks. I hope that's not too harsh. ^^;; Don't mean it to be.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you make sure to give an example of the city or city problems for each of the examples listed in the article? Many of them focus on the paranormal, etc, but then fail to mention where its set... Something like It's set in Chicago, as in the Definition section. Or it deals with an inner city social worker who is dealing with the Homeless and finds out they are Witches. Beyond that point it can clarify the plot, say Teen Urban Fantasy tends to also use Paranormal Romance and set up love triangles (Give an example, that uses a city and paranormal), but it should mention the city used in each of the examples... I think that will clarify the page a bit better. Thanks. I'd do the clean up, but I'm not familiar with the examples and I thought it would be better for you to do it since you invested time into it. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm afraid of is without the mentioning of the city, the genre definition doesn't look like it matches the article. There is too much emphasis on Paranormal, the romance angles, etc. But that's not really Urban Fantasy. Urban Fantasy CAN be paired with other subgenres and isn't mutually exclusive, but without the city mentioned as a major feature of the story in the genre, it really doesn't count as Urban Fantasy. I'll give this as an example, the Country Fantasy of Smallville is set in Smallville, which is a major element in the story. Without Smallville, the story falls apart. You can't mention Smallville without the fact its a small town that has a disaster happen to it and the Clark Kent who discovers he has strange powers is trying to solve the problems in Smallville. You *could* describe it as Smallville is a story of how Clark Kent became Superman, but then if you are defining Country Fantasy, and are trying to find the definition and clarification for the definition and the range that its currently and in the past paired with, it really is confusing. In another words, is the definition of Urban Fantasy mean that it is automatically werewolves, Vampires, and so on with romance triangles? Or is it the city... it would seem to clash. You have to take it from the POV of someone who NEVER read the books and is trying to find out what Urban Fantasy is. You can list various trends in a new section like what Urban Fantasy's history and what other subgenres its paired with... but that should be separate.

What sets Urban fantasy as a definition is that it focuses on the setting of the city as a major character in the book. The city's ups and downs, and does it in the context of Fantasy. Yes, the examples can be varied, but without mentioning the city involved and how it relates to the definition, it really doesn't seem to hold the article together. I'll give an off-hand example of how this can be done from a book I know is Urban Fantasy. While many Urban fantasy may pair up with Paranormal, Spellbinder by Melanie Rawn, which is set in Manhattan, focuses on witches and the sex lives of the individuals that live there. The focus of the book is on the witches, not on the vampires.

And so on... Let's put it this way, if you define a dog as a canine, are you going to introduce that cats also wear collars? It really doesn't have to do with the definition of what a dog is that they wear a collar. I believe in variety, but as the article stands without mentioning the city in the examples, it makes the definition look like its confused with the given examples. There is a way to mention the city and also the various trends, but to make the example work, you really need to mention the city. You can't define a definition and then fail to give examples related to that definition. This isn't for the "List all the Urban Fantasy for readers" But to clarify what Urban Fantasy is by giving examples that fall into the definition and give them in a way that makes it clear to the reader who doesn't know about the genre at all nor has read those books.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop by and say nice work on the article; however, I also have a few suggestions:

• The lead is quite short, and should be expanded. The lead should basically serve as an introduction and summarize the main information of the article, like at Alexander Mahone.
• The image in the infobox is a little fuzzy. I think the image at The CW looks a lot better.
• The format of the subheadings is different to most other character articles, but that isn't necessarily bad. Have a look at this revision for an alternate format.

-- Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not an expert on images, but I thought that screenshots are just as copyrighted as promo pics, ie. using that pictures from the CW would create no more copyright infringement than the current sreenshot has already, if that makes sense. Most characters articles use promo shots so I would encourage it. I have no preference over the format, it's just that the alternate version I proposed is how most character articles are presented. Seeking consensus would be a good idea. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the hard work certainly paid off; the lead looks great now! I think the promo pic looks a lot better, but whatever you decide. Also, is the Tonight Show image really warranted? I'm not sure the GA reviewer will be happy with three non-free images. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, well it really comes down to the GA reviewer. Most reviewers are quite strict and that article would never get past FAC; plus, I notice that the review is being questioned so... ;) Are you planning to expand any more character articles? I did a bit on Adrianna Tate-Duncan a while ago, and if you're interested in writing episode articles you could use "We're Not in Kansas Anymore" as a template, which I got to GA a while ago. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Well good luck with everything! Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I'm certainly not perfect when it comes to the dashes, I'll have a look. Thanks again! Lampman (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I agree with your redirects of all characters of One Tree Hill because none of them have any third party coverage. However, you've done it very sloppy. One a "list of..." page there needs to be a brief description of the character. The page didn't have these because they had a direct link to their main articles for all the information you'd need. But you simply deleted the pages without adding any descriptions. Jayy008 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, James26. I would say I have to disagree with your redirecting any of the original main teenage (now adult, depending on what season a person is watching) characters. I restored the Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer articles, because I will fix those up soon. I only ask that you give me some time, maybe a month to finish up both. Sometimes I can move fast when I plan to fix up an article; others time I do not, due to being busy or whatever else. So that is why I say give me at least a month in this case; it does not mean that it will actually take a month, though. As for the others, such as Brooke Davis and Nathan Scott, I will worry about those later. I like that you have not yet redirected them, though, and instead put a notability tag on them. Likewise, I suggest you put a notability tag on Lucas and Peyton's articles...in the meantime.

One thing is certain to be done very soon... I will be fixing up the One Tree Hill (TV series) article in quite a little bit. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I only meant that when I delete things, I always make sure everything that I'm going to affect is changed too. Also with 90210 I think only Naomi should have her own article because she's the only one with a lot of media coverage, thanks for keeping an eye, I like what you've done with her page too. As above I think we should leave the main 5, Lucas, Nathan, Peyton, Haley and Brooke with their only if we can find references with reception to the characters etc. As Flyer22 said, he wants a month. I think that's a good enough time frame, I'll try do the same to the pages within this month too. After a month if we judge the pages and see if there if enough references etc, we can revist the deletion issue of those? Jayy008 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, glad to have you helping out, Jayy. I'm female by the way, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'll personally delete them in one month if they're not sourced enough. And oh, I'm sorry LOL. Jayy008 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James, I replied again on my talk page, but you probably already know that I will most likely respond there (seeing as the tag on my talk page even says so). But I just wanted to let you know, just in case. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for reading over that section, I made the correct changes to the issues you had found. I should have made it more clear, that in 2006 she became a permanent cast member, then she later signed a 12 month contact, after that she signed a contract that would keep her with the series until 2011, then she signed a brand new contract, forgetting the old one, with a brand new producer.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 17:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for looking at the article, I think I'll leave it until the actual review now though. I've lost interest in it tbh, It's been number 1 waiting for ages now, but reviewers are carrying out favours for friends and reviewing number 30 and so on. Thankyou though, you made good points.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 15:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes you're right I didn't read it. I always put sources after full stops but it does flow better as one sentence. The other thing I don't agree with, it looks tidyer to have to source in the lead, it's not like I've used the source twice, when something is used twice in an article, the ref name field is what should be used, that's what it's there for. Jayy008 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol yes, I do think that part does need all those citations, it shows the majority of people that consider it. so you don't have an objection to the ref name method? If you don't I'll add it, just for preference. Jayy008 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think having everything sourced in the lead makes the article better, but I'll use ref name instead. I'm going to leave the article to you after that though, I was going to watch list it but there's no point as you're a good editor and always make sure the article is perfect. I'll focus on something that needs the work. Jayy008 (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have made a few changes to the page, despite my earlier withdrawal. I have changed the infobox image to one of her from season 2 as usually the infobox is what the character looks like most recently (Unless they make a dramatic change). I've also added a image of the season 2 finale of her and Cannon w/source in the image caption about character direction. Take a look and let me know any objections. Jayy008 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mistake on my part, I thought the Tonight Show image was off Wikipedia Commons. I would never have uploaded the third image if I knew, I agree though, I think the tonight show image should stay. Jayy008 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for normal citations. But that's what these ref names are for, what's the point in having them otherwise? As for asking someone else, I don't know anybody else who extends their editing of television shows the characters. Jayy008 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I know it's not just for TV. The ref name I just think should be used anywhere in the article that uses the information from the source, because it's not repeating the ref. Also I don't understand, I remember a while back with the Kelly article (I just took a look at it, that's why I'm bringing it up) about the thing you wanted sourced or you'd keep removing it. Which, I did. However above that in the Melrose Place section there's the same type of info about a different story yet you haven't removed it or sourced it in the whole time I've been editing Kelly Taylor article? So I'm wondering why it's just the 90210 bit you keep an eye on. Also about the image, there's no difference about the licensing about the lead image, most tv shows on here that are edited frequently use a recent image of the character, why should Clark be different? Jayy008 (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand now. I think I will bring the image up for discussion, even though I know your opinion is different, I still think you should get involved with the discussion. By the way, I'm temporarily deleting your discussion off my page, something has happened to all my stuff :S. I'm not being rude! Jayy008 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to your comment on my talk, yes after a GA is passed the assessments change to GA-class. Usually I change them but missed that one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with Pilot (Community) (finally got around to looking at it.) I think I got the dashes under control now; I really don't use m-dashes normally. They were just in the "Cast and characters" section because I had imported the format by cut-and-paste from somewhere else, but now it's n-dashes throughout. Lampman (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I've tried to address your issues. Lampman (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just to keep you updated. I have done some work on Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer to which Flyer22 is taking over. I will be doing the other 3 gradually but they are a lot of work so bare with me. Any websites you can think of to get reception of characters? Jayy008 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I also think Naomi Clark should be nominated for GA. Do you know how to do it? Jayy008 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Jayy008 (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated to Jayy, I am just letting you know that I will probably be cutting it very close to improving the Peyton Sawyer article. I need to get to a library. The deal about that is currently stated on my talk page. As for the other articles, the Lucas Scott article is pretty much fine, though I will be adding more to it when I can. The other three articles may be redirected by you before I get to them, but make no mistake that I will significantly fix them up (either way). Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, James. I'm not really planning on expanding the article or anything, but I did have a quick look online and added some stuff to the article. There's a lot more out there, and once the next season starts I'll sure there will be a lot more. I think the article is notable enough to be kept. (PS - I've noticed that the Naomi article has been on top of the GAN list for a while. No luck with reviewers?) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - well I've been "semi-retired" for a while now, but I still haven't been able to quit completely for long periods of time. Here's hoping to one day ;) Good luck with your future endeavors, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well good luck with the review! Oh and you can find lots of templates at Wikipedia:Wikibreak if you're interested. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The character is billed as "Silver" by the CW. No "Erin" about the matter, she's hardly ever been called Erin on the show. Isn't there another rule about what's been used to most? For example in One Tree Hill Haley James changed to Haley James Scott from Season 2 onwards and should be called Haley James Scott. Jayy008 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my god. I've seen it, and it's annoying. Very annoying! As for the naming thing, I'm not saying I know better, I just always go by what the network names her. In the press release it says Jessica Stroup as Silver. So what do you think? I'll await your reply before making any more changes. Jayy008 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I just generally prefer to give the user a hint that way, especially since he went to the trouble of reverting your removal. Maybe we could leave a note on the IP talk page? (And, I also prefer to do those removals from the list in bulk every few months. But maybe it's time for one of them anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a prediction. Jennie Garth has confirmed she won't return. Tori Spelling left the show because they wouldn't pay her enough, was supposed to be return but plans were scrapped because of Rebecca Sinclair. Shannen Doherty is signed on for two more episodes but those plans have also been scrapped thanks to Sinclair. Do you need sources? Jayy008 (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could say: "However, after the conclusion of second season, there are no plans for them to return."

Woops, if they specified in their edit summary, I wouldn't have reverted. I think I jump to conclusions regarding IP's. And great, I'll take a look at what you've done, I'm trying to get around to that article, but if you're working on it, I'll move on to Nathan Scott? Jayy008 (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you're coming out of retirement? :) Jayy008 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll keep you updated with how they're coming along. Jayy008 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a skim, it looks like it should do well enough at GAN; nothing looks missing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't know a single thing about Gossip Girl, I might not be the best person to ask. :P But from what I can tell, nothing major seems to be lacking. Andrea (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I just fixed up pretty much everything you noted in the peer review. Could you possibly look those over when you get the chance? Thanks, HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, whenever you get the chance. HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend starting with GA and then moving on the FA later on. At a glance, it looks like a shoo-in for good article; it seems to cover all the broad aspects of the subject and is well sourced with reliable secondary sources (which is good, as many fictional character articles are sourced by tons of primary sources like TV show episodes, but this one doesn't have that problem). But the FAC process is a tough one and I suspect this article might still need a bit of beefing up before you nominate it for featured article. Some of the sections seem pretty small, the prose could probably use a good once-over, and there are a few nit-picky things (for example, off-line sources like Zap2it and Perezhilton.com should not be italicized, and book sources should have page numbers) that would become an issue during FAC. I suggest go for GAN first, and having a review there might help identify problems that could be addressed before the FAC. Good luck, and nice work with the article! — Hunter Kahn 14:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jrcla2 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that his first fight against Gray Maynard was "a turning point" in Frankie Edgar's career? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know if you were still watching my page or not, and I again thank you for your noticing my efforts. I just thought I would pass something along however... this edit of yours (1) does technically violate WP:TPO. Under WP:UP#CMT users are (unfortunately) allowed to remove warnings and notices from their own pages. Personally, I think this is a bad idea - and to make it even worse, anonip's are allowed to do it as well, despite their being dynamic most of the time and not having the same user for more than a few hours or a day at a time. The only things that are not allowed to be removed are expired block notices on anonip talk pages. I have been trying to get this clearly problematic situation rectified... but just wanted to let you know that unless/until it is - you will need to exercise caution when doing edits like this, especially on registered user pages. Then again - with all the blatant TPO vios that have been getting ignored and even harbored by admin, you might be ok anyhow, LOL. (see here). Srobak (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over Winesburg, Ohio I've posted my responses to your review. Just letting you know. Cheers, --Olegkagan (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks. I'll take a good look at the issues raised tomorrow! Much appreciated sir. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've posted on the GA review, I think I've covered all but one of what you've mentioned, and hope that this can be sorted! And again, 'semi-retired'? With that level of work? In that case I must be in a wikicoma! Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 11:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And hello again, I've left a reply on the GA page, although I think it shows my lack of experience at this... Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 07:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you so much for all your help during my first GA review. It is nice to know that there are so many welcoming people here willing to offer such hard work and help. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 07:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my GA review and, if possible, provide improvements while the review is on hold. The article is almost there! AstroCog (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the last match between Edgar and Maynard was a knockout, not TKO as the ESPN article lists. Sherdog correctly lists the result as KO as reported by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation[1], who was the regulatory agency overseeing that fight card. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that. I was spoofing the entire page and missed that part. Thanks for noticing it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you stated my additions lack reliable sources, can you give me an example?. Do you really expect someone to list sources to verify the final score of a tennis match?. As for the adjectives you mentioned such as "devestating", I've since removed the majority of those desriptive terms, something you should have noticed when reading my edits.

As for the Gabriela Sabatini page, I can't understand why you keep removing her 1993 section?. 1993 was a pivitol year for Sabatini, and she was still near the top of womens tennis. For those reasons her results in the 1993 Grand Slam events are completely relevant, and I've since reinserted those results, so please stop removing them.

Finally, regarding the use of first names and surnames, I have seen them used interchangeably on wikipedia and other sources of information. Don't cite Tom Brady as an example, as he is generally referred to by his last name. I followed womens' tennis for many years, and certain players(Monica Seles, Steffi Graf, Jana Novotna, and Mary Joe Fernandez) were commonly referred to by their first names and in no way reflects any bias. On the other hand, Gabriela Sabatini was mostly referred to by her surname. Once again, I see no harm in referring to someone by their first name or surname. Mainstrike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstrike (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear no scores, please check [Talk page], for a better way to reach a consensus. Dencod16 (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please note that the article 2004 Estoril Open has been nominated for deletion along with the subarticles Men's Singles and Men's Doubles. Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open--Wolbo (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed TSS is that ultimately, it's a book blog. While it is popular, being popular does not automatically make a blog usable. It's not like it's Publishers Weekly or the SLJ. It's ultimately a book blog and the people running it aren't really considered to be recognizable authorities. They're just average people running a book blog.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... it's gotten a reputation lately for not being as reliable, mostly due to claims of plagiarism over some of their blog posts. It's unknown as to the extent of what they've plagiarized, but they'd definitely been caught plagiarizing some "how to" blogs out there.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give The Ricki Lake Show (2012 TV series)‎ a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into The Ricki Lake Show. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Sorry if it caused you any difficulties. -- James26 (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miesha Tate vs. Ronda Rousey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rival (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was already pretty much a C quality wise - I usually like to let new articles cook a bit. Well referenced and with picis - clearly a C. To get to B not sure I can offer any advice. The article clearly is well written but again it probably needs more time to grow. Both ladies have their own article and personally (subjectively) I don't think a separate article on the rivalry has a place. Still because if was so well done I wont push that point of view.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine but that picture you put in does not show the court. And the general overall principal for infobox pics is to use ones that best show the face. I won't change it as its not that big a deal but I thought it odd that you mentioned the court when it doesn't show the court. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for letting me know about that. I don't suppose you know of a quick way to make all the changes throughout the article? JayJ47 (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, thanks for the explanation on the issue. I just can't get what you meant by scroll over the top of the women's bar. Dont mind to explain? Thank you and good day. Silaslej (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey James, could you add some of the quotes from the Road to the Octagon episode to the articles? Mainly, how Eye explained a previous meeting between her and Tate, where Tate allegedly shunned her? Just asking you because you seem well-versed in this kind of thing. WWE Batman131 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Miesha Tate 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Miesha Tate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Miesha Tate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC) --> --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up that the editor you're disagreeing with here is a banned long-term vandal and can be blocked and reverted on sight without discussion. You can request article protection at WP:RPP if they continue to revert the article. --McGeddon (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mona Vanderwaal PLL2.jpeg. 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) 18:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GGBlaircover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that image of Poison Ivy led you to discover the Poison Ivy: Cycle of Life and Death storyline. Images used in articles can have a powerful effect, as humans tend to be very visual by nature, and the use of these images is often under appreciated. Sorry to hear you won't be editing anymore. I will look forward to hearing from you if you choose to come back. All the best. DrRC (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GGBlaircover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:OBMBQ.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GGBlaircover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BWaldorf lead.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you restored most of her page that was deleted. I have it under good authority that she/her team wrote the page herself to promote herself, which does not seem fair as Wikipedia is not a promotional business. That is why there were so many praising quotes on her and her acting style, even though she is an unknown actor. Nfhh5 (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Good Leader Tavis, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Leader Tavis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GL Tavis.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]