Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Alex Fellows (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Painter

Doug Wright Award (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bruce McDonald

The Sunday Funnies (magazine) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Sunday Funnies

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Raoul Barré - Pour un diner de Noel.jpg. However, it needs some more work before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

1. Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.
2. Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Canadian comics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Albert, Now & Then, John Byrne, Peter Evans and Gronk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you copy-paste your version of Canadian comics to the old page Canadian comics/version 1 ? I'd like to request the old edit history be restored to primary position. As all the edits for the new version belong to you, it'd be the same situation as what you did with Quebec comics. (the current Canadian comics page would probably end up back as your user subpage, or a workpage of Canadian comics (ie. Talk:Canadian comics/workpage or Talk:Canadian comics/sandbox) ) .

Thanks for your attention. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curly, I was surprised to find that you are an experienced editor, but in the Quebec Comics RM you made the following comment: However, I would like to see the proper procedure properly spelled out somewhere. Eve after all this discussion, I still can't find the guideline that makes it clear. when discussing a move from your userspace to the mainspace. Its called Editing. If an article all ready exists, just edit the article with your new content. It absolutely doesn't matter where you drafted that content--your userspace, word, or the whiteboard. It actually doesn't matter if you replace the entire article with a cut and paste because the existing article's history and all its versions are retained. If you move an article from your userspace to replace and existing article, the existing history is lost and that's problematic. The only time you should consider moving a draft from your userspace to the mainspace is when you are creating a new article. When you do that, the history of all your edits in the userspace is moved with the new article. Otherwise, just edit existing articles with your new content. I think the current RM has been resolved by that very behavior, but if you would Withdraw your nomination explicitly, we can close the RM. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the contribution of Action to the success of the Golden Age I question, only to its start. The Overstreet suggests otherwise. And I've seen the Whites criticized for their poor-quality paper. (I wish I could recall where... :( ) Yes, that they were 4-colors probably was more important, but not the only reason; suggesting it was is misleading. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree, but I don't disagree enough to fight it. Nor can I cite anything better... :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, you have no chance of discouraging me. :D If you're happy with it, I'll let it stand. You've clearly got better sources than I. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Canadian comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Hirsh (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) 11:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Little island colour logo 200x200.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right... just notice you mss mucking. Please undo what you have done to the articles and think about using the template talk page.

Thanks.

- J Greb (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:YummyFurMini5Cover.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Bell Features, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adrian Dingle (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) 10:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a look. Judging by your ongoing work, it looks pretty good. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Éditions Mille-Îles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Callanecc (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched in a few loactions but I can't find any major references to Éditions Mille-Îles. Callanecc (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of comics publishing companies shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. You aren't exempted from this just because you started a discussion. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MikeWazowski, you might in the future want to read the text of this template, as it specifically talks about bringing things to the article's talk page, which you have repeatedly refused to do. Oh, and you can try to cover your tracks by deleting our discussion on your talk page, but it's just far too easy to dig it up again.

Just for the record, here's what you deleted:

Please join in the discussion

Hi Mike. Please join in the discussion. What you're doing no longer falls under WP:BOLD. After one more revert, it will fall under WP:EDITWAR as per WP:3RR. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at, slapping me with a WP:3RR warning after I asked you politely to stop and join in the discussion. Why do you refuse to join the discussion? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I joined the discussion, and you post threatening language about 3RR. Now, seeing as how you are specifically at 3RR now, I'll remind you that you are not above the rules, simply because you initiated a discussion. I tried to incorporate your changes, yet you still reverted blindly. You earned that warning fair and square. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not "join inthe discussion". You left one unilaretal message timestamped 2012-02-10T09:45:00‎, and then proceeded to remove the data twice since that time:

1. the first time, timestamped 2012-02-10T09:58:55‎
2. the second, timestamped 2012-02-10T11:08:23‎

I've left you commit messages with my reverts, messages on your talk page, and have been trying to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

I also did not "threaten" you about WP:3RR, I informed you of the impending breach. Your accusing me of "threatening" you is hardly in line with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dave Sim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to High Society

Glossary of comics terminology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jessica

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Louis Riel (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander MacKenzie (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) 10:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to the rationale for the redirect for Smile (graphic novel). Einbierbitte (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I wasn't aware of the guidelines because I don't work with WP:Comics. Cheers! Einbierbitte (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nanking Massacre shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Shrigley (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. 3RR is a bright red line, not an entitlement. Edit-warring is still bad before you break 3RR.
2. You were one person reverting the work of multiple users. If it was you and one other person, then I could see your point.

Shrigley (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you're going to count Cold Season's first edit as a revert, then I could count your first edit as a revert, and then you have three reverts. However, that's not the 3RRN methodology.
2. This is not a matter of fairness, since a notice is not a punishment. It's for your own benefit and to his detriment if you decide to stop before the 3RR line and he doesn't as a result of this message. You can even remove this whole section from your talk page if it bothers you so much.
3. I warned you at 00:49, the first IP reverted at 01:36. If you can't time travel, then there's some deception in your defense.

Threatening me probably won't look good in any form of arbitration you pursue. Shrigley (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: This whole kerfuffle was solved to the satisfaction of the parties actually involved. Taking sides without taking part is the height of pointlessness. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Edit warring specifically states, inter alia, that "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times", so please go easy. Just because you only did it twice doesn't mean you haven't been engaged in edit warring. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Billy DeBeck, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hyde Park High School, Chicago Herald and Phil May (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) 10:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Zappata" is history. If he pops up again under a new name, PDFTT. Just let me or some other admin know, and he'll be removed again. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Iron Man (Canadian comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Seas (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) 10:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll never understand some editors' dishonesty. This editor repeatedly edited others' comments to distort the discussion. I'm archiving this discussion here, as the editor (an admin, no less) deleted my final comment. What on earth is the point of that? The comment on the edit that removed my final comment was (nor am I. Asked and answered.) Answered where, pray tell?

Given how the WP:TPO you point to as justification explicitly states:

• Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

How do you justify the deletions? Further, you signed your deletion of my comment, but not Ceoil's---leaving the impression that Ceoil may have deleted his/her own comments, whereas mine appear to have be so disruptive to have needed administrator intervention. Further, you've labeled my comment:

"Truthkeeper, if you are not going to make comments that add to the discussion, then could you please refrain? "I won't stop you *pout pout* but someone else will" is simply embarrassing for the rest of us to read."

as "irrelevent", whereas Ceoil's "Trouble making and vengeful prick" and "Also, your signature is a headace. Go back to editing comics and [1]" were removed without comment.

The comment of mine that was removed may have been impolite, but it was certainly not irrelevant (I was asking TruthKeeper not to clutter the discussion with comments not aimed at moving the discussion forward---you can't deny that, if you go back and reread it), and further removes context from the rest of my comment, which you left. The comment is not irrelevent in the context. If it's irrelevant to the infobox issue itself, then so are the comments that I was responding to, which you left untouched.

If you go back and look at this all in context, I think you'll see why WP:TPO recommends against removing comments. Doing so is only creating a bigger, less comprehensible mess. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I labeled your post because you had previously reverted me when I tried to remove your commentary. If you look at TPO as a whole (not just that bullet point), you might gain some insight into why those particular comments were removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nikkimaria, I don't think you are the right person to remove commentary from that discussion; you had already posted there and were/are not a neutral third person. Also, I find it somewhat curious that you removed everything but Ceoil's sarcastic comment. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 23:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't read that comment as being sarcastic - snippy, perhaps, but acceptable and relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• To the contrary - Nikkimaria has every right and is correct in removing commentary. That discussion has become a WP:SOAPBOX...Modernist (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and can you give a reason for why you think she is correct in removing said commentary, despite her involvement in the discussion? Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As are you.....and me for that matter - because Nikkimaria understands the situation, and that matters despite technical nonsense. Rather than going on and on - that's my final word...Modernist (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. She may have been correct in removing off-topic commentary, however my beef has been that she has been extremely selective when doing so and, more egregiously, has been shaping the discussion with her edits (whether intentional or not).
2. "because Nikkimaria understands the situation" is the kind of comment that lacks such a level of understanding that I don't even know where to begin to reply. Should we make the parents of murdered children judges in the murder trial as well? Do you really not understand why it is important for a third party to do these things? I'm flabbergasted that an adult could make such a myopic comment---it's as if you were a troll actually trying to sabotage the very position you purport to support. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have read it as a whole---don't assume I haven't. You'll notice I've reverted nothing this time and chosen instead to talk to you about it. The particular comment was not an attack by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact removing it removes context from my comment---in fact, it removes the point of my comment (as I've explicated above). Please reread it, in context.

Further, "comment removed again" only makes it look like I've been repeatedly reverting it, especially since you've removed your own comment this time, not mine, so what's with the "again"? I think you need to slow down and consider what you're doing before making such edits. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been considering what I'm doing - "don't assume I haven't". I didn't say it was an attack, simply that it was not helpful and not relevant to the article at hand. You pointed out a potential issue with the comment I used, which I've now tried to address. Hyperbole like that you use above isn't helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole? What hyperbole? Please explicate. I'm having trouble comprehending exactly which statement it is you've misinterpreted as hyperbole. Maybe you meant a different word?

If you have been considering what you're doing, then am I to take your distortions as deliberate? I don't think I've actually accused you of ill-will up until this point, and I seriously don't want to have to cross that line.

You haven't come close to addressing the points I've made. Let's reword them:

1. If you are removing comments you deem irrelevant, then why did you leave TruthKeeper's, the one that I was directly responding to? How did that comment add to the discussion in any way, shape or form?
2. Why do you insist on adding extra commentary to the text you deleted from my comment and only my comment ("irrelevant", then "again", making it look like I'd repeatedly reverted your removals)? Try reading it from a disinterested reader's perspective and you'll see how badly it distorts what was happening in the discussion.
3. What makes the one line of mine you removed "irrelevant" when it was, infact, a direct, on-topic response to TruthKeeper's? While it could have been worded more politely (and it definitely didn't cross into uncivil territory), it certainly had an immediate point, of which the rest of the comment was mere elaboration---now only elaboration without a point to elaborate on. You've removed context.
4. You've accused me of not reading through WP:TPO well enough to understand why you made the deletions. I've read it through several times, and I still see your actions as a violation, and have explicitly stated where. Please show exactly where in the policy that you are justified.

Anyways, as Eisfbnore has pointed out, you have a conflict of interest here and couldn't possibly be a neutral enough party to be qualified to alter the discussion in the way you have. Whatever you think of me or the direction of the discussion, or how strongly you feel about your position, from a purely ethical perspecitve you have to admit you've crossed way over the line. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Should we make the parents of murdered children judges in the murder trial as well?" I don't see any way to interpret that other than hyperbole. TK's comment was actually talking about the article; yours was talking about her, which is inappropriate. I already explained why I added the extra comment to yours - because you reverted me. I've re-read the discussion, and I still think the context of your comment is preserved; I also don't see why you're accusing me of unfairness, given that I removed commentary from both "sides". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said more than once on this page:

1. you removed my comment in a way that made it look especially incriminating. Yes, you removed comments from both sides (at no point did I claim otherwise), but you were extremely selective in how you did it, and did so in such a way that it looked like Ceoil may have removed his/her own comments, while mine was clearly removed by an administrator. Strange, given that, while my comment was impolite (but not uncivil, and definitely on-topic), Ceoil's were out-and-out, clear-cut ad hominems.
2. my comment was about TruthKeeper's commenting behaviour, not about her herself, and was a request to cease that behaviour. That aspect of the comment was removed entirely. Nor was her comment about the article, but about how hard she (and others) had worked on the article (with the implication that the rest of us were ruining all that hard work by trying to add an infobox).
3. "Should we make the parents of murdered children judges in the murder trial as well?" was:
   1. not directed at you, but at Modernist's total lack of understanding of the point of having neutral third parties deal with sensitive issues

• Lets be clear - I don't know you and you don't know me and lets keep it that way - before it gets really ridiculous...I've seen absurd and foolish obsessions and WOW this takes the cake, later pal...Modernist (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1. not hyperbole, since it's exactly what a large number of "common sense"-types believe. If you haven't run into these types, you're blessed. It's a relief to see that you think it's ridiculous enough a statement to take it as hyperbole.
   2. If that was the comment you were responding to, it would have been far more clear if you had placed your response after that comment, rather than to a comment in a separate thread.
2. You still haven't shown where WP:TPO justifies your actions
3. You still haven't addressed the issue of conflict-of-interest

You're letting your biases show. Should I go looking for a neutral third-party myself? I was hoping that talking things out would result in mutually satisfying result. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two things - I'm getting the distinct sense that this has been personalized - in other words CurlyTurkey doesn't want me specifically to add to the Ezra Pound infobox discussion. Second, it's usually nice to notify someone when a conversation is being held about them. That would go for Ceoil too. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you restored my comment. If you'd like me to reword it to be more polite, I could do that. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey, before this goes any further: what exactly would you consider to be a "mutually satisfying result"? I've already attempted to address your concerns at that talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm talking about a "mutually satisfying result" regarding your deletions, and not about the infobox. This is why I'm talking about it on your talk page, and not at the Ezra Pound talk page. Have we talked about the Infobox on this page? Nope, not a word. So why would you suggest otherwise?

Also, and this is my fourth request: where in WP:TPO do you find justification for your deletions? And why do you keep dodging the answer to this? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I suggest anything about the infobox here. Your comment was incivil, off-topic, and did not contribute anything to the discussion...but since it's been restored, this discussion is over. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cute way to dodge the question again, while taking an uncivil jab at me. I'm not expecting anything from you anymore, but I'm not about to let a false accusation stand. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for that, it's appreciated. There's a whole saga involved here that you've no reason to care about, but basically previous disputes on this and related articles have left an environment where everyone feels the need to be defensive, both of their position and of each other. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, enjoyed reading it. Not sure though if the lead sentence should describe it as a graphic novel or comic. I'd prob go for the former. Ceoil (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for explaining, I agree with your edits. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, peer reviews with multiple PR categories are listed in each subsection at WP:PR. This means that the Louis Riel PR was listed three separate times, which takes up too much space (since all peer reviewes are transcluded in full in each category). I removed the two cats from the bottom of the PR to avoid this. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize that. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Louis Riel (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inking (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) 10:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your nominiation, Canadian comics is now listed as a good article. For more info, see: Talk:Canadian comics. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Art Spiegelman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Burns (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) 10:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments there. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Maus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epigraph (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) 09:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you made a lot of changes to the refs on the Chester Brown page. This has created a cite error and I'm not sure how to fix it because the whole section is organised in an unusual way. Could you have a look and see if you can fix it? Thanks.Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this comment, so you clearly realize that the argument is going nowhere fast. Why is it that no one other than those with dogs in the fight is commenting?—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment on the band names argument because I wasn't interested in the actual argument (I'm not into J-Pop). I mentioned it (in a smart-assed sort of way) because the vote on images (which I am interested in) seemed to be buried by it.

If it came down to it, I'd weigh in on the side of not including katakana as a pronunciation guide. And I'm pretty sure that the 「キュート」 in the "℃-ute" logo was pronunciation guide, and not an endorsement for 「キュート」 being a standard way of writing the name of the band. Are there any articles that use 「キュート」 to the exclusion of "℃-ute"? If not, then I strongly suspect that only "℃-ute" is standard, and 「キュート」 is only a pronunciation guide for Japanese people, and thus has no business being in the English Wikipedia article.

P.S. "Discharge light beams modestly" is a terrible translation of 「光線の発射はご遠慮下さい」. "Please refrain from discharging lasers/light beams" would be a straighter translation.CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue does not just concern that one band's name. It concerns any Japanese article subject who may use the English alphabet to refer to themselves in the Japanese cultural sphere. While this does concern multiple musical entities, it still is a wide ranging thing to attempt to change. And it seems that if "℃-ute" is used, キュート is not far behind (I did find over half a million results for the two next to each other).

And I hope you do not mind, but I prefer keeping conversations in the place where they started, so I have moved your comments from my talk page onto yours. If you need to grab my attention, you can go with a ((talkback)) tag on my talk.

Also, if I remember correctly, "Discharge light beams modestly" is what Google came up with when I first stuck that phrase into its translator, so it stuck with me.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that it has to do with a larger number of articles. "℃-ute" was the specific one that came up, so I addressed that. The fact that it comes up often with 「キュート」 tells us nothing more than that its pronunciation is not obvious, and thus requires a pronunciation guide. I don't see how one could jump to the conclusion that the pronunciation guide is somehow an official alternative spelling. In the vast majority of cases, I think that katakana should not be used as pronunciation guides on the English Wikipedia.

Oh, and I'd avoid using Google Translate for Japanese. My mother tried to send a thank-you message to my wife a few weeks back, after being put through Google Translate. If it weren't for the fact that she included the English original with the mesage, we never would've understod the giberish that Google Translate spat out---not even that it was supposed to be saying "thank you". I'm not even exaggerating. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument, as I see it from their side, is that by including the katakana form of let's say °C-ute it apparently suggests to our readers that キュート is the method by which the subject is referred to in the Japanese media, rather than °C-ute or ℃-ute. This argument also comes from someone who vehemently opposed the inclusion of the phrase "stylized as" regarding the difference between "Misia" and "MISIA" because there was no source for "stylized as", even though it is phrasing utilized internally to conform with the various manuals of style. And while perhaps the katakana may not be necessary on articles such as Yui (singer) or m.o.v.e, to me these guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And I retain the Google Translation because it is humorous in its literal application in turning "No Laser Beams" into "Discharge light beams modestly". Although "Please refrain from discharging light beams" has a similar ring to it.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you as you realize it's just a shitty translation. I've run into far too many people who take dictionary/machine translations as law, and use them to look down their noses at other languages (as in "Holy Fuck! Look at the retarded things they say in Language X! No wonder English is the international language!"). Also "modestly" is hardly a "literal" translation of 「遠慮」 in most contexts.

"Stylized as" is fine as far as I can see---it's pretty standard. But I do agree that including the katakana seemingly legitimizes the use of that katakana as official, another reason I'm opposed to its usage. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But yet the katakana exists in usage in Japan, even if it is not the primary usage. IPA seemingly isn't preferred amongst academics in the US, but if we just give the Hepburn romanization (of an already romanized name) it seems to me like something is inherently missing from the text.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed two tildes in one of your comments.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't met. You may be interested in Template talk: Authority control#Placement in author templates where i have cited you. --P64 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about formatting the URL as if it was an ISBN. That's not supposed to happen. Well spotted. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished reviewing the article at Talk:Louis Riel (comics)/GA1. Would you mind responding to the questions I posed there? Thanks. maclean (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Winsor McCay.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Gertie the Dinosaur.ogv requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Petit Sammy éternue.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Breakdowns (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NBM (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) 13:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this edit on the FAC talk page. I don't think I've ever run across Mr. Rabbit before, so I have no idea why he came out the gate so angry. Maybe he will feel better when, as it appears likely, his crusade to eliminate ((navbox link)) is successful. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Curly Turkey, I have completed my review of Maus, and everything looks to be in order except for a broken link in the article. I will place the article on hold until that is fixed. Good luck! --Tea with toast (話) 22:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - and thanks - for bringing this article to GA.VolunteerMarek 05:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time. You may also want to ask for help from others at WT:POLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave positive not snarky feedback on my talk page. None of us is perfect. Quis separabit? 19:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Ed the Happy Clown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sewer (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) 12:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait, I'll probably finish my review on Monday. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia, but noticed that the page for Dame Darcy's 'Meat Cake' comic is incorrectly filed under the title 'Meatcake'. I am not yet able to access the 'move' feature, and saw that you were involved in the page.

• 'Meatcake Fantagraphics' Google Search

Apologies if this seems inconsequential. Sallyzamboni (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CerebusRicksStoryCover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Good news: you were approved for a free WP:HighBeam account. Bad news: Your access code could not be delivered because of your email settings. Please:

• Email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com with your Wikipedia username so I can respond with your account code.

Thanks! --User:Ocaasi 15:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing ((User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox)) on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Billy DeBeck you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 5 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Billy DeBeck for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 08:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Billy DeBeck you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Billy DeBeck for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 09:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Comics Award
	Great work on comic articles! Regards. Kürbis (✔) 09:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing ((User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox)) on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We tried to use Wikipedia email to deliver your account access information but you either did not provide an email address in your preferences or had it set up not to receive messages from other editors. You can change both on the first page of Special:Preferences. To fix the situation directly or to let me know you've changed your preferences, just email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers, Ocaasi 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dream of the Rarebit Fiend you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Dream of the Rarebit Fiend for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 09:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dream of the Rarebit Fiend you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dream of the Rarebit Fiend for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 08:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It's time for another FA star on your user page. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I didn't realize... Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adverbs ending in "ly" weaken sentences, meaning the adverb is both redundant and damaging to the clarity of the prose. To take an example:

• "it was not the sort of dish one would likely associate with having nightmares"

Versus:

• "it was not the sort of dish one would associate with having nightmares"

In this case, "likely" weakens the sentence, making it less specific (is it or isn't it? to what extent?). Removing it does not change the meaning. Tony's exercises in redundancy address this with more examples.

In this specific case it also introduces another problem; are you reflecting the sources view in an accurate fashion? Is the author uncertain of his convictions or are you undermining what he said? (see WP:EDITORIAL).

In fact the real issue is with adverbs, but very many end in "ly" making that a good hack for finding them. If you search "ly " on an article and they are littered about that is a big sign that the prose lacks specificity. Not all adverbs are bad, and indeed in many cases they do add value. But in general it is an area to check.

Adverbs crop up a lot in quickly written prose (e.g. see my FAC comments, which has a number), one of the first steps in revising copy should be to search for "ly" adverbs and check that they a) add any value and b) can't be replaced with something specific. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could see the point if it were a matter of weakening the sentence. The "ly" adverb being used, however, was "prolifically"—which made the sentence more specific. After all, you did substitute it with the adjective "prolific". Removing it would clearly change the meaning (McCay was certainly prolific—one estimate puts his total output at one million finished drawings). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies, I meant it as a general point because in reading your revision I picked up on the "ly"and ran a check. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial efforts that has contributed to the recent WP:GA promotion of Billy DeBeck

This user helped promote Billy DeBeck to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dave Sim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Jackson (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) 11:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for putting the Building Stories article together just so you know someone noticed. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wasn't that nice! CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 17:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon, please polish blurb and article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Building Stories, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the graphic novel Building Stories by Chris Ware was published as a box that contained fourteen printed objects, including cloth-bound books, newspapers, broadsheets, and flip books? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Building Stories. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you didn't make use of the following at Louis Riel (comics):

http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=690214334&page_url=//www.tcj.com/259/r_reil&page_last_updated=2004-05-13T17:32:07&firstName=Louis&lastName=Riel which is an archive of The Comics Journal: Reviews www.tcj.com, 13 May 2004 and somewhat addresses changes from serial to compiled editions that you were asking for on talk. I also have copies of TCJ 240, 254 and 259 that are mentioned in this article if they are of any use to you. Hiding T 13:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have from the mid 230s onwards complete so if you ever need anything for any article in those issues message me. Before that I'm gappy. I think the archived article is an extended version of the review, but over the weekend I'll see about scanning them and if I have time I'll do the others as well. The one in 254 is a rebuttal to a takedown of the work in TCJ special edition 1. Does your email work? Hiding T 06:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I'll ping you on here when I've done it. Hiding T 06:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book (1959) was the first book-length work of original comics in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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) 16:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	comics
	Thank you for quality articles on comics, such as Louis Riel, and on Canadian-Japanese relations, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still reviewing the article? Best, Jona^{talk to me} 00:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to pass or fail the article? Best, Jona^{talk to me} 18:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Harvey Kurtzman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Martin Goodman and Dave Berg

Hey Look! (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Martin Goodman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Expert Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Expert Barnstar for your outstanding contributions to comics-related topics. This award is given to a few people who are regarded experts in one or several particular fields. Congrats and keep up your excellent work :)!--Tomcat (7) 12:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you vey much! CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Curly Turkey/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Hiding T 13:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation about the use of a single date rather than the serialisation dates.

On the other hand, using a date as an adjunct remains clumsy expression. There are occasions when it is appropriate. These are the occasions when the date is absolutely integral to the event itself. There is a difference between the Olympic Games and the 2012 Olympic Games. There is a difference between Presidential elections and the 2008 Presidential election.

But Riel's 1885 hanging for high treason is a classic example of very poor use of a date as an adjunct. Riel's hanging is Riel's hanging. It only occurred once, surely? It should be stated: "Riel's hanging for high treason in 1885"? The date is not part of the event.

It doesn't equate with "chicken soup" which is simply not the same thing, without the chicken, as I am sure you will agree.

Amandajm (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harvey Kurtzman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Captain Marvel and Roger Price (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) 10:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on the article! I saw it just got posted to GAN, and I wanted to mention that the article currently has a maintenance template on the 'Description' section. I would suggest resolving that before a review, as it could conceivably be used to quick fail the article. I wouldn't do that myself if I was reviewing, but why take the chance, eh? Cheers! Resolute 04:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Curly Turkey! Thank you so much for doing the GA Review for Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, I've modified the first sentence of the lede intro per your helpful suggestion on the GA Review subpage. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I've copyedited that sentence in the Themes section, thanks for that suggestion, — Cirt (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, no worries, take your time, but I'd like to try to address your suggestions afterwards, I hope I can respond to your recommendations to your satisfaction so we can have this important article be of WP:GA quality soon on Wikipedia. :) Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One last update for now and then will come back to it later, just to let you know I've made several edits to significantly trim down the use of quotations in the article, I agree with this helpful recommendation, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Great suggestions, all! :) I used that script and removed a bunch of repeated links. I also trimmed a lot more quotes. I then came back and paraphrased quotes and removed the quotes themselves. Should be all addressed now. ;) — Cirt (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I've taken care of the other steps and referenced your GA Review subpage. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more time thanks for the GA review of Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. If you're interested in the subject matter, perhaps you'd like to join the new WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech?? :) — Cirt (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be happy to have you in any capacity, from working on an article up to WP:FA, or just commenting occasionally at WT:WikiProject Freedom of speech, it's up to you. :) Think about it, — Cirt (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archie Comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Warren (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) 11:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some nice, precise writing and footnoting at Archie Comics! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I feel self-conscious piling up kudos again so soon, but that was such a precise, nuanced edit at Histoire de M. Vieux Bois that I simply have to compliment you. Nice work. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE Histoire de M. Vieux Bois refs: Dude! You de man! Those are excellent!

Ah, geez, more work to do . . . !   :-)   --Tenebrae (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Comment left at User talk:Catyliz#November 2012 - J Greb (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harvey Kurtzman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Barry (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) 11:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to postpone the rest of the GA review until saturday or sunday?? I've been conscripted to serve in the Norwegian army so I don't really have much spare time during work-days.. The reason for the postponement is to write the "Relations with Kampuchea and the Sino–Vietnamese War" section which is currently blank. Would this be okay??? --TIAYN (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to all you're comments, are there anymore problems with the article? :) --TIAYN (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that was hyperbole and I apologise. I'm an enthusiast for copy-editing and I sometimes let my enthusiasm overwhelm my tact. It's a really good article on a very important subject and I congratulate you on your work in bringing it on as far as you have. I taught a class in Intermediate English for a few years and I honestly never noticed these ambiguities as much until I had done this. The one we always used to illustrate the point to students was "I love to listen to music doing my homework." Is the meaning easy to extract from this sentence? Of course. Would "I love to listen to music while I do my homework." nevertheless be better and clearer without the ambiguity? Yes it would (unless we were aiming for a comical effect of course). Do you follow me? Anyway, sorry if I hurt your feelings with that one. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see image review comments at Talk:George Herriman/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Goodman Beaver, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a 1961 comics satire involving Archie characters in a hedonistic Roman-style orgy provoked a lawsuit by Archie Comics that resulted in the parody's creators handing over copyright to the work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Goodman Beaver. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to all you're comments, has it passed? --TIAYN (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I incorrectly posted a vandalism warning on your page, but now my mistake was pointed to me. I was trying to prevent someone else from reverting again and again an edit I had made. Will be more careful --and clear--next time, and thanks for all your useful & knowledgeable contributions to comics pages.Catyliz (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Art Spiegelman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaz (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) 11:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Don't get discouraged. We need people reviewing at GAN. You need a pat on the back? I'd give you ten :) Thanks beforehand for helping us reducing the backlog. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 18:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

got your comment, found the correct link

OK, I got your comment [re: editing Spiegelman] about editing content and providing appropriate link, and fixed my earlier edit with the correct link. It's hard though, harder than I remember from a while back, to get all these references properly listed. Is it getting so hard to edit in the exact required wiki style that it discourages the common of mortals who just wants to contribute what he/she knows?Catyliz (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the remaining problems. --TIAYN (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curley, Thanks for all the useful support, but I was trying to fix a few things on the Spiegelman page, and found it just too difficult. If you read this/are so inclined, can you fix? -In the reference section, under "Spiegelman", the publisher for MetaMaus is listed as Viking, but it's actually Pantheon -I wanted to properly label the citations I added, like the external links to ASME or to the Globe and Mail, but now that they show up in the alphabetized list (which must be your ^[1] or whatever—too much for me, I don't know how to get there. -Most important, the birth name: in Metamaus, on page 16, as I had cited, you can see the documents (mother's passport AND father's naturalization papers) that list Art's official birth name. His official birth name is not what Art says in an interview on the next page, page 18, but actually "Izy Artur", as I had corrected. Can you incorporate my edit in your formatting? Thanks so much and all the best, Catyliz (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Regular-tunings Barnstar
	Thanks again for the helpful suggestions during your review of major-thirds tuning for Good Article status. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MazzucchelliRubberBlanket3Cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CerebusGuysCollectionCover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bongo Comics logo.jpeg. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Curly Turkey. You have new messages at Beyond My Ken's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 06:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]