Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea 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 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea 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 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contributions to Flood (They Might Be Giants album). This is my first time writing an article of that scope, and it is really helpful to have a more experienced editor provide assistance and guidance. :) ~ Boomur [☎] 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm telling you this, but I was looking through Adventure Time episodes and clicking through some of them, and realized you created most of the ones that have an article. I went to your contributions and I just have to compliment you on your editing. The articles for The Office and The X-files and the other misc things you edit - you always keep clean and logical. I've recently been editing and Wikipedia a lot and I truly aspire to create quality articles like yourself. Okay that's it bye bye. Aqlpswkodejifrhugty (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Adventure Time (season 6) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Loo's Control has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Return to the Nightosphere / Daddy's Little Monster 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work before hitting the Main Page? I had to squeeze the summary down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be good to go, and that summary looks quite nice! :)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Return to the Nightosphere / Daddy's Little Monster 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Return to the Nightosphere / Daddy's Little Monster for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 23W -- 23W (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Return to the Nightosphere / Daddy's Little Monster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Return to the Nightosphere / Daddy's Little Monster 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cup of the Ptolemies 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cup of the Ptolemies 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cup of the Ptolemies for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cup of the Ptolemies you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cup of the Ptolemies 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response on the talk page my friend. I don't entirely think Religion in The X-Files is not notable, but the argument I had was that if Sources & analogues for the franchise are not notable, why would any cult or religion discussed in only certain individual episodes be notable. That's what I mean. Now see what you can do to improve that newly created article if you can. Thanks--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Adventure Time: Hey Ice King! Why'd you steal our garbage?!! into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Please instead start a requested move if you think the article should be at a different title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unnatural cup and consolatio
Thank you for quality articles on a wide range of topics, such as List of Adventure Time episodes, The Unnatural (The X-Files), Ha' K'in Xook, Consolatio and Cup of the Ptolemies, winning you the cup of awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! I really appreciate it. :) --Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hey! i wanted to let you know that Flood (They Might Be Giants album) has been promoted to GA. i wanted to say thanks for the work you did on the article! i think it had a really good influence on the outcome of the GAN. i have also nominated it for a DYK. hopefully our hard work will also pay off for Apollo 18. :) Boomur [☎] 04:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Eat It ("Weird Al" Yankovic album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable compilation, no sources, didn't chart

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Polka Power Weird Al Single Germany.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hooked on Polkas Weird Al.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Peter and the Wolf ("Weird Al" Yankovic & Wendy Carlos album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Absolutely no sourcing found. Not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the artist is notable does not mean the album is. I could find nothing that said anything more about this album than "it exists", and it's been unsourced since 2007. If you can find reviews of it, or articles that discuss it in detail, then yes. But I found jack squat. It exists, but does not seem to meet WP:NALBUMS. " That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter and the Wolf ("Weird Al" Yankovic & Wendy Carlos album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter and the Wolf ("Weird Al" Yankovic & Wendy Carlos album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're working on it in your sandbox:

The season four premiere of this inspired 'toon about a boy and his precocious dog is as colorful, clever, and unpredictably funny as ever. Tonight finds hero Finn tragically in love with a girl on fire—but think less Katniss, more actual flames... with lipstick. B.

—Marc Snetiker^[1]

23W 06:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've added it to the newly created article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Jesus Freak (song). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. It was not cited in the article though Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adventure Time (miniseries), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the announcement of the upcoming Adventure Time miniseries was called a "stunt"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adventure Time (miniseries). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to match up article's name.--Namoroka (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not exactly sure what you mean.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Trunks (Adventure Time) → Tree Trunks (Adventure Time episode), The Lich → The Lich (Adventure Time episode). Tree Trunks and The Lich should be redirected to List of Adventure Time characters. (Sorry for my poor English.)--Namoroka (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gotcha. I think that will only be the case when and if character articles for Tree Trunks and The Lich get made, simply because MoS states to have the simplest article title. I could be mistaken. Let me check up on that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits on Jesus Freak because they are not supported. The whole thing should be removed but I'll let you find references for those statements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem now. You assumed I didn't recognize the reviews or mainstream airplay. That's clear. It was the "to its dark, grunge sound" of the song, etc. The GA nature of the article is not the question, it's the recent additions that were the problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to bring to your attention the article you posted, Steins (ghost town), apparently duplicates the topic we have over at Steins, New Mexico. Is it okay if I merge the two articles now, and you can add any new information to the existing article? (When titling ghost town articles, it is standard naming convention to use the latter form anyway). Regards– Gilliam (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dang! A search for "Steins" only brought up the asteroid, so I assumed it had been made yet. Thanks for catching that. I went ahead and redirected my article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore Minneola, Kansas, which is the correct article naming format for incorporated cities in Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was going to say the same thing. "I'm going to revert your page move of Minneola, Kansas because it is the usual procedure to make any incorporated place (city or town) the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A single unincorporated community and/or ghost town Minneola, Franklin County, Kansas can then be mentioned in a WP:HATNOTE. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Please let me know if you have any questions."– Gilliam (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, Gilliam. Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate a level-headed and informative critique of my editing, as opposed to a rude demand.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zero Friction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gen. Quon. A while ago you asked me if I had any images of Piedras Negras stelae, and at that time I didn't. However, I have been working on Maler's Researches in the Central Portion of the Usumatsintla Valley over at Wikisource, and as a consequence I have uploaded Maler's photos of Piedras Negras stelae that appeared in the book. You can see them in commons:category:Piedras Negras, Maya site. It may be that some of them are of use on your Piedras Negras rulers articles. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very awesome! I will be sure to use them!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Frank Sinatra (Cake song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks on Jermaine. Do you think you lend a plot summary for it? I would, but you seem better at those. Thanks (again). 23W 23:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can probably pitch in. I'm rather busy at the moment, but I'm sure I can get something done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad that I promise to help... and then kinda dropped the ball. I totally forget, what with finals and all. I'm really sorry!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gen. Quon: No worries—finals trump wiki stuff. On the plus side, there's a few more AT articles I'm working on, so maybe look out for them this month. 23W 23:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Adventure Time (season 6) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Apollo 18 (album) 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Apollo 18 (album) 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Apollo 18 (album) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hot to the Touch 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hot to the Touch 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hot to the Touch for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hot to the Touch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hot to the Touch 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Apollo 18 (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Apollo 18 (album) 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Adventure Time (season 8), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ovguide.com/tv_season/adventure-time-season-6-152831.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Five Short Graybles 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 BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Five Short Graybles you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Five Short Graybles 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 BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adventure Time (season 6) 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 BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mandela Effect has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All this article's sources are ultimately based on a single questionable source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Unklphil (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Adventure Time (season 6) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adventure Time (season 6) 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 BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Just checking in on the two good article reviews of my articles you started. If you just haven't had the time, that's okay--I just want to make sure you remember that they're open. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 13:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another AT episode article, this time from season two. If you have the time, do you think you could lend a plot section for this one? Thanks. 23W 05:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few days, but I'm sure I can whip up something.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was trudging through search engines to look up more episodic Adventure Time sources and found this from Frontiers (also published in their mag) [citation: Ciriaco, Mike (October 2, 2014). "Time Out". Frontiers. 33 (12): 22.] Concerns "The Silent King", "What Was Missing", "Princess Cookie", "The Hard Easy", and "Sky Witch"—only one of which doesn't have an article already, though I'll keep looking for more. 23W 22:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! I'll try to incorporate it in those articles in the next couple of days.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request an image of Tom Herpich's drawing sent in Kent Osbourne's Tumblr for "Jake the Brick"'s wikipage? Here's the link and description below:

http://mrkentosborne.tumblr.com/post/129097166116/congrats-on-the-emmy-for-jake-the-brick-kent

Thank you! 90.205.115.118 (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a pretty good idea. I'll get on that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jupiter (The Presidents of the United States of America song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get hype. 23W 19:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy... I am so excited!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Guardians of Sunshine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the animation style of "Guardians of Sunshine" was called a return to the first depictions of virtual reality in fiction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Guardians of Sunshine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring The List (The X-Files) (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Revelations (The X-Files) (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring War of the Coprophages (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Syzygy (The X-Files) (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Pusher (The X-Files) (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Teso Dos Bichos (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Hell Money (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Jose Chung's From Outer Space (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Avatar (The X-Files) (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Quagmire (The X-Files) (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Wetwired (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOST IMPRESSIVE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS, WOW !!!

NOTE: Please add yourself to our Hall of Fame, at Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award/Hall of Fame. — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award/Hall of Fame -- could you please fix the chronological order of those entries you've added to list each by their date of promotion to GA ? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoops. I misread that as today's date. I believe I've fixed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gen. Quon. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Adventure Time at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Points (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Points (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gen. Quon, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. You can use the page history to get a diff comparing it to the lead section of the article; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank:, as far as I can tell, it looks good. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again, your The Post-Modern Prometheus, regarded by many critics as one of the best entries the series ever produced!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hortensius (Cicero) 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hortensius (Cicero) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hortensius (Cicero) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christian interpretations of Virgil's Fourth Eclogue 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 Jfhutson -- Jfhutson (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reading the article Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi and I've nominated it for GA status. I also rated it B-rank which is the highest I can do without a review. I've never reviewed an article before so I'm leaving it for those more qualified. The article is well done and sorry I didn't give a review myself. Psychotic Spartan 123 13:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi, a Latin poem by Faltonia Betitia Proba, takes lines from the works of the Roman poet Virgil and rearranges them to be about Jesus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:YankConcert)Yoda.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Brady Bunch (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Nielsen ratings are a bit confusing, they announce early numbers first and then the final ones (which may take up to two days to post). TV by the Numbers announces them in another article. (they do not update the ratings in the same article as the early ratings). Just wanted to warn you so you wouldn't waste your time writing the ratings sections which you eventually have to rewrite. Mymis (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. It looks like they're just going to update the same article with new information later, so instead of deleting all the info, I just hide it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stakes (miniseries) 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 Johanna -- Johanna (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that edit summary to The X-Files miniseries page was not really called for. Let's try to remain civil here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the rampant unchecked racism of many Americans is called for either; was only cracking a joke about it. Nfitz (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I get you, and I wasn't offended, I just thought I should tell you because that kind of behavior can be inferred as hostile, which can become a whole ordeal in and of itself.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough - I should probably bite my tongue ... I just can't believe what I read in the news some days though about what leaders in that country say in public; very disturbing. Nfitz (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm an American myself, and I can't even handle what our leaders are saying.....--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I finally caught the first two, and, well they're kind of a mess. "Founder's Mutation" picked up a bit compared to "My Struggle" but I'm not really that impressed. Although I did get around to watching I Want to Believe recently too; I'd been saving it since I didn't want to have seen everything there was. And I dug it a lot more than I expected; I can see why as a movie maybe people were let down by it but it seemed like a really good monster of the week show, only bigger. GRAPPLE ^X 05:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Didn't realize that. I just added it until someone could write a more detailed plot summary. JustAGal2 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! 7 days have passed, and there is consensus on the Talk:The X-Files Season 10's move request. Should it be closed? Can you do this for me, since you did the other one just fine? (I admit I don't know how to do it myself...) Thanks! -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, done!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With a big disappointment, I find out that someone re-renamed The X-Files (TV Season 10) back to Miniseries and without taking in account the consensus reached in the talkpage! What can be done? -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found what happened. The user User:Wikipedical has made a request in the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests page in which he asked that the The X-Files (TV Season 10) be reverted back to Miniseries by wrongfully claiming that the move request:

1) is undiscussed.

2) no consensus reached.

You can find his request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=703711118 (check bottom of the page in that link)

Apparently the user Wikipedical has missed to check in detail the discussion in the Talk page of the The X-Files (TV Season 10), and his request has been accepted by the Administrators without them checking first if there was a discussion or a consensus has been reached in the Talk Page at all.

For this reason, I demanded an explanation from the user User:Anthony_Appleyard at his talk page: User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#You_have_reverted_a_move_which_is_against_the_Talk_Page.27s_consensus.21 so I can understand why did he accepted the groundless claims (undiscussed and no-consensus) of some user and moved the page against the said consensus that has been reached in the talk page. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez. What a mess this has become. I hope they respond and fix it. That's so weird that Wikipedical did that. That's kinda shitty.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fire away! :) The Wookieepedian (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, even if I don't know how much of an expert I could be. I also did a thesis on Wikipedia, nice to see other contributors exploiting the site to get out of college... igordebraga ≠ 15:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My thesis was "Wikipedia and Journalism: Reading the news on an encyclopedia?", wonder if some day I translate it from Portuguese. igordebraga ≠ 21:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gen. Quon. I'm happy to answer the interview questions you sent me. If I ever state that "I'm not sure what you mean" on a certain question, feel free to clarify and I'll respond.

1. I started Wikipedia in early 2014. I think I started Wikipedia due to my love of fiction and my fascination with fictional characters. I also love talking about and reading about my interests, which often led me to read the Wikipedia articles about them. This served as a gateway for me to create an account and become involved.

2. I don't think it plays a part in my identity because most people that I know in my tangible, outside-of-the-internet life don't know a lot about what I do on Wikipedia and I don't really divulge much of my life from outside of the Wiki on this site. However, I have donated quite a bit of my time to the improvement of this site, and I hope it is paying off in some way.

3. What draws me to certain articles, including those pertaining to Star Wars, is my interest and fascination in certain topics that the articles are about. However, there are times when I keep close watch of articles in need of improvement or that are a hotspot for non-constructive editing, original research, ETC.

4. I'm not sure what you mean by "desperate info" but I think that the ideal Wikipedia article is one that uses an abundance of reliable sources to create an encyclopedic collection of information regarding a certain subject. I believe that Wikipedia is meant to be a free, easy to access encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to. Wikipedia should be synonymous with easy-to-access verifiable information. Sadly, I think that the site has been on the decline in recent years. Many editors (especially inexperienced IP users) seem to think that citations are just a minor convenience and feel entirely free to make whatever claim they want without verification. Citations to reliable sources are a necessity.

5. When it comes to franchises and continuity, "canon" is a term applied to all of the stories, characters, events, objects and settings that apply to the official timeline of the continuity. Anything that is labeled "non-canon" has basically been demoted to "What if?" status. Anything that is canon is something that is officially part of the fictional universe.

6. Since Wikipedia isn't meant to be written in an in-universe style, canon isn't as important as information that is backed by reliable sources. However, whenever necessary, we can always make a mention on if a particular story or character is canon or otherwise.

7. Officially, the companies or copyright owners decide when something is or isn't canon in their universe. When it comes to Star Wars, Disney has said that nothing from before the Disney acquisition of the franchise is canon except for the films and television shows. However, when it remains unconfirmed whether or not a particular story is canon, it is up to the consumer to decide whether or not it applies (unless it is contradicted by the canon itself). Despite this, there are some fans that ignore what the corporations tell them is canon and they make up their own headcanon. For instance, there are people who still consider Heir to the Empire to be the definitive continuation of Return of the Jedi, even though Disney says it's Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

8. Well, Wikipedia doesn't decide what is or isn't canon and they don't determine what is and isn't correct. Personally, I haven't noticed anyone guarding articles from information that isn't officially canon, but I have seen editors that do guard articles from vandalism and disruptive editing. That doesn't mean that those editors don't exist, but I haven't seen them (at least, not yet).

9. It depends on what the edit war is about. When an edit war arises, editors should always cease edit warring and discuss the matter, unless the edit is disruptive. As far as which side I choose, it depends on the situation. It may be determined by my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines or simply my understanding or opinion of the matter. For example, there was a disagreement about whether or not to include David Mazouz in the list of actors that portrayed Batman in the Batman article. My position was that we should, since Bruce Wayne and Batman are one in the same. Other editors thought that we shouldn't include him, since he hasn't actually taken on the Batman identity yet.

10. Officially, all Wikipedia editors are of equal value. However, I do think that some Wikipedia editors have more credibility than others, based on their experience, edits and interactions with other users. A senior editor may be taken more seriously than an IP user that has only made twenty edits, even though they are technically equal according to our guidelines. Then you have other editors (such as administrators) that obviously have abilities that the average user does not.

11. You can earn the trust of other users by being civil, following the guidelines, collaborating and discussing disagreements (instead of edit warring), not making disruptive or vandalistic edits, and by editing regularly.

12. In order to become an expert on a particular subject, I think it is best to do research outside of Wikipedia. When it comes to editing, I don't think that you become an expert by editing certain articles. On the contrary, I believe that experts are more valuable when it comes to contributing to the site than the site is to people looking to become experts. DarkKnight2149 23:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stakes (miniseries) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stakes (miniseries) 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 Johanna -- Johanna (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! I remember you of course, nice to hear from you again. Go ahead and ask the questions, but keep in mind that I may not have the best answers. :) Peace, --Khanassassin ☪ 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago ...

unnatural cup and consolatio
...you were recipient no. 1134 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry for the delay! I hope these responses help:

• 1) When did you start editing Wikipedia and why?

• I began editing in 2007 during college by creating an account (not this one, but another that I've since abandoned, as I felt its username was too close to my personal name). I started by writing an article on one of my ancestors who was notable for being killed in a robbery, and I got addicted enough to keep editing other topics.

• 2) Does Wikipedia play a big part in your life/identity?

• Yes and no. I consider editing WP to be a hobby, much in the same manner of how others approach their own hobbies (when I have some freetime and need a break from life, I jump into the site). My close friends and family know I edit WP, but I've never been able to convince anyone else to seriously give it a try. As a result, I don't talk to others much about it due to lack of interest! WP is mainly a private hobby for me.

• 3) What initially drew you to the articles that you edit?

• As said above, I was drawn in to write an article on one of my ancestors. As I became comfortable editing, I expanded into topics I was more interested in: royal/noble biographies, television, film, and literature. I have a lot of varied interests! One early WP memory of mine is expanding a biography of a French noblewoman during a semester I took a French history class - some of our assigned reading mentioned this woman, so I looked her article up and then proceeded to source it further.

• 4) Why do you feel the desire to collect disparate info and then collect it into one (or more) article?

• Because I love doing it! :) One of my great pleasures is watching an article grow, both in content and sourcing. I was a history major in college, so I've had years of experience with writing and sourcing. While I didn't continue in that field after graduation, I continued editing WP as I saw it gave me a chance to continue my passion for research and writing.

• 5) What does the term ‘canon’ mean to you?

• I view canon as the "approved" version of events and information surrounding a fictional universe. Essentially, the people behind that work of fiction have produced/approved it and allowed it to be used when conceptualizing their world.

• 6) When you’re making an article, is it important to ‘stick to canon’, or use only legitimate, canonical sources?

• To me, those are basically the equivalents of each other. Since I consider canon to be the approved version of a fictional universe, I consider the use of canonical sources to be paramount when writing an article. That said, in television/film/literature articles, I try to include factual details about the work (production, casting, plot) while also offering alternative perspectives and views (such as critical reviews and scholarly analysis).

• 7) In your opinion, what determines canon (or, “who has the final say”)?

• Definitely the people who created/developed the work, or at least iterations they approved. Anything else is original research or fandom fantasies. Fans are welcome to use their imaginations when expanding the universe, but it's not canon and should not be considered as such, especially when writing an encyclopedia.

• 8) Do some editors of pop culture articles guard their articles, (or “prevent the canon from being tainted”)?

• Yes, there are definitely editors who guard against unsourced additions and original research. I believe this is a good thing, however. This may be controversial, but I see no reason why 98% of the encyclopedia can't be reliably sourced.

• 9) If there’s an edit war and you want to get involved, generally, how do you determine what side to choose?

• I don't get involved in too many edit wars, but I look first at who is abiding by WP policy (i.e. Are the additions sourced reliably? Does the content make sense? Is it controversial? Is it decently written?)

• 10) In your opinion, do certain Wikipedia editors have more power than others? If yes, how so?

• Yes, I think established editors do have more power. This is in large part because veteran editors understand WP policy and know the best ways to make their contributions stick. I don't consider this necessarily a bad thing, but I do wish that this place was more welcoming of newcomers.

• 11) How do you gain the trust of other editors?

• I think being competent, friendly, and willing to learn will get you far here. There are plenty of great, kind editors on this site (yourself included!), and I believe that trust is best earned through interacting and displaying the three aforementioned traits.

• 12) How does an editor gain expertise/become an “expert” in a specific subject?

• Mainly by reading! For example one of my passions is period dramas, particularly adaptations of Jane Austen's works. Before I began editing those articles on WP, I did not know many details about film analysis (such as scholarly themes). To rectify this, I bought a few books and began doing more research online. Now, I've written three FAs of Austen adaptations, and learn more everyday! It's important to read a variety of sources and be willing to take advice from others when crafting an article. Ruby 2010/2013 04:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check the history of that article. That user Gothicfilm is trolling again and changing the genre to science fiction and trying to remove the supernatural fiction genre, despite consensus. Please look at it when you have time. Thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Hoping you enjoyed the recently-held in-person Art+Feminism meetup, we cordially invite you continue your participation by joining the virtual worldwide online event hosted by Women in Red. March 2016 (Women's History Month)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi 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 Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi 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 Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gen. Quon, I just wanted to say I really appreciate your feedback on the X-Files talk page. I'm fairly new editing on Wikipedia, and I feel that your response really put me on the right track. I must say I really feel like a fool for missing the Mythology edit addressing the MOTW episodes, and now understand that my edit served no purpose. Anyway, I was wondering if could make an edit on the "Monsters of the week" page? I would not be changing anything, just adding additional information.

Charlie ambrose (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Walnuts & Rain 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Walnuts & Rain for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jake the Brick 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jake the Brick for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lost Horizons (Lemon Jelly album) 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lost Horizons (Lemon Jelly album) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Overdrive (Shonen Knife album) 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 Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Overdrive (Shonen Knife album) 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Overdrive (Shonen Knife album) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your excellent contributions to future GAs! Great work indeed! Carbrera (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks so much!! :) --Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Overdrive (Shonen Knife album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Overdrive (Shonen Knife album) 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 Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Erichtho 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 Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Erichtho 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Erichtho for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gen. Quon. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Astronomica (Manilius) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting article. I have no further questions or concerns, but you might wish to read my question to Rothorpe at User talk:Rothorpe#Astronomica (Manilius). Feel free to weigh in.  – Corinne (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gen. Quon, just out of curiosity, I'm just taking a look at your recent edits to Astronomica (Manilius). I noticed that in this edit, you removed "to" and put in a dash. I believe that when you use the word "between" to introduce a range in numbers, you need to use the word "to" for the other half of the range. I've been looking in WP:Manual of Style for the exact guideline. So far, I've only found this, which refers to date ranges, but I think the principle would apply to other numerical ranges. MOS:DATERANGE:

• Use a dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both: from 1881 to 1886 (not from 1881–86);  between June 1 and July 3 (not between June 1 – July 3)

 – Corinne (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gen. Quon, I am just writing today to thank you for your edits on Book of Abraham and to apologize profusely if I offended you with my mammoth revision of your edits, which I now realized was very ill-advised. I thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I too have been a Wikipedia editor for years, and though I make mistakes in the moment, I always feel horrible about them after the fact, generally when it's too late to do anything about it. If I had to go back and do it all again, I never would have reverted you. It is completely understandable that having so done, my basic motivations for editing are being called into question. I thank you for your edits, apologize for my conduct in this issue, reemphasize my desire to edit Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia regulations, which I hold dear, and ask for your forgiveness. I am quick to err, but also very quick to make right the error, where possible. I will be reconsidering my objectivity and my involvement with this page as a result of my interference. I hope you can forgive me, and I thank you again for contributing so much to this page, which, at the end of the day, badly needed the work you so willingly put into it and which I, in my rashness, unjustly and unfairly reverted. Best wishes to you with your future Wikipedia experience. If there are any other issues or concerns you have on my conduct or motivations, please let me know. Thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Erichtho you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Erichtho 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 Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gen. Quon. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Book of Abraham at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gen. Quon -- As you can see, I have completed a copy-edit of Book of Abraham. There were very few real errors, but I've made quite a few small edits. I wanted to ask you about something:

In this edit, in the paragraph that starts, "On June 30, 1835", I changed "rolls" to "scrolls". I did this because the word "scrolls" was used right before this, and since I believe it was referring to the same thing, I thought it was better to use the same word than introduce a new word, which might cause confusion. Then, in Note 6, (which you'll see all the way at the bottom of the Notes section), I see the word "roll" used. I think it is clear there that "roll" is just another way to refer to "scroll", and since it is all by itself, I think "roll" is all right there. If you don't agree, we can change it, but it could be the word Cowdery used, so maybe it should remain "roll". I want to know whether you approve of the change from "rolls" to "scrolls" earlier in the article. If not, I can change it back to "rolls".

Also, in that same note, Note 6, we see "the that". I'm sure only one word is needed, but I didn't know which one to choose because it's in a quote. If, on the other hand, the source text has both words, perhaps we ought to add the "sic" template right after the two words.

Another editor made an edit while I was taking a short break from editing the article. I think s/he is right, but I couldn't think of any better way to express it, so I left it.  – Corinne (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: Thank you so much for the copy-edit! I really appreciate it. To your first point, for the sake of consistency, I've changed any non-quoted instance of "roll(s)" to "scoll(s)", and any quoted instance of "roll(s)" to [scroll(s)]". They do indeed refer to the same thing, so making that consistent throughout it a good idea. To your second point, it should be "that". Thanks for that catch! Like I said, I really appreciate your efforts here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]