User talk:Xtramental

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*/Archive 1 - image issues: July 2006 - August 2006
*/Archive 2 - link issues: July 2006 - August 2006

Sorry about removed comments.[edit]

I'm sorry about your removed comments from Talk:Kidnapped_(TV_series).

The only reason I had done it because it was redundant that you posted the same comment twice in the talk page but nevertheless thanx for the correction so next time I know how to revise & rectify your errors & faults. KALMANI 23:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X, I need your help Please![edit]

Hi X, its KALMANI again. X since I'm fairly new to wikipedia, & since you know the rules & proper way to do things - Would you be willing to help me please & mentor me if you can sir? I would be very grateful. For instance, there's this one wiki about Chaldeans & it's biased & everytime I try to correct it the user who put the bias info reverts it to his edits & trys to ban me for telling the truth & lies about me. He reports me to his mod friends & tries to get me banned which he did on one occasion for 24hrs. I did the same to him without no friends & banned him for 24 hrs. You can see the battle here [1] on the bottom headline Chaldeans are not Assyrians. But the point I'm trying to get across is what is the proper way of doing it & what can I do, Can you help me please? Let me know & I would be in debt to you. Thank you for your time! Many Thanx. KALMANI (talk • contribs) 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Stevie Ryan[edit]

I know you have just created this article. but could you please provide references for it. Currently there are none and considering this is a living person this may cause som WP:BLP concerns. Thank you --DSRH |talk 16:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did miss the two in-line citations as I had only quickly skimmed the article. My main concern was that I have seen a number of new articles lately that hit the garbage bin nearly as soon as they were created due to a lack of sources. However, it looks like you are on the correct track and have things in hand. Good luck. --DSRH |talk 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bowiechick talk page[edit]

I wasn't completely sure how to handle notices added to discussions, but I figured someone would let me know if I did it wrong. Thanks. However, I also wasn't clear what you intended by the changes (that link to the history), so I changed it to a normal archive link, and archived the original linklist text (if it was intended as "assigning homework", I'm not sure if that was efficient). At some point, if that linklist project becomes active again, it might be better to have a tag to display a box that can be inserted instead of posting comments. Thanks again. x 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats actually a different style of archiving. It's not used all that often, but it's a valid one. :) If you wanted to move it to a formal archive, thats cool too. I just figured there wasn't any need to make a new subpage for it. Either way, it's cool. I just wanted the message to be archived. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Editing Dana Delany's article to remove credit for portraying Lois Lane[edit]

Frankly, this is a point-of-view statement (with no real evidence on the contrary) that was made. Also you seem to be contradicting yourself when you say that she isn't really "noted" for her voice-over work as Lois Lane, even though she's been doing it for a long time. TMC1982 8:56 p.m., 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lois Lane is a fairly iconic character in popular culture (being an important part in the Superman, the most recognizable superhero of all-time, mythos). TMC1982 1:13 p.m., 1 May 2007 (UTC)


TMC1982 1:19 p.m., 1 May 2007 (UTC)


yo[edit]

yo is this jack aka john?--InvisibleDiplomat666 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Stevie Ryan[edit]

A tag has been placed on Stevie Ryan 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 a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Dax[edit]

Could you please see the comments from Gillian Gaar that I've passsed along at Talk:Danielle Dax? It look like it is mostly your content to which she is responding. I personally know little about Dax beyond having heard some of her music, so I don't feel I should edit but Gillian tends to really know her stuff, and I would suspect she is right on all counts. Could I ask you either to respond on the talk page or just accept her corrections and edit accordingly? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dana Delany[edit]

Thanks for your note. To take your questions in order:

  • We normally prefer uninvolved editors to review articles. However, from what I could see it was quite a while ago that you were busy on that article, so if in your judgement you feel you can produce a fair, objective review, there shouldn't be any problem. If you decide to recuse, you could drop a note on WT:GAN explaining that you feel unable to review and asking if someone else minds taking it on (or, since you haven't really posted a full review yet, you could just withdraw and remove your 'hold' note on WP:GAN).
  • 'Stability' does involve edit wars but also includes major on-going work, the reason being that it's difficult to make an accurate assessment of an article while its in a state of flux. If the editing was recent but has settled down, that's fine. Also, note that work undertaken in response to a GA review doesn't count. This again is a judgement call - if in the reviewer's opinion an article needs so much work that a significant rewrite is on the cards, it should probably be failed outright and renominated when it's properly ready.
  • 'Broad coverage' relates to the article scope. Having read it, the coverage doesn't seem too bad to me. GA is deliberately not a very high bar, so in this case (being a WP:BIO article) coverage means no major detail of Dana Delany's life that can be reliably sourced is omitted. There are sections for her early life, acting career, personal life, and a filmography, so I think the information one would expect to find is all there. It might be that you're commenting more about the style of the article, and I agree that it's quote-heavy. The editor(s) there should perhaps be encouraged to trim them down and/or rewrite them into the prose.... and you're welcome to chip in if you like; we encourage reviewers to get involved ;) The only proviso is as a reviewer you shouldn't make major content edits (ie adding new sections etc).

If you're intending to complete the review, I noticed a few additional points that may need to be addressed.

  • The lead needs a fair bit of work to comply with WP:LEAD; it should provide a reasonable summary of the entire article.
  • The prose could do with a light copyedit: eg lots of sentences in 1990s: Movies, television, voice start with "She appeared...".
  • There are a few minor encyclopaedic prose/neutrality issues: eg "Coincidentally, Delany's future Desperate Housewives co-star, Teri Hatcher..."; "Since the mid-1990s, she has had a notable Internet presence...". Actually, that entire bit about her internet presence and guestbook is a bit fannish.
  • I spotted an external link in the text that should probably go.
  • A couple of the sources look a bit iffy (IMDB, tv.com).

I don't think there's anything there that warrants an outright fail though, so your call ;) I hope this helps, and thank you for your contribution to the GA WikiProject - it's much appreciated. EyeSerenetalk 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Elizabeth whitcraft 001.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Elizabeth whitcraft 001.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of '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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Reactable002.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Reactable002.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) 13:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Reactable001.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Reactable001.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) 13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xtramental&oldid=692018176"