User talk:AnOddName/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive2

Since the start of the FAC, there has been 2 copyedits to the article (and other users are going to give a stab at this). I checked the free translation and it seems to be about right with the actual text. I also gave replies to the actual content questions. I hope that helps. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hadouken - Ryu to Ken.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hadouken - Ryu to Ken.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian anthem again

Ok, so the FAC ended. No big deal, but I still would like to hear from you about this article. One of the things you asked for was about the anthem lyrics into English. I did check the translation and it matches the Russian text, but we still call it unofficial because it is not sponsored or used by any government authority. However, that did make me think and see what Russian sources could be replaced by English text. I did replace one of the links today with one that is in English. I know grammar was the main issue you and others had and there was 2 copyedits when the FAC was going on. I will still seek out more, since you specifically asked for it. I am not sure how long it will take, but I will press for it as much as I can. If you have any questions or concerns, let me know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Consulate of Russia in Montreal gave the English lyrics of the anthem, so I went ahead and placed it in the article with the appropriate citations. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I expanded the lead to add the public feelings about the anthem. If there is anything you can suggest for the lead, that would be great. Most of the major editing is done, so please feel free to copyedit it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I added to the lead myself, so pretty much it needs a copyedit. Since I believe you asked for a few more eyes for a copyedit, you are free to tell people about it. I already sent it to the copyeditor's guild, so they had their crack at it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lohan

Hey, thanks for all your help with the GA review. Would you mind taking a quick look over the article again to see if I've missed anything- I lack your attention to detail, especially in my own writing! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, then. A few things (I doubt they break any GA criteria, but they are problems and I'd certainly oppose an FA for some of these):

• Section "Independent movies and career interruptions": There are two paragraphs—one short, one long—that begin "On July 24..." and talk about alcohol problems. Are they not about the same or related events? They can probably be merged somehow, and you can certainly kill the second "On July 24" phrase to get some tight prose. I didn't see any more overused dates, though.
• Shouldn't the "Lohan was involved in a traffic accident on May 26, 2007..." paragraph, and other parts that are solely personal, be in "Personal Life"? Do you want it fully chronological instead? I know there was some discussion about the article arrangement on the talk page, but I don't want to dig through that.
• I thought publishers in citations weren't supposed to have "Inc." or "Co.". That's what {{cite book}}'s documentation (section "Description") says, anyway (I can't find such a rec anywhere else).
• Speaking of citations, watch the date formats—I see some Day Month Year dates crept in at refs 38, 39, 180, and others. Keep them consistent (and Month Day, Year since she's American).
• There's a whole bunch of "noun plus -ing"s; you decide if that's actually a problem. Incidentally, the first sentence of that page has one!
• I've already mentioned in the GA review why I put "[KYRA] PHILIPS" in that ref 1 quote, so I give up. :)

Have fun. You can copy this to the article talk if that helps. --an odd name 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. It would be good to get it up to FA status eventually (incidentally, I might tidy up and reference her discography with a view to a possible FLC). I don't know about your second point. When Siawase and I reordered it back at the start of March, we tried to go for chronological as far as possible, but decided on a personal life section because there's a lot of information that doesn't fit well into the main body. It's not my preferred way of writing a biography, but the old way was a bit sloppy and there was a lot of undue weight being given to some things. I've never heard the "inc" thing- it's not in the documentation for {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} so I don't suppose it's a huge issue. Agreed on the dates (that would be me and the tool I use). Would the "plusing" thing be a problem at FAC? I changed "[KYRA] PHILIPS" because it's only a cosmetic change to the quote. Thanks for all your help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Would the "plusing" thing be a problem at FAC?" Not really. Just make sure the sentences really aren't ambiguous.

One more:

• In citations, are we using Lastname, Firstname or Firstname Lastname? I see some of the latter (refs 10, 18, 19...), but I had used the former.

Otherwise, it looks pretty solid to me. --an odd name 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn! I thought I'd got all of those while I was correcting the "publishers" to the work field. I'll knock 'em into the last name, first name form. Thanks for the advice, I'm used to picking up on fiddly things like this, but it's not as easy in one's own work! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in randomly, but I never agreed with the current structure. HJ Mitchell broke some material out to a "Personal life" section without clearly explaining why he chose that material over any other, nor indeed why that section is named "Personal life". Modelling is something that is part of Lohan's career and public life, not something she does as a hobby on her spare time. It's not part of her "Personal life". Like I said on the talk page, if something has to be broken out of the chronology, the politics might make sense. But her modelling and fashion work can quite easily be ordered into the chronology, since they are part of her career, and they're all work she did at specific times. Siawase (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's have a chat on the talk page then. It's not ideal as it is, but I think it's better than it was. Btw, she's GA now! AnOddName, you can update your boxy thingy :) but allow me to give you this:

This user helped promote Lindsay Lohan to good article status.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

--an odd name 22:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

while breaks the grammar

Hi, you were right about that! (Nature fakers controversy) Xtzou (Talk) 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Sometimes I don't really notice a problem (or want to) until I see another user's edit (like yours) near it. --an odd name 21:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Bangkok‎‎

Hi, I like your latest bold move in the above mentioned article. Good work - well done! Yours, Mootros (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes it's bad to be bold (changing some long-discussed text, adding a late-breaking sex-romp rumor to a biography, ...), but we must never forget that Wikipedia is both a wiki and an encyclopedia. Our edits must keep it true. --an odd name 19:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Blatant Spam"

A discussion you recently deleted from User talk:Mono as "blatant spam" was actually an real discussion regarding the insertion of external links. Just informing you. Happy editing, Brambleclawx 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Enough of this nonsense! It is not spam; it is a legit discussion. WP:TPO applies and I do not appreciate your removal of content. mono 00:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I still consider it spam; the editor has not said why they should be added (only that they are "controversial material", which is not the threshold for inclusion on WP) and whether links are controversial and have a reason to be used are both things to consider with source solicitations.

That said, the removals were (as you just said) not appreciated and I will stop now. I apologize. --an odd name 00:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(I also remain extremely concerned about their single purpose, given the user name.) --an odd name 00:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)