User talk:Ricardiana/Archive 1

Gender neutrality

Thank you for your improvements to Gender neutrality in English - good work! AlexTiefling (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of G. L. Perry

A tag has been placed on G. L. Perry 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 company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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 page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 05:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Thirdndths.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Thirdndths.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Frencho.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Arrdo.gif

I have tagged File:Arrdo.gif as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. Melesse (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Ricardiana. You have new messages at Fleetflame's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fielding GAN

I responded here. I hope my recent changes to the bottom section will help you figure out the structure of it a bit so we can address it quickly. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the Smart page and reviewing. It was one of my first and meant a lot to me. I hope to tighten it just a little more (filling in that one redlink) and pushing it towards FA soon. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck with the FA process. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Ndtcotvv.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Ndtcotvv.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Ndfharh.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Ndfharh.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice for the warnings you received above

Hi, I saw your question at Media copyright questions and answered it there but I thought you would appreciate it if I copied that reply here as well, since that page can be pretty hard to keep track of!

The advice that those warnings are giving you is not accurate: since this is a relatively recent book cover, no free version of it can be found, so your upload should not be criticized on that basis. However, as they currently stand, both images do still fall foul of the non-free content criteria (NFCC) for the following reasons:

1. The images are too large: the convention seems to be that copyrighted images should be no larger than 500 pixels on any side
2. Their non-free use rationales are not in accordance with the NFCC

There are a couple of reasons for #2. Firstly, such rationales must be for each article in which the image is used whereas the current rationales are for articles that don't exist. Secondly, under "Portion used" you have, "Only the book's front cover is used. This image is only a small portion of the commercial product." This is not accurate - the copyrighted work in question here is the book cover, not the book, so you're actually using the entire work. This is not a problem, but the rationale needs to say this. Finally, and most significantly, the "Purpose of use" does not currently comply with the NFCC. If you want to use these images in the Nancy Drew article then they can only be used there in a way that significantly adds to the reader's understanding of the accompanying text in a way that the words alone cannot. Currently, neither image fulfills this requirement, but one of them almost does. To elaborate: File:Ndtcotvv.jpg is currently accompanying some text that specifically refers to the design of the book covers from the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. All the text needs to do is mention The Case of the Vanishing Veil and then the use of the image would be fine (or, alternatively, the caption could be adjusted to refer to the text describing it). Conversely, nothing in the article is referring to the design of the cover shown in File:Ndfharh.jpg - the use of that cover in the article is purely decorative, so it should be removed. And in fact, all the covers shown in the article prior to the "Evolution of Nancy's appearance" section should be removed on the same basis. I hope this helps! -- Hux (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, Hux, that's very helpful - and thank you for posting here, too! That was very thoughtful. Best,Ricardiana (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Renee Garcia

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Renee Garcia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

I believe fails WP:MUSICBIO. Unsure due to large number of same-name collisions when making standard search engine checks.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ray^Talk 03:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Ndtcotvv.jpg

I kept the image because a non-free book cover is intrinsically irreplaceable, but the image will still be subject to CSD F5 if all the instances of book covers in Nancy Drew are removed. Book covers should be used only to illustrate the articles on the relevant book and one fair-use cover featuring Nancy Drew is enough for her page. You can avoid this issue by creating an article about the book in question (The Case of The Vanishing Veil) —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Do you mean "if all the instances of book covers in Nancy Drew are not removed"? Also, have you seen the discussion about these covers on [1]? My understanding is that I can use one fair-use cover to feature Nancy Drew on the page about her, and that the other covers can stay because they are in a section that is specifically about cover art. Ricardiana (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant what I said. If those images are removed, the file would be eligible for CSD F5 as unused non-free image. However, my judgment was based on a skim through the article and the noticing of numerous book covers while I didn't stop to find a reason for their inclusion. If your GA doesn't fail because of these covers, I assume their copyright status is fine, which is what I belive now after fully reading the article. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And Then There Were None

Hey, I've taken many, if not most, of your points on the GA review page, and was wondering what other points I could help out with at the article. Continue making the good suggestions! Thanks for reviewing this article ;) Cheers. I'^mperator 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Imperator! I saw a lot of the changes you made earlier, which look good -- I'll check out the current version of the page soon. Looks pretty close to GA to me. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Finished second volley of suggestions (except one about citations for Taves-see talk page) :P Cheers. I'^mperator 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick question: for the Postscipt section, do you reckon that it should be in the passive, present, or perfect tense? I'll hold up on modifying that section until your reply. Thanks for the (third) review! :D Cheers. I'^mperator 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nancy Drew and the Clue Crew

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nancy Drew and the Clue Crew, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No sources sited, notability in doubt

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning adding references and indicating notability of the series. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Drew

That's quite a process that's been running at Nancy Drew. I have picked up the review at this point (the very end, I would say), and if you visit the GA talk page you will see my only concerns are in respect of some missing citations. I'll keep tabs... hamiltonstone (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Hamiltonstone, for picking up the review. I really appreciate it. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, after this reaches Good status, by any chance would you like to work together to at least get DYK status for Bess Marvin and George Fayne? These characters are discussed extensively in published books in an analytical fashion and I really think we can dramatically improve their articles as well. Anyway, might be a good idea for a "Phase 2" of sorts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Nancy Drew universe. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I will definitely go over there once Nancy Drew is done, and I hope to see you there. Perhaps you would be interested in joining me in working on The Hardy Boys as well? That needs a lot of work ... currently has almost no citations. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good all around. By the way, fictional character articles, even for ones from the great works of literature, do frequently get nominated for deletion and we could always use an extra hand with them at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. If you see my talk page and recent edits you can get a sense of those I have worked on rescuing. For example, my current focus is on Rebecca Hendrix and as you said in the GA review, "It's much nicer to work on an article with someone". Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I'll check it out - and I'm a big L&O fan; in fact I'm watching an episode right now. Ricardiana (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and yes, it is a great series overall! And or the record, I'm watching The Colbert Report at the moment, but will flip to The Tonight Show with Jay Leno for "Headlines".  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

All good stuff! It's always especially tough when you have to choose between L&O and Colbert.... Ricardiana (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and by the way, I am also helping to improve an article you created that was prodded above, i.e. Nancy Drew and the Clue Crew. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have gone back over the article - all those fixes are good, but I came across some inconsistencies in the refs, once I reviewed the entire list, which I have documented on the review page. Let me know how that goes.

Excellent, all done. Good to see editors providing citations from serious critical literature in regard to a subject that could easily have been just written up as a bit of popular culture.

		The Literary Barnstar
		For your excellent work on Nancy Drew, I award you this barnstar. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Pinch of salt required?

I see ItsLassieTime has told you "Congratulations on your Nancy Drew GA. I just ordered the first 6 volumes. Thank you for getting me started on these books! ItsLassieTime (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC) on their talkpage. You may wish to apply a pinch of salt to the part of the statement about ordering the books, given that it's pretty much word-for-word what LaSylphide, a sockpuppet of ILT, said to another editor back in February 2008: I just ordered 4 new books about Hans Christian Andersen to use for sources. One is dated 2008 written by professor at Harvard. It has a kinds of annotations in the margins. I was so looking forward to using it. This sockpuppeteer is infortunately very good at playing the sympathy card. Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 10:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I come from Michigan, where the grocery stores sell deer-licks of salt. I did thank ILT earlier for her/his help on the article, which, while draconian, was helpful, but that's it. In any case, even if my heart were dripping with sympathy, I don't think it would sway matters, nor should it. But I appreciate the heads-up. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the pity of it - ILT did good stuff, but when it comes to socks awarding other socks Barnstars, the whole system of reviewing could potentially come into question. Ah well. I'm thinking an 18-month ban might be enough to, as someone said on the ban proposal thread on AN/I, "let the tongue loll and cool off". Looking at some of ILT's talkpage edits subsequent to the block, though, WP:AGF may just not be enough. Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 15:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to ban someone in such a way that their activities are restricted to editing articles only? I'm suspicious of the GA articles that ILT said it's "greedy" for, since socks may have "reviewed" them, but ILT can make good articles. It seems to me that ILT has lost any right to judge others' work, but they are capable of contributing their own. Is such a selective ban possible? I guess it doesn't matter; now I'm just curious. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible to apply a topic ban (though this isn't enforced by software, it's enforced by editors keeping an eye out). A ban isn't the same as a block. See WP:BAN. Trouble is with ILT, firstly there are several topics where ILT has edited (from board games through childrens' literature to rodeos) with more or less success (so what would we ban ILT from and where would they go next?) and there are possibly still sockpuppets out there just waiting to start editing contentiously on some other topic (9/11? Agronomy? Etruscan pottery? Your guess is as good as mine). A site ban ("your edits on anything are not welcome) and a block to enforce it seem appropriate. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I see - thanks for your reply. Oh well. It was a thought. Block ho. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ndnegobh.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Ndnegobh.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks in the Nancy Drew article

Should these be our next effort: Nancy Axelrad, Hit and Run Holiday, Bill Gillies, Rudy Nappi, Ruth Sanderson, Paul Frame, Aleta Jenks, and Tracy Ryan? I think it would be nice, now that the article is GA class if we make sure there are no redlinks within in it? If you would like me to help start any of these currently red linked articles, let me know, i.e. if you want to take the "you start these, I'll start these" approach, just drop me a line and I'll gladly see what I can do. Or if you prefer something else be the priority and would like help there instead, let me know. And again, well done on the main article! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, A Nobody - thanks, and that's a great idea. I don't think I'll be able to start any for a while, as I have to buckle down on my dissertation for the next few days at least, but I agree there should be no redlinks. If you want to do some, I'll take what's left. I'd like to take the article to FA at some point, so I requested a peer review, but I don't know how long it will take to get non-automated comments. In the meantime, I think this is a great project. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. As soon as I get a chance I'll get started (Easter weekend and all, so only logging on for some quick edits for now). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your editor review

Greetings, Ricardiana! I just finished your editor review, and then I looked at your user page. Oh my!--You're a Ph.D. candidate? Wow. I think I'd seen you were new-ish and friendly, and assumed you were a beginning student. I hope I didn't come across as condescending. That wasn't my intent at all! It's great to have knowledgeable people around. Anyway, if you need anything, let me know. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Quadell! First of all, thanks for reviewing me - I appreciate it. (This reminds me I should mosey back there and review someone else, too.) ~ No, you did not come off as condescending at all, and I'm glad that you didn't see any major problems. You're right, I do make a lot of tiny edits; I'll try to be more mindful of that, and maybe craft better edit summaries too. Anyway, thanks for the kind remarks! Best, Ricardiana (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Stratemeyer Syndicate series assessment

Thanks for putting this article up for assessment on WikiProject Children's Literature - we're always glad to assess new articles, and have now assigned this as List class. However, if you find an article in future which you feel should be assessed by our project and hasn't been, adding this tag {{Children'sLiteratureWikiProject}} to add the article to the project will normally get it assessed within a few weeks - there's no need to make a particular request. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for the wonderful work you've done on Nancy Drew! Did you know it is viewed between 30,000 and 40,000 times a month? Now, because of all your hard work, those readers will come to a well-researched and well-written article! Awadewit (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Hbtt1rev.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hbtt1rev.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. When will I ever get it right?? Ricardiana (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Case of the Hooded Man

I just dropped in to say thanks for your work here :). Feel free to stick it in your "articles I've contributed to significantly" bit as a GA :). Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ironholds! It was an interesting article to read about. Kudos on all the work you did. Ricardiana (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Drew/archive1

Just noticed after the fact. Anyway, congratulations! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, A Nobody! Ricardiana (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Many congratulations on the well-deserved star for Nancy, which I hope is the forerunner for many such articles. I shall look forward to them. Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Brianboulton - I couldn't have done it without your thoughtful and thorough peer review. I hope to work with you again; it was a pleasure. Ricardiana (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! It was wonderful to see this article promoted! I'm going to be working on Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature in the coming weeks. Let me know if you want to help out. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Awadewit! I couldn't have done it without your thoughtful comments and help both at the peer review and on the FAC. --I would like to help out with children's lit articles; I'm planning on re-working the currently very skimpy Charlotte Mary Yonge article, but if you know of something else that particularly needs work and that you think I could help with, let me know and I'll be happy to do what I can. Ricardiana (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Hi, Ricardiana, thanks so much for your speedy review of OWH. We plan to take the article to FAC in the near future so as to have it on the mainpage for the centennial of Holmes's birth this coming August 9, so any further suggestions or comments you have would be very helpful. BTW, I saw that although you removed the article from WP:GAC, it hasn't been listed at WP:GA yet. No worries, but whenever you get a chance, could you do so? Take care, María (habla conmigo) 12:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, María -- No problem. I'm not sure I have any other suggestions or comments at the moment, but I will take another look at the article soon - I hope you get it on the front page on August 9. Also, I've listed it on WP:GA. I usually forget to do that, so thanks for the reminder. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Smart's alleged madness

On NPOV - No current critic believes that Smart was "mad". They either belief that he was devotedly religious (which was seen as a social problem) or that he was imprisoned because of his father-in-law. According to NPOV, we have to represent the case based on what the majority of scholars have stated. I have read through all of the works, and I have even produced an updated complete bibliography of scholarship on Smart since 1980 (as one of my mentor's was the one to produced the pre-1980 bibliography and I was invited to take up an appendix to it). Since he was never -legally- deemed "mad", and only put there by a family member, the word "alleged" is necessary. Since "madness" isn't an actual term for anything anymore, it could be a variety of problems (physical, mental, or social). I hope that clarifies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond more fully later, but for now: first of all, this is interesting information. It should be more clearly present in the article, specifically the lead, that "no current critic believes" this. If current scholars are in agreement that S wasn't mad, then of course the title of the article should be as it stands. However, I stand by my general comment that the article does not read as NPOV, and my recommendation that you emphasise your sources more.

Further, the critics you cite towards the end of the article do not display the unanimity you claim currently exists re Smart and his mental state: "he drank because he was mentally unstable"; " when the desire to pray struck him, Smart abandoned what the world chose to call rationality"; "18th and 19th century diagnosis of Smart has been held as correct by many people" - these are not part of an unequivocal view that Smart was not mad. I am not questioning your knowledge of the subject, but I do think that it can be presented better and more clearly and with more attention to both sides of the argument. As your 20th c. section mostly cites older critics, perhaps you need to incorporate more modern sources in that section, as a start. I should note, too, that the most recent source you currently cite in that paragraph, from 1997, expresses the opinion that Smart was in fact unstable in some sense, contradicting your statement about "all" modern critics. Ricardiana (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have this already in the lead about the 20th century view, but if you feel that it does not make the case clear enough, I can add more: "It was not until the 20th century, with the rediscovery of Jubilate Agno, that critics reconsidered Smart's case and viewed him more as a revolutionary poet and the possible target of a plot by Newbery to silence him."

And there is no unanimity that he acted out, but there is unanimity that it wasn't "madness", as madness was a condition that doesn't actually exist. I will look back and add a little more tonight to make it more clear what current scholarship says. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the 20th century section uses Hawes (1996) and Mounsey (2001), which are the two main works on Christopher Smart. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I updated the page. Also, if you want, we could rename the page to Christopher Smart's asylum confinement. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that the page should be renamed to the above? There is no activity, so there would be no need to build consensus first. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ottava Rima -- the changes you made look great. I like your suggestion for renaming the page - sounds good. Will respond more tomorrow ... today has been a long day. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I just renamed the page and fixed all of the links. It should all work now (hopefully). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ricardiana. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jayen466 21:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature

Cirt and I have started working on this portal. Here is a list of what we are in the process of doing. Any help you could provide would be much appreciated. As with all of wiki, there are no deadlines! :) Cirt has already kindly laid out all of the templates for the portal. We just have to fill them in.

• Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature/Selected picture - We need to find more relevant, free use images.

• Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature/Selected anniversaries - We need to flesh out the anniversaries for the entire year. I did this for Portal:Feminism and had loads of fun just looking things up. :)

• Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature/DYK - We need to search through DYK and find more hooks to include.

• Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature/Selected quote - We need to add more famous quotes from children's and young adult literature.

• We also need to write a better description of what children's and young adult literature is for the top box.

Again, anything you feel like doing would be a help! Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Awadewit - this looks cool. I will definitely do something to help out. Finding selected quotes sounds especially fun. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. :) Cirt (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem! It's fun. Ricardiana (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it? I love running through all that wonderful children's lit in my head! Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hardy Boys - Re: Infobox Media Franchise

Hi, Ricardiana. Your right, the navbox at the bottom is similar to the infobox I added, but I just thought the infobox was more accessible, since it's at the very beginning of the article. Personally, I find infoboxes very handy when reading articles. So, basically I thought it would make Hardy-related articles easier to find/read. Feel free to remove it if you disagree.

Note that the Indiana Jones franchise article uses both a infobox and a navbox, too.

WHLfan (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but I am trying to get the article to Featured Article status eventually. Before I do that, I'll ask for a peer review, and I can ask about the infobox issue. For now I've taken it off because of the repeat-info thing, and because it can be easily put on again. I did look at the Indiana Jones franchise page, but I noticed that the article is only rated a B-class, whereas the Hardy Boys was just rated GA-class. Also, the Hardy Boys as a "franchise" is growing more than Indiana Jones is. For example, if the Hardy Boys games take off, I don't think there will be room to list them all in an infobox. But as I said, I can bring this up at peer review and see what others think. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good points. And good job on The Hardy Boys article. It was really in need of help. You've done a great job! Hope it gets FA status. WHLfan (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool - thanks, WHLfan. Ricardiana (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Image descriptor for Taman Shud Case image

Hi there. Thanks for doing the GA review of the Taman Shud Case. I have had a go at updating the image descriptor on File:SomertonMan2.jpg and was wondering if you could have a look at it and see whether I have sufficiently explained the need for the image, I'd be most grateful. I'll then go and do the same for the rest of them. Cheers, --Roisterer (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Roisterer - this looks much better. Nice job. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Voynich ms.

Hi, Ricardiana

about "Voynich" MS: if in the lead is told how the crypto folk "works" on it, there should be some criticism about it too ... because there really are not any reasons to believe this is crypto. OK, my comment was much too long, you are right (you deleted it). But maybe should the crypto-story, too, be deleted from the lead (since that's probably full nonsense). I could edit my comment and put it in some other chapter, OK?

Mart Vabar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.65.10 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You could except that you are evidently citing yourself. That's not OK by Wikipedia's standards. You can write whatever you want, however, on the article's talk page. Ricardiana (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ricardiana. Afaik this article is written mostly by Stolfi. He certainly is one of the best in this field and so, he cannot write this article without citing himself. Should the article be deleted?

Par example he found out (by the text enthropia), this might be a syllabic language, if I remember it correctly. He just mentioned it once in the list, nobody remembers when. Well, he was looking for a cipher together with others, this was just a funny by-product. Only years later, it became important. So should the fact be ignored in the article?

In chapter "Natural Languages" the article tells, Jacques Guy told this might be unknown language. Probably he sometimes told because he always considered different options (and later he argued against plaintext) ... but in "old archives" somebody certainly told the same much earlier. Who will find out the oldest citation? Most of the article about this book, there are no good citations, because it is quite hard to dig in the immense archives of the list (and elsewhere there is not much).

I can't really understand what you're saying, sorry. Ricardiana (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Chan

You're possibly working on it, so I don't want to interfere with your edits, but the info about which films are lost was lost in the tabulation. Also, I think maybe Eran Trece should have a separate entry in the filmography. Шизомби (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am working on it. I don't want any info in the article unless it has a reliable source. Do you know the source? Ricardiana (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Source for the films being lost? I can look in Hanke. Шизомби (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm already there. Ricardiana (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my two cents -- that the filmography of Charlie Chan has become about 100% more useful. Thanks for all your hard work! Accounting4Taste:talk 23:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Ricardiana (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is much, much improved, and you deserve all the credit. One thing that came to my mind on a quick glance; my copy of the film gives the spelling as "Eran Trece" and my understanding was that the language was Spanish, not Portuguese (I am told it means "There Came Thirteen"). I speak neither language so can't say one way or the other. As I understand it, they used to use the same sets and scripts and shoot the same film in Spanish during the night as was going on in English during the day; designed for the Mexican marketplace. I think the extreme similarity is what makes people think it's a cognate of the missing film sufficient to be circulated. But since you seem to have a better reference text, I'll be guided by your authority on the title and language. I thought I might look out my own references and fill in the section on the radio programmes when I get a moment; I'll no doubt see you there. Cheers, Accounting4Taste:talk 03:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds wonderful - thanks, Accounting4Taste. I only have Google Books sources at the moment, so anything you can add would be awesome. I'd love to see this article get Good Article status at some point - maybe we could work towards that together? Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Image rationale rewritten as requested. Pepso2 (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested rationale added for two of the three images. Pepso2 (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Pepso, I appreciate your efforts but I still don't think these images can be used. Your talk page shows that you've received a LOT of warnings about image use before. Please just don't put those pictures back on the Charlie Chan page unless you can find a source (a newspaper article, journal article, or book) that specifically talks about these images. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Thanks for addng the "GA nominee" banner, I'm ashamed of myself for forgetting. --Philcha (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all - I just saw (ah, insomnia) that I didn't transclude my review. Anyway - harmless mistake; sorry if I came off sounding otherwise. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you found a 2nd opinion yet? I've posted a suggestion about how to identify essential plot elements. --Philcha (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviewers have to volunteer. I'm sure someone will within a day or two. Ricardiana (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd missed the "2nd opinion" item at WP:GAN - it comes up on my watchlist so often I don't check every entry. --Philcha (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Exploration of Jupiter GAR concerns

most of them should be solved by now. Nergaal (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I see you've made a number of changes, but not all problems were resolved and some of the changes are to sources that still don't contain the info being cited. I've delisted the article. Ricardiana (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wohoo! I don't quite understand exactly how is this supposed to work. I have made an initial reply a couple of days ago and your reply is time is up? You should better go back and read the instructions for GAR and you will see that #4 says
"Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. The == Good article reassessment for [[{{{1}}}]] == [[{{{1}}}]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/{{{1}}}/ |reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. template can be used for this purpose, by placing ArticleName has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. on talk pages."
or maybe you ahve problems with reading. Nergaal (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You had time to respond, as evidenced by the fact that you did, repeatedly - just inadequately. I mean, come on - adding a source from the nineteenth century to "cite" information about the 1990s? I did notify both you and the GA reviewer, as you well know, or would if you had checked. The article is delisted. Feel free to re-nominate it. End of discussion. Ricardiana (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the week, which I didn't notice before; I've therefore reverted the delisting. You have until the 26th. I would advise you to drop the attitude and concentrate on finding sources that actually say what you say they do. Ricardiana (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Replyed on the GAR page. Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, the issues should be solved now. In the future please do not hurry to demote articles if there IS an user interested in fixing the issues. Nergaal (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you were paying attention the community reassessment you asked for, you would have seen this. Now stop hounding me. Discussion - such as it was - between us is over. Ricardiana (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugly sisters

Hello! Are you by chance interested in helping to bring this one to GA status? I have started a considerable revision, the topic is covered thoroughly in Google Book sources and I believe it has a good shot if revised like that Nancy Drew GA. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, A Nobody! Sure, I'll help out. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks and I do have some of the Hardy Boys stuff watch listed (I haven't forgotten, but just became caught up in trying to rescue some ones from deletion as seemingly needing more urgent attention; plus, you have been doing great work on those!). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - and thanks about the Hardys! I'm hoping to put them up for FA status soon. ~ By the way, I've finally started the project you suggested of creating article for the Nancy Drew redlinks - I just started Ruth Sanderson. Eventually I'll make my way over to the articles for deletion - but you are doing such good work over there I feel in less of a hurry! Best, Ricardiana (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Choral symphony

Thanks for your comments on Symphonic Poems (Liszt). I have one other article in peer review, choral symphony, which is further along in the revision process and has been thoroughly reorganized but still needs work. If you have time, could you please read it and add any suggestions you might have? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jonyungk - sure, I will be glad to read the article and give comments. I've started a little tonight; it will take me a few days to finish. ~ By the way, you don't happen to be interested in things like The Hardy Boys, do you? I have a peer review open on that and if you have time / are interested, I'd appreciate any feedback. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I haven't been interested that much in the Hardy Boys in the past but have started looking at the article and will post feedback. Kind of a fun change from my usual stuff. :-) Jonyungk (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool - thanks, Jonyungk, I appreciate it. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Symphonic Poems (Liszt)

BTW, I've addressed the points made in your peer review and have made considerable changes. Could you please take another look when you have a chance? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tsahm.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much=

for all your comments on choral symphony and Symphonic Poems (Liszt). They were right on target and, especially on reorganizing choral symphony, extremely helpful—I'd really been struggling with the structure on that one. And I had a great time reading The Hardy Boys— again, a fantastic job. For everything, thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Noun plus -ing

Ricardiana, thanks for your concerns. My response is here. I still think it's important for most usages to be pruned out. Like the ability to remove "the" from duple constructions, as I've raised at MOS, not all of the grammar has been mapped, I think. Tony (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response, Tony - I appreciate it. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ricardiana: I'll need time to go through your posts on my page! I will respond. Tony (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate the time you're putting into this. I'm still doing some reading and research as well. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Drew

Ricardiana -- Thanks for pointing out that the contents of archives can't be cited unless previously stated in published works. About ghostwriters: the definition of the term is one who writes in lieu of another person. This is not the same as a single author using a pseudonym. "Carolyn Keene" was a pseudonym, not a different person. It is misleading to state that all ND books were written by ghostwriters, as it gives the impression that ND's actual owner -- Harriet Adams -- did not personally write any of the books. Hence my adding that information. As for Farah's Guide: while it is not designed as a scholarly work, its information is culled from reliable documentation, and indeed, none of the authorship facts in Farah's Guide have been disproven (or, to my knowledge, even refuted) by any scholar. In fact, Farah's Guide -- first published in the early 1980s -- was the first source to publish many of these facts, and it has been cited in many others' work. Cheers-Ndphd Ndphd (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again -- Yes, your suggestion of the compromise is good. I will add a full citation to Farah's Guide. Before today, the same problem existed for another text: while "Nash" appeared in a couple of footnotes, there was no entry for the book in the Reference List. And to answer your question, yes, I am Dr. Nash herself, a professor of Children's Literature and a Nancy Drew researcher for many years. I am thanked as a source of information in the following popular books about Nancy Drew: Rehak's, Plunkett-Powell's, and Kismaric and Heiferman's. In fact, I spent a full day with Melanie Rehak at the Wellesley College archives as we researched our respective books; she's a great researcher and a lovely person, but her book was not the first source (by far) to publish the facts of the Nancy Drew authorship. Most of that information was published first in the journals serving series-book researchers, especially _Yellowback Library_, a journal which is carried in some university libraries. Your entry on Nancy Drew is great, and deservedly praised; I hope you won't mind if I come back at a later time to add a few more references to points raised in my book -- not because it's "mine," but because it is one of the very few academic sources on the subject, and thus, it has more basis in research than, say, Bobbie Ann Mason's commentary (which is utterly delightful, but is based solely on her personal responses to the ND series).Ndphd (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Your book was in the References section, just incorrectly alphabetized (embarrassingly). I appreciate the worth of your work, and hope you do add references to it (with page numbers, of course!). ~ By the way, when I talk about "reliable sources", I've fallen into Wikipedia-speak - a "reliable source" in that sense is not really a reliable source, but one that follows certain guidelines ~ peer review, fame of publisher, blah blah. Those older sources are all reliable in the true sense, but not necessarily in the Wikipedia sense (Farah is probably on the fence between these). Best wishes, Ricardiana (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)