This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you for you contribution to Talk:The Wieners Circle (",) 99.35.14.231 ( talk) 00:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Beloved Freak 16:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I found this whilst looking for something else. Any use to you? Mjroots ( talk) 06:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Could be, looks interesting. Thanks! -- Beloved Freak 09:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your great start on Martholme Viaduct. Keep up the good work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! -- Beloved Freak 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		This was very, very well done. jorgenev 04:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only a little stub, but thanks! -- Beloved Freak 10:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on John Paynter (composer).

I have done what you asked for and added the references you required.

Please check again to let me know if this is what you needed.

Best wishes

Spencerpiers Spencerpiers ( talk) 09:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I can see it's improved, so well done. I don't think I asked for anything in particular did I? I think I was just making a few minor changes to bring it inline with the manual of style guidelines.-- Beloved Freak 16:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for the posts. I want to learn from you about editing and publishing articles on wikipedia. Hope you will help. Kindly get in touch with me. Amin ud din shroff ( User:Shroffameen) 15:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Belovedfreak. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 22:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui ( talk) 22:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a reminder to be kind to new users, allow them to contribute, to discuss and reach consensus before deleting other work.

OrenBochman ( talk) 06:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that I haven't been kind to you, I'm sure it's frustrating to feel you've wasted time. I haven't deleted any article. If you click on the red link to your article, you will see who deleted it ( User:Peridon), when, and why. It was deleted more than two hours after you created it because it met the criteria to be deleted "speedily". These criteria have evolved to allow administrators to delete certain articles without consensus—really, there already is consensus to delete those articles. If you want to discuss those criteria, you can do at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. By the way, I very rarely request deletion on articles with no content when they are new, as I understand that new users don't necessarily know about the "speedy deletion" criteria, and don't get all the information down. For your article, I did a google search on the topic and found no significant coverage of it. I saw that it was unlikely to meet our notability guidelines for inclusion anyway. To be honest, apps are very unlikely to meet those guidelines. As an encylopedia, we do not include articles on all topics just because they exist. If you think that the app would meet those guidelines, then by all means try again, but make sure you show in the article how it is important. -- Beloved Freak 08:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Dogs in written fiction, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker ( talk) 00:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Thoughtful Chat Over Tea Award
	For providing constructive, detailed and encouraging feedback at editor reviews. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Beloved Freak 08:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, those PROD's you removed from articles i had listed don't exactly meet your explaination of "removing prod; populated places are generally considered notable; suggest merger or WP:AFD discussion as more appropriate". A townland is a townland, not a settlement. Every piece of land is populated however there are over 60'000 townlands in Ireland, many of which have no-one living on them, and many others may only have a few farmhouses and nothing else on them. Is that still notable especially for those articles i listed that aren't even mentionmed on any census staistic data? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, still notable? I don't know, and I fully admit that I'm not that familiar with Irish geographical divisions. However, they don't seem to me to be "uncontroversially deletion candidates" which is what PRODs are for. If there has been previous discussion and consensus has developed that they are not notable, then fair enough, but that wasn't mentioned in the PRODs. In the absence of consensus that says townlands are not considered notable, WP:AFD seems a more appropriate venue. At the very least, I would have thought relevant information could be merged elsewhere (a list perhaps?) and redirects could be retained to help readers search for that information. As I say, I'm not familiar with townlands and I'm not saying that they necessarily are notable, I just don't think PROD-ing is the best way to go for these. If I have missed some previous discussion/consensus on this, and they have been determined to be non-notable, then why not just merge any info worth salvaging & redirect? -- Beloved Freak 10:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging would be the best solution i suppose. Thanks. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you are working nicely through your list of churches. I am doing all sorts of things at present, but if you want me to keep away from any of your future plans, please let me know. And, as you have better sources than I, please improve/correct any of the articles I have started. Cheers. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 12:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't have tonnes of sources, just sometimes I see certain churches mentioned when I'm browsing in the library. I'm not sure of my future plans at the moment. I think I may concentrate on a few non-churchy buildings, like piers, so you're probably in no danger of overlapping! :) -- Beloved Freak 19:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'am currently looking for sources to add more refrences so please give me some time in editing.Also take note that Songs of the Sea is a fountain.I think you might have mistook it with the soundtrack album.

Thanks for the tip you left me.

Regards Maglame

7:05 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're right, I did get the two confused. Sorry about that. I hope you understand what I'm saying about the other ones though. Only actual fountains should be in that category. I'm glad you're looking for more references. To help demonstrate notability, you really need to include sources that have nothing to do with the company involved, like newspaper articles, magazine articles or books, that are written by people who have nothing to do with the musical fountain. The same goes for all the other articles about Sentosa Island/the musical fountain etc. Otherwise, they might not be notable enough for separate articles. -- Beloved Freak 11:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message about articles for deletion and nomination. I looked pretty hard and I found it very difficult to find the proper protocol for nomination. (I'm pretty sure that this was my first such attempt.) Thank you for completing the process. Dogru144 ( talk) 16:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Belovedfreak. I don't know if you're still interested in the work done on The X-Files here, but there's a discussion over on the Wikiproject here that could use some input. The project is essentially dead so I figured it would be best to solicit opinions from editors individually as well. Any input you have would be great. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 12:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Belovedfreak! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian and thanks for your help last year! SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And, you're welcome. -- Beloved Freak 08:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't seen that ClueBot had already given the final warning. Anyway, suppose that the IP continues with vandalism, what can I do? Somebody maybe have already given the final warning, and I can only report this IP but I cannot block it. So the IP can do as many vandalism as it wants. Do you understand what I'm telling you :-)?-- Frigotoni ...i'm here; 16:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that until 24h the person it's the same, anyway I'll report the IP (on WP:AIV) even if IP is not blocked straight away.-- Frigotoni ...i'm here; 11:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I hate to call it a "victim impact statement", however, seeing that it was a number of attacks on you that led to this block, would you care to make a statement there as to whether you accept the apology, or whether additional off-wiki issues might have occurred. You don't have to, if you don't want to ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 10:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ... well said! ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 13:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I would like to apologize again for my behavior. I hope for nothing but the best in your continuous work on Wikipedia and in life in general. BTW, sorry for any grammar errors here ;) lolz. Best, AJona1992 ( talk) 00:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou. I hope things work out well. -- Beloved Freak 20:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome and thanks. AJona1992 ( talk) 21:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, I don't see it in my contributions. He seems to be making some decent edits he just might need some guidance. Maybe you and I can try to help him. AaronY ( talk) 18:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for offering to review the article. Can you tell why there are so many red links on the article? Looking at the diff between the current version and the version prior to the review does not reveal why the article and template have so many red links. I thought you might have a better eagle eye than I seem to have. -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 02:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your articles always seem to be very well-preapred, so it's a pleasure. As for the red links - I'm not quite sure what you mean. I personally see quite a few dark red links, particularly in the template, and for example for the composer names of the first track. That's because my preferences are set so that links to articles less than 2,500 bytes show up as dark red. Have you clicked someething in your preferences? Or do you mean they are showing up as links to empty articles? -- Beloved Freak 07:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing. There are articles for all linked albums in the template and for the composers of the first track. If you view the article's history and view a version of the article a few diffs back, the links are not red. (Thanks for your kind words, by the way.) -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 04:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... for me, there is no difference when I compare with earlier diffs. That's why I was wondering if something had changed in your preferences (under the appearance tag, bottom part that says advanced settings, the bit that says "threshold for stub link"). If not, perhaps try asking at WP:VP/T? -- Beloved Freak 07:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I believe the links I'm adding are within Wikipedia's guidelines. The guideline page outlines this occasion for posting links:

1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,
2. amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

I work for the Utah Museum of Fine Arts and in order to comply with our copyrights to specific artworks and to provide access to specific works we are connecting records about artists and their works from our website to Wikipedia. The University of Utah, our parent organization, asks us to keep all information on our website as it is easiest to update and add information to our database and have people access it through links than it is to seek out all of the places where we can contribute information and then change facts and images should they be incorrect. We uphold the highest academic standards and want to make sure that any information we push out is controlled for quality and accuracy. As for the conflict of interest, yes I work for the Museum. Our motivations are to comply with University copyright restrictions while contributing to the academic integrity of Wikipedia. I hope that I'm understanding the guidelines correctly and complying. Please clarify if I am not. Thank youCris Baczek (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cris Baczek ( talk • contribs)

Thanks for the message, I was in the midst of replying on your talkpage when you wrote this. -- Beloved Freak 16:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

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

The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have had a conflict of interest pop up on two of my three page contributions recently, yet the articles are written from a neutral standpoint, include many references and have cross links to other wiki pages that are relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mghurston ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talkpage. -- Beloved Freak 20:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I do contribute pages on topics I like and according to the COI while it's discouraged to create these pages it's not a violation when it's written in a neutral tone and sources are cited appropriately. The only real issue I could see is that I didn't disclose on my talk page that I was involved in the past with any said group or company, which I'm more than happy to do moving forward. In specific regards to miraDry, I have put a request in to have an article written on the matter as hyperhidrosis had been an issue I had to deal with most of my adult life, though I think my intiial article would have been a good starting point.

For Team San Jose, they're a pretty prominent company here in the Bay Area (where I live) and in the news often as they are comprised of Union, Hotel, Art and San Jose City Officials and I think much more could be written on them, though I would not personally write on those subjects as I doubt my ability to remain neutral on those political items.

As for Morbidgames, that is a company I founded, and I believe the user you mentioned may be one my contractors who had mentioned to us about creating an initial wiki page when our marketing group noticed that many other indie publishers had began popping up with wiki pages. I find the page to be a lot better from a wikipedia standpoint than some of the other indie publisher pages that are unflagged and only a paragraph and some links (not saying who, just saying it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mghurston ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to your message, on my talk page. Poshseagull ( talk) 15:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Belovedfreak/Archive 23! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)