User talk:Bookworm857158367/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, Bookworm857158367/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Community Portal
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Manual of Style
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Picture tutorial

I hope you will enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can sign your name on talk and voting pages using four tildes, (~~~~), which produces your username, the time, and the date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Thorn Birds" was a pretty good book. However, I would like to suggest you set up the book and characters in a single article under the book's title. Rklawton 03:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd echo the suggestion above. List of General Hospital characters would be a better place for information about the characters. Check out WP:FICT as well, please.--Kchase02 T 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

hey! you edited right after me. Anyway just a hi! Please do not blank out comments on the talk page. This is considered vandalism. Rklawton 13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wold Newton and Tommy Westphall

Technically you can add the characters from Lost along with more updated programs on TV, I came across this hypothesis Tommy Westphall which explains the cross-over of a multitude of characters from different TV shows all thanks to ONE minor character in St. Elsehwere. For a clearer idea on how they link up check this diagram: crossover diagram and this site: Tommy Westphall's Mind - however I still think we should try to find correlations between the original Newtonverse families effected by the meteorite or related to them with the more current characters... Piecraft 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you're right they justify being added in, I had originally thought that there wasn't much purpose, but seeing as the Coles from 6th Sense have already been entered in it would make sense to follow suit, especially in the case of Signs. Feel free to add them in. (This is in regards to the inclusion of the characters from Signs). Piecraft 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey just wanted to say good work on the List, thanks a lot with all the added research and effort. I'm still going at it hard trying to string the more "horror" -related characters into the family, but don't let it hold you back, you've truly made this list better from its earlier days. Keep it obscure! Piecraft 00:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just found this site - it's pretty helpful and has a huge compendium of international superheroes etc... from myths to TV and so on www.internationalhero.co.uk, see if you can use it. Also can you look over any additions I've recently mad and see if they link up to anyone I missed? The list has gotten so huge it's difficult to correlate characters now, I added the Bond villains "Largo" - I believe they are somehow connected to the Luthors. Piecraft 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wold Newton Universe list

Hi sorry but I am currently away on work. But it is a shame the list was deleted. I do believe there need to be new re-administered ammendments to the list what with new information coming to light i.e the sopranos are not related to corleone familyand the other mistakes that were pointed out by other users in the deletion poll. I look forward to the list,s implementation on your page, i will be sure to contribute where i can. Piecraft

Allegra Byron

I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia with this article, however the format of the article needs a lot of work. Have you read How to write a great article? If you haven't I suggest that you do. Also, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia as the article is now going to have to be cleaned up by someone who knows how to cite properly. If you need help, please let me know! Stubbleboy 23:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't even know where to start here! This article is huge for an individual who died when she was only 5 years old!

Four-year-old Allegra wrote her father a letter in Italian from the convent, dated September 21, 1821, asking him to visit her: "My dear Pappa. It being fair-time, I should like so much a visit from my Papa as I have many wishes to satisfy. Won't you come to please your Allegra who loves you so?" (Eisler 1999: 701)

• FOUR YEAR OLD?? My mother babysits a girl who is four years old. She can barely write sentences, let alone comprehend words such as "satisfy". I find this information hard to believe, don't you?? Stubbleboy 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Allegra Byron

Okay well I want to help you, so I'm going to look at the article in detail tomorrow. When I say wikify, I mean like compair your article to one that I've edited like Tyke (elephant). See how sections are used to seperate the incident. They're used the same way when adding sections to an individuals like...like say Abraham Lincoln - although I understand his is rather broad. See what I mean? Stubbleboy 00:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• You were at that incident?! Wow, that is amazing. I actually started that article under my old username. I've been using Wikipedia for years now. I have a passion for elephants, and I honestly think that it is horrible how the circus treats them, especially in Tyke's situation. What did you think of the page? Stubbleboy 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to add her portrait to the page. It's over 100 years old, so there is no copywrite on it...Stubbleboy 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay so here is what I did

• I've added the portrait of Allegra Byron to the actual page, thus eliminating the need for external links, so I deleted that section.
• I've created WP:REDIRECT pages at Clara allegra byron and Clara byron. That way if someone is searching for her it will make it easier to find her.
• I've created a WP:DAB page at Allegra, so if a user types in Allegra, the page no longer redirects to the allergy medicine. Instead a user will now have the option of choosing Allegra Byron or Allegra the medicine.
• One last thing, someone tagged your category you created here for deletion. At first I was reluctant about the category, but I've changed my mind after spending so much time with the article. To participate in the concensus go here. Great job on the article. Kudos for us! Stubbleboy 01:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

For your nice comments. I'll see you around. If you need anything please let me know, you know how to find me! Stubbleboy 01:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• You should put that portrait of Medora leigh on the page you created. Stubbleboy 01:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ElizabethMedoraLeigh.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ElizabethMedoraLeigh.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Hiya, I though I'd try to explain things here on your talkpage, in order to avoid future disputes. Please be aware that Wikipedia has very strict policies about verifiability and no original research, and it is not enough for you to simply say that "something is true", without supplying references. Also, when someone adds the {{originalresearch}} tag to an article, the way to deal with it is to engage in a good faith discussion about it on the talkpage. If you have a solid case that the tag is unwarranted, this can be discussed in a calm and civil manner, and the tag can easily be removed once consensus has been confirmed. However, simply removing it yourself and saying that it is unfounded, especially as you're a (relatively) inexperienced editor, is not wise. There are many common mistakes that new Wikipedia editors fall into, and believe it or not, I'm actually trying to help you avoid them. For example, please be aware that each editor on Wikipedia has a voice, and when there is disagreement, the Wikipedia method of dealing with disputes is to engage in good faith discussions, rather than for one editor to try and make unilateral decisions and or simply try to force their will on other editors. If you continue on the course that you have been, by refusing to engage in good faith discussions, the next step in dispute resolution will be to generate some type of informal or formal "Request for Comment", which draws in the opinions of other editors to examine a situation and offer third-party opinions. I'd rather avoid that at this point, since the impact on you and the articles that you have been editing might be more negative than you anticipate. So please, I recommend that you review the policy on assuming good faith, and endeavor to engage in constructive discussions, rather than proceeding down the path of Wikipedia:Edit wars. --Elonka 16:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to LuLu Spencer

Your recent edit to LuLu Spencer (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 05:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review

I noticed you just added a bunch of peer review requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review. The peer review process is usually quite lengthy and involved, and it's best if you pick one article to work on at a time. Otherwise, you'll be overwhelmed trying to keep up with all the suggestions, and you'll also overwhelm the good folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review who undertake the peer reviews (which is not a simple process). Please consider removing some of your review requests so as not to overburden yourself and other editors. Gzkn 06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography/Assessment

Would you mind spreading your requests over a few days, rather than block nominating. Thanks + Ceoil 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm done, and have left comments on each talk. I enjoyed reading the articles and found each impressive. The quality was fairly even thoughout, my openion is than with a little reformating and expansion most would be 'good article' candidates. I note you have already moved some towards peer review. I'd advise looking at the edit history of similar articles, finding good editors and asking for their comments and help. Have a look through these article and you'll find who you need. Anyway, nice work. + Ceoil 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, was impressed that you responded so quickly to the requests. Please feel free to contact me again if you are submitting to peer review, or need help in anyway. + Ceoil 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Preview

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Dakota 06:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Princess E. of Hesse

Drifted in from peer review with a few cosmetic changes, but I wanted to say- what a sad story. Part of that is just the tragic death of a small child, but the things that were written about her really testify to what a powerful effect she had on the adults around her. How sad. Thanks for putting it together & well done. Kaisershatner 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget those edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. You're doing a great job on those Grand Duchess articles. Keep it up! Gzkn 08:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

The captions on the images could be more descriptive. For example an short word on, say, the connection between Rasputin and Princess Irina. This is a good example of how to go about it. + Ceoil 23:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

On January 10, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kira Kirillovna of Russia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Nishkid64 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MariaKirillovna.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:MariaKirillovna.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Angr 07:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

North Dakota-bio-stub

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, it isis not named according to stub naming guidelines, and is likely not to reach the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type. It also has insufficient formatting to allow stubs to be categorised. Your new stub type is currently listed for deletion at WP:SFD - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should be retained. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Thompson article

I agree with you that minor criminals shouldn't get their own articles. It does seem to be the case, however, that Thompson has garnered significant media attention. Given the extraordinary range of Wikipedia articles, I think a minor criminal celebrity like Thompson probably deserves his own article. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 14:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Even if you don't think that Thompson is notable, I doubt that the article deserves the speedy deletion tag. Perhaps you should replace it with a notability tag etc. Best, Hydriotaphia 14:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anna Maria Ferrero

I see that not only did you send me a message (unsigned), but you also managed to delete -- or arranged to have deleted -- the page on Anna Maria Ferrero in the space of a very short time. A little courtesy would have required that you allow me the opportunity to tag "hangon" onto the article and a little more time for the article to be fleshed out. One cannot always finish every article one begins within a few hours. FYI, and to quell your fears of non-notability, Anna Maria Ferrero is a very distinguished Italian stage actress and film star with 50+ films to her credit [1], has worked with some of the greatest Italian directors and frequently with Vittorio Gassoman, who was her companion. I can only assume that it is ignorance that made you take such precipitate action. Thanks! Orbicle 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

I did send you a message to give you an opportunity to post hang on on the article. However, you neglected to mention how well-known the person in question was and I have never heard of her. --Bookworm857158367 00:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1. How long did you give me? I might be in a different time zone to you. You posted your message at 14:19, 13 February 2007 (my local time) and next time I looked, which was around 23:30, 13 February 2007, the article had already been deleted. I cannot tell when you deleted the article as it is no longer visible, but it had to be deleted before 23:30. So from posting message to deletion in less than 9 hours. How much time do you give us?

• 2. If the criterion of notability is whether you have heard of someone, heaven help us all and Wikipedia.

I have also noticed from your recent history that your main contributions to Wikipedia seem to consist almost entirely of the speedy deletion of other people's work. Wikipedia's dictum of assuming "good faith" is becoming hard to observe in your case.

Orbicle 11:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete your article. I'm not an administrator and don't have the ability to delete articles. An administrator apparently looked at the article and felt that it warranted speedy deletion. All I did was post a tag on the article and a warning message on your page, giving you an opportunity to put a hold on message on the article. As I recall, you said the woman was an actress. I would not have deleted it had you said, for instance, "She is notable for starring in a number of films. Will add the names later." Just saying she's an actress doesn't cut it and, frankly, not everyone is going to know who the subject of an article is. That's why you HAVE to put in the very first sentence, the first time you hit "enter," what she's notable for (or at the very least a bare-bones explanation.) If you didn't have time to do that, maybe you should have waited until you had time to write a more complete stub. I had no way of knowing what she was famous for and neither did the administrator who actually deleted the page.

As for the other speedy deletion notices I've put, the vast majority of the articles appear to have been obscene or incoherent messages that any reasonable person would label "nonsense," one-line bios written by teenagers saying "so and so is handsome, sexy and cool," "a band that has no demo is cool," blatant ads advertising their company's page or MySpace site or attack pages, also by teenagers, saying "so and so is (unprintable.)" Every single one of those articles has to be vetted by an administrator before it is deleted and other people have an opportunity to object and remove the tag if they decide I'm wrong, as I notice they have done in some instances. That's fine and as it should be. I don't think that type of article belongs on Wikipedia. If your subject is as notable as you say she is, submit the article again and this time SAY what she did in the first line. --Bookworm857158367 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Biographies

Hello, Bookworm. Thanks for your note. Sorry for the confusion. I removed my comment from the assessment page. Maybe another person from WikiProject Biography will know for sure and can rate these stories. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul Collingwood

Hi. Thanks for the rating. While I don't disagree that it's a B class, I was puzzled by the comment about in line references. Surely that's all it has?. Or are you referring to the gaps in the in line references, where we've inserted citation requests? --Dweller 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Haywood GA

We've made some changes according to your recommendations in the Bill Haywood article. Do you think it's good enough to pass GA now? --JerryOrr 16:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hazel Miner

The article Hazel Miner you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Hazel Miner for things needed to be addressed. Chrisfow 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your alterations - it has now passed GA! Well done! Chrisfow 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)==FAC== Just a note to say I'm looking forward to the day you nominate some of the Romanova bios for FAC. Anastasia in paticular is a fine article; Olga is close too, imo. + Ceoil 23:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Sainthood" sections of the Anastasia and Olga articles contain verbatim repetition of text - suggest that you either heavily rephrase one, or consider spinning out the section into a daughter article, reconstructing the existing sections per WP:SS. Ceoil 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		I, Ceoil, give you this barnstar for your outstanding work on the Romanova biographies. I check in every so often, and have always been impressed by your diligent research, and high quality intelligent prose. Best, Ceoil 23:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well deserved, Bookworm857158367, if that's in fact your real name. Ceoil 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I'm sorry, I noticed that and I have already deleted the notice off your talk page. --Nevhood 19:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

your assessment requests

First of all, congratulations on a series of Good Articles. Well done! I have done all your assessment requests with Project Russia, and now have a request for you: please do not remove the current assessment ratings. They form a frame of reference for the reviewer, and the importance rating should not change when the article has been rewritten. Removing (importance) ratings only causes for more work to be done, and that's energy better spent elsewhere. Thanks for your cooperation. Errabee 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who assigned the original ratings :) But I understand your reasons now. Anyway, no real harm done. Errabee 11:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject North Dakota

A (belated) welcome to WikiProject North Dakota. It's great to have you join the project! --MatthewUND^(talk) 08:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Allow me

I, Alex Bakharev, hereby award you this barnstar for your fine contributions to the history of Romanovs and their friends. Keep it up! 12:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on WikiProject Biography. Thank you! -Susanlesch 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Stirpes

There's no problem in deleting the article, but then many others should be deleted too (some even created on 2005), don't you think double standars are dangerous? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lolito81 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Does it count a discussion about the board on another web/forum which is listed on the "Internet forums" category of Wikipedia? -- Lolito81 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bret Meyer

I respect your decision to delete my article on Bret Meyer, but I must argue that I have seen and visited biographies of football players of the same division and notability as Meyer. Also, Meyer was mentioned in the article about the Independence Bowl as the game's MVP, as well as a notable alum of Atlantic High School in the article bearing its name. Therefore, I believe my article is not worthy of deletion. Can you please clarify your decision? Rainblade 23:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologiesRainblade 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On February 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matryona Nikonova, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On March 1, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sophie Buxhoeveden, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks very much Bookworm for all your work.Kindly nominated by Camptown. Feel free to selfnominate!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Scott ODonnell

Hi my article on Michael Scott ODonnell is a good article as it gives information on a notable american musican. He has been mentioned on many web sites like Borders Books and Music http://www.bordersstores.com/events/event_detail.jsp?SEID=126942. If you enter his name on any search engines you will get many hits. I know it is a good article and should be in wikipedia. Thanks --Mso music 03:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Four Fags in a Fabulous Car

"Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Four Fags in a Fabulous Car) are considered nonsense."

How is it nonsence? It is an upcoming movie. Information on it can be found here [[2]]. Thank you. - Ricky

DYK

On 2 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Romanov sainthood, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 07:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The March of Those Who Disagree

My article The March of Those Who Disagree which was deleted within minutes of my creating it was been recreated and expanded. It is noteworthy as it has been covered by CNN and ABC and has gotten a vote of support from another user already on it's talk page. --BillyTFried 02:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Rating Polkinghorne Article

Hi Bookworm. Thanks for rating the John Polkinghorne article. Can you suggest how we might improve it? NBeale 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy, McCarthyism

I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian martyrs

Thanks for your explanation about the Romanov servants. I had diffused hundreds of Category:Christian martyrs into sub-categories over the last few months, but was not sure how to categorise the articles on the Romanov household. I looked up a few sources, in and outside Wikipedia, and none reported a distinction between the family and the servants, so I assumed that the servants were likewise Passion Bearers. Apologies if I missed something. The other reason for putting them all in Category:Passion bearers was that it kept them together.

One possibility now would be to categorise most of the servants as Category:Orthodox martyrs of Modern Times, but Alexei Trupp as Category:Catholic martyrs of Modern Times. Another would be to keep them together in a new category e.g. "Canonised servants of the Romanov household", which could be placed as a sub-category of Category:Orthodox martyrs of Modern Times. Would you support either of these, or suggest something different? - Fayenatic london (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I have based the categorisation of martyrs on the faith for which they died (i.e. the church that they belonged to when they died), rather than the church(es) that canonised them. Christian martyrdom is mainly about witnessing, rather than being a victim of a political or random murder; once someone has been canonised as a martyr, I'm not going to second-guess that decision, but it might help to have some separate categories.

As for the Romanov household, have I understood this correctly: the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia canonised both the family and the servants as martyrs; then the church in Russia declared the family to be Passion bearers, but made no declaration about the servants? - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If you have any new pages to add on martyrs and you're not sure which sub-cat to use, by all means put them in Category:Christian martyrs and I'll move them down. May I also suggest that you use {{DEFAULTSORT:}} before the categories, as it means you only have to enter the sort key once, e.g. this example. - Fayenatic london (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 25 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Varvara Yakovleva, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Varvara Nikolaevna Yakovleva

On 27 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Varvara Nikolaevna Yakovleva, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ryan St. Anne Scott

Thanks for your comment on my talk page, I'm sure that your edits were all done in good faith. I'm watching the discussion on the talk page, but I won't take part in it, as I haven't got anything to say (I will also allow myself, not to read the article in question, due to time constraints...). All the best. --Mbimmler 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill Lipschutz

Tinamarie11 01:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Hi - Can you give me some insight as how to improve the article I wrote on Bill Lipschutz. Thanks!

Ines.

The official source http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/content.jsp?objectid=18000 carries Ines and not Inés. Show me a more official source that contradicts this please ??? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have my eye on the various official sources, if it's indeed is corrected, we will know soon enough. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anna Schmidt

I'm not sure if i respond here or on my user talk page (Crocodyle) where you left a message, so am doing both. My reference to the changes made on Anna Schmidt's page is Anna herself, and am unsure how to cite that? I'm guessing i could make a footnote and say that Anna is the reference, but is that enough? Let me know and i'll happily fill in what is needed....thanks! crocodyle 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Samael

Sure I do, its called "undue weight". No plot summaries needed. No new section needed. It's trivia, and should ultimately be removed, along with the rest of the fictional references. See WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Senior Senator

Hey. I do not know you, but i see you are a member of North Dakota Wikiproject. Please, could you answer my question. I would like to point out that in 1992, Kent Conrad retired, and Byron Dorgan won. Dorgan is still in the Senate. And then Conrad ran and won a few years later. Wouldn't this make Dorgan senior senator from North Dakota??

Thanks, Politics rule 22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Robyn Dawkins

The article Robyn Dawkins has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Merope 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The article did not assert notability. References don't make someone notable; I've been featured in newspaper articles. You might want to review the policies found at WP:N. -- Merope 18:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no--being switched at birth is not one of our notability standards. Please review the list. Also, please be sure to use my talk page for any further communication. -- Merope 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)