User talk:Curly Turkey/Archive/2012

6216:

Pantheon -I wanted to properly label the citations I added, like the external links to ASME or to the Globe and Mail, but now that they show up in the alphabetized list (which must be your or whatever—too much for me, I don't know how to get there. -Most important, the birth name: in Metamaus, on page 16, as I had cited, you can see the documents (mother's passport AND father's naturalization papers) that list Art's official birth name. His official birth name is not what Art says in an interview on the next page, page 18, but actually "Izy Artur", as I had corrected. Can you incorporate my edit in your formatting? Thanks so much and all the best,

6240: 337:. If an article all ready exists, just edit the article with your new content. It absolutely doesn't matter where you drafted that content--your userspace, word, or the whiteboard. It actually doesn't matter if you replace the entire article with a cut and paste because the existing article's history and all its versions are retained. If you move an article from your userspace to replace and existing article, the existing history is lost and that's problematic. The only time you should consider 3790: 4969: 6473: 6137: 618: 5943: 4884: 4718: 6417: 4513: 4310: 4068: 5231: 6353: 6290: 3846: 524: 3485: 3430: 3375: 1399: 911: 812: 5145: 4262: 4020: 637:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 6500: 5745: 4099: 3110:

vehemently opposed the inclusion of the phrase "stylized as" regarding the difference between "Misia" and "MISIA" because there was no source for "stylized as", even though it is phrasing utilized internally to conform with the various manuals of style. And while perhaps the katakana may not be necessary on articles such as

2235:, not about her herself, and was a request to cease that behaviour. That aspect of the comment was removed entirely. Nor was her comment about the article, but about how hard she (and others) had worked on the article (with the implication that the rest of us were ruining all that hard work by trying to add an infobox). 2200:, which is inappropriate. I already explained why I added the extra comment to yours - because you reverted me. I've re-read the discussion, and I still think the context of your comment is preserved; I also don't see why you're accusing me of unfairness, given that I removed commentary from both "sides". 4842:

I have from the mid 230s onwards complete so if you ever need anything for any article in those issues message me. Before that I'm gappy. I think the archived article is an extended version of the review, but over the weekend I'll see about scanning them and if I have time I'll do the others as well.

3065:

I do understand that it has to do with a larger number of articles. "℃-ute" was the specific one that came up, so I addressed that. The fact that it comes up often with 「キュート」 tells us nothing more than that its pronunciation is not obvious, and thus requires a pronunciation guide. I don't see how

2150:

What makes the one line of mine you removed "irrelevant" when it was, infact, a direct, on-topic response to TruthKeeper's? While it could have been worded more politely (and it definitely didn't cross into uncivil territory), it certainly had an immediate point, of which the rest of the comment was

2098:

I have been considering what I'm doing - "don't assume I haven't". I didn't say it was an attack, simply that it was not helpful and not relevant to the article at hand. You pointed out a potential issue with the comment I used, which I've now tried to address. Hyperbole like that you use above isn't

2053:

read it as a whole---don't assume I haven't. You'll notice I've reverted nothing this time and chosen instead to talk to you about it. The particular comment was not an attack by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact removing it removes context from my comment---in fact, it removes the point of

866:

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 render it more in conformance with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can

6059:

Sorry, I incorrectly posted a vandalism warning on your page, but now my mistake was pointed to me. I was trying to prevent someone else from reverting again and again an edit I had made. Will be more careful --and clear--next time, and thanks for all your useful & knowledgeable contributions to

3077:

Oh, and I'd avoid using Google Translate for Japanese. My mother tried to send a thank-you message to my wife a few weeks back, after being put through Google Translate. If it weren't for the fact that she included the English original with the mesage, we never would've understod the giberish that

2001:

the situation" is the kind of comment that lacks such a level of understanding that I don't even know where to begin to reply. Should we make the parents of murdered children judges in the murder trial as well? Do you really not understand why it is important for a third party to do these things?

1428:

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit

6215:

Hi Curley, Thanks for all the useful support, but I was trying to fix a few things on the Spiegelman page, and found it just too difficult. If you read this/are so inclined, can you fix? -In the reference section, under "Spiegelman", the publisher for MetaMaus is listed as Viking, but it's actually

6176:

OK, I got your comment about editing content and providing appropriate link, and fixed my earlier edit with the correct link. It's hard though, harder than I remember from a while back, to get all these references properly listed. Is it getting so hard to edit in the exact required wiki style that

5885:

You're right, that was hyperbole and I apologise. I'm an enthusiast for copy-editing and I sometimes let my enthusiasm overwhelm my tact. It's a really good article on a very important subject and I congratulate you on your work in bringing it on as far as you have. I taught a class in Intermediate

3502:

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can

3447:

3392:

2164:

Anyways, as Eisfbnore has pointed out, you have a conflict of interest here and couldn't possibly be a neutral enough party to be qualified to alter the discussion in the way you have. Whatever you think of me or the direction of the discussion, or how strongly you feel about your position, from a

1798:

How do you justify the deletions? Further, you signed your deletion of my comment, but not Ceoil's---leaving the impression that Ceoil may have deleted his/her own comments, whereas mine appear to have be so disruptive to have needed administrator intervention. Further, you've labeled my comment:

1093:

I joined the discussion, and you post threatening language about 3RR. Now, seeing as how you are specifically at 3RR now, I'll remind you that you are not above the rules, simply because you initiated a discussion. I tried to incorporate your changes, yet you still reverted blindly. You earned that

5402:

Excellent work on the article! I saw it just got posted to GAN, and I wanted to mention that the article currently has a maintenance template on the 'Description' section. I would suggest resolving that before a review, as it could conceivably be used to quick fail the article. I wouldn't do that

341:

a draft from your userspace to the mainspace is when you are creating a new article. When you do that, the history of all your edits in the userspace is moved with the new article. Otherwise, just edit existing articles with your new content. I think the current RM has been resolved by that very

2342:

Two things - I'm getting the distinct sense that this has been personalized - in other words CurlyTurkey doesn't want me specifically to add to the Ezra Pound infobox discussion. Second, it's usually nice to notify someone when a conversation is being held about them. That would go for Ceoil too.

2223:

comment in a way that made it look especially incriminating. Yes, you removed comments from both sides (at no point did I claim otherwise), but you were extremely selective in how you did it, and did so in such a way that it looked like Ceoil may have removed his/her own comments, while mine was

855:

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be

3029:

The issue does not just concern that one band's name. It concerns any Japanese article subject who may use the English alphabet to refer to themselves in the Japanese cultural sphere. While this does concern multiple musical entities, it still is a wide ranging thing to attempt to change. And it

1733:

I'll never understand some editors' dishonesty. This editor repeatedly edited others' comments to distort the discussion. I'm archiving this discussion here, as the editor (an admin, no less) deleted my final comment. What on earth is the point of that? The comment on the edit that removed my

2478:

Of course, I'm talking about a "mutually satisfying result" regarding your deletions, and not about the infobox. This is why I'm talking about it on your talk page, and not at the Ezra Pound talk page. Have we talked about the Infobox on this page? Nope, not a word. So why would you suggest

3109:

The argument, as I see it from their side, is that by including the katakana form of let's say °C-ute it apparently suggests to our readers that キュート is the method by which the subject is referred to in the Japanese media, rather than °C-ute or ℃-ute. This argument also comes from someone who

1821:, but it was certainly not irrelevant (I was asking TruthKeeper not to clutter the discussion with comments not aimed at moving the discussion forward---you can't deny that, if you go back and reread it), and further removes context from the rest of my comment, which you left. The comment is 4826:

which is an archive of The Comics Journal: Reviews www.tcj.com, 13 May 2004 and somewhat addresses changes from serial to compiled editions that you were asking for on talk. I also have copies of TCJ 240, 254 and 259 that are mentioned in this article if they are of any use to you.

1499:

This is not a matter of fairness, since a notice is not a punishment. It's for your own benefit and to his detriment if you decide to stop before the 3RR line and he doesn't as a result of this message. You can even remove this whole section from your talk page if it bothers you so

3960:

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at

3183:

But yet the katakana exists in usage in Japan, even if it is not the primary usage. IPA seemingly isn't preferred amongst academics in the US, but if we just give the Hepburn romanization (of an already romanized name) it seems to me like something is inherently missing from the

4171:

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at

925:, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. 3260: 6384:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on 6321:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on 3877:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on 2598:, it's appreciated. There's a whole saga involved here that you've no reason to care about, but basically previous disputes on this and related articles have left an environment where everyone feels the need to be defensive, both of their position and of each other. 555:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on 4417:

Adverbs crop up a lot in quickly written prose (e.g. see my FAC comments, which has a number), one of the first steps in revising copy should be to search for "ly" adverbs and check that they a) add any value and b) can't be replaced with something specific.

3140:

As you as you realize it's just a shitty translation. I've run into far too many people who take dictionary/machine translations as law, and use them to look down their noses at other languages (as in "Holy Fuck! Look at the retarded things they say in

497: 4222:

We tried to use Knowledge (XXG) email to deliver your account access information but you either did not provide an email address in your preferences or had it set up not to receive messages from other editors. You can change both on the first page of

868: 2650:. This means that the Louis Riel PR was listed three separate times, which takes up too much space (since all peer reviewes are transcluded in full in each category). I removed the two cats from the bottom of the PR to avoid this. Thanks, 844:, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, 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 2987:, and not an endorsement for 「キュート」 being a standard way of writing the name of the band. Are there any articles that use 「キュート」 to the exclusion of "℃-ute"? If not, then I strongly suspect that only "℃-ute" is standard, and 「キュート」 is 5290:

On the other hand, using a date as an adjunct remains clumsy expression. There are occasions when it is appropriate. These are the occasions when the date is absolutely integral to the event itself. There is a difference between the

1866:

I labeled your post because you had previously reverted me when I tried to remove your commentary. If you look at TPO as a whole (not just that bullet point), you might gain some insight into why those particular comments were removed.

3509:

to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with

3454:

3399:

3121:

And I retain the Google Translation because it is humorous in its literal application in turning "No Laser Beams" into "Discharge light beams modestly". Although "Please refrain from discharging light beams" has a similar ring to

5512:

Great suggestions, all! :) I used that script and removed a bunch of repeated links. I also trimmed a lot more quotes. I then came back and paraphrased quotes and removed the quotes themselves. Should be all addressed now. ;) —

2282:

not hyperbole, since it's exactly what a large number of "common sense"-types believe. If you haven't run into these types, you're blessed. It's a relief to see that you think it's ridiculous enough a statement to take it as

980:, you might in the future want to read the text of this template, as it specifically talks about bringing things to the article's talk page, which you have repeatedly refused to do. Oh, and you can try to cover your tracks by 5491:

One last update for now and then will come back to it later, just to let you know I've made several edits to significantly trim down the use of quotations in the article, I agree with this helpful recommendation, thank you, —

771:

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at

2158:

well enough to understand why you made the deletions. I've read it through several times, and I still see your actions as a violation, and have explicitly stated where. Please show exactly where in the policy that you are

756:

of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

4823: 2196:"Should we make the parents of murdered children judges in the murder trial as well?" I don't see any way to interpret that other than hyperbole. TK's comment was actually talking about the article; yours was talking about 4440:

specific. After all, you did substitute it with the adjective "prolific". Removing it would clearly change the meaning (McCay was certainly prolific—one estimate puts his total output at one million finished drawings).

2146:

my comment ("irrelevant", then "again", making it look like I'd repeatedly reverted your removals)? Try reading it from a disinterested reader's perspective and you'll see how badly it distorts what was happening in the

5845:

so I don't really have much spare time during work-days.. The reason for the postponement is to write the "Relations with Kampuchea and the Sino–Vietnamese War" section which is currently blank. Would this be okay???

511:

This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Knowledge (XXG) and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

1805:"Truthkeeper, if you are not going to make comments that add to the discussion, then could you please refrain? "I won't stop you *pout pout* but someone else will" is simply embarrassing for the rest of us to read." 5314:

is a classic example of very poor use of a date as an adjunct. Riel's hanging is Riel's hanging. It only occurred once, surely? It should be stated: "Riel's hanging for high treason in 1885"? The date is not

3152:"Stylized as" is fine as far as I can see---it's pretty standard. But I do agree that including the katakana seemingly legitimizes the use of that katakana as official, another reason I'm opposed to its usage. 377:. The Overstreet suggests otherwise. And I've seen the Whites criticized for their poor-quality paper. (I wish I could recall where... :( ) Yes, that they were 4-colors probably was more important, but not the 2132:

been considering what you're doing, then am I to take your distortions as deliberate? I don't think I've actually accused you of ill-will up until this point, and I seriously don't want to have to cross that

3033:

And I hope you do not mind, but I prefer keeping conversations in the place where they started, so I have moved your comments from my talk page onto yours. If you need to grab my attention, you can go with a

4392: 1889:

Nikkimaria, I don't think you are the right person to remove commentary from that discussion; you had already posted there and were/are not a neutral third person. Also, I find it somewhat curious that you

3278:

intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse

4920: 3818:

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Knowledge (XXG) editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out

4398:

In this specific case it also introduces another problem; are you reflecting the sources view in an accurate fashion? Is the author uncertain of his convictions or are you undermining what he said? (see

5894:" nevertheless be better and clearer without the ambiguity? Yes it would (unless we were aiming for a comical effect of course). Do you follow me? Anyway, sorry if I hurt your feelings with that one. -- 2139:

If you are removing comments you deem irrelevant, then why did you leave TruthKeeper's, the one that I was directly responding to? How did that comment add to the discussion in any way, shape or form?

6380:

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

6317:

3873:

551:

2517:

Nor did I suggest anything about the infobox here. Your comment was incivil, off-topic, and did not contribute anything to the discussion...but since it's been restored, this discussion is over.

4410:, but very many end in "ly" making that a good hack for finding them. If you search "ly " on an article and they are littered about that is a big sign that the prose lacks specificity. Not 5470:, take your time, but I'd like to try to address your suggestions afterwards, I hope I can respond to your recommendations to your satisfaction so we can have this important article be of 4824:

http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=690214334&page_url=//www.tcj.com/259/r_reil&page_last_updated=2004-05-13T17:32:07&firstName=Louis&lastName=Riel

3590:. I don't think I've ever run across Mr. Rabbit before, so I have no idea why he came out the gate so angry. Maybe he will feel better when, as it appears likely, his crusade to eliminate 6449:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 4691: 4137:

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Knowledge (XXG) email!

2927:

page. This has created a cite error and I'm not sure how to fix it because the whole section is organised in an unusual way. Could you have a look and see if you can fix it? Thanks.

2464:

Curly Turkey, before this goes any further: what exactly would you consider to be a "mutually satisfying result"? I've already attempted to address your concerns at that talk page.

2125:

Hyperbole? What hyperbole? Please explicate. I'm having trouble comprehending exactly which statement it is you've misinterpreted as hyperbole. Maybe you meant a different word?

3815:

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

1258: 6486: 295:? I'd like to request the old edit history be restored to primary position. As all the edits for the new version belong to you, it'd be the same situation as what you did with 106: 6445:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

1254: 102: 6149:

Don't get discouraged. We need people reviewing at GAN. You need a pat on the back? I'd give you ten :) Thanks beforehand for helping us reducing the backlog. Regards. —

4769: 2998:

P.S. "Discharge light beams modestly" is a terrible translation of 「光線の発射はご遠慮下さい」. "Please refrain from discharging lasers/light beams" would be a straighter translation.

2307:

You're letting your biases show. Should I go looking for a neutral third-party myself? I was hoping that talking things out would result in mutually satisfying result.

1692: 3066:

one could jump to the conclusion that the pronunciation guide is somehow an official alternative spelling. In the vast majority of cases, I think that katakana should

1492:

If you're going to count Cold Season's first edit as a revert, then I could count your first edit as a revert, and then you have three reverts. However, that's not the

5993: 5886:

English for a few years and I honestly never noticed these ambiguities as much until I had done this. The one we always used to illustrate the point to students was "

1688: 331:

However, I would like to see the proper procedure properly spelled out somewhere. Eve after all this discussion, I still can't find the guideline that makes it clear.

3047:

Also, if I remember correctly, "Discharge light beams modestly" is what Google came up with when I first stuck that phrase into its translator, so it stuck with me.—

2002:

I'm flabbergasted that an adult could make such a myopic comment---it's as if you were a troll actually trying to sabotage the very position you purport to support.

6446: 146: 6438:

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 Knowledge (XXG) (see

5586: 4518: 6434:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4269:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See 4027:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 5 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See 173: 165: 6374: 6311: 3867: 545: 6102: 5811: 5634: 5370: 5058: 4598: 3729: 3556: 3546: 2893: 2815: 2734: 2724: 1702: 1630: 1319: 1309: 1218: 698: 462: 217: 42: 3719: 2617:

Interesting article, enjoyed reading it. Not sure though if the lead sentence should describe it as a graphic novel or comic. I'd prob go for the former.

1825:

irrelevent in the context. If it's irrelevant to the infobox issue itself, then so are the comments that I was responding to, which you left untouched.

541: 532: 5561: 3542: 2720: 1305: 82: 3715: 6454: 6385: 6322: 3878: 3474: 3419: 3364: 801: 649: 556: 169: 6307: 6298: 5801: 5360: 5074: 4391:

In this case, "likely" weakens the sentence, making it less specific (is it or isn't it? to what extent?). Removing it does not change the meaning.

3299:

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

997: 959:

even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

452: 233: 78: 6515:. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! 6092: 5172:. This award is given to a few people who are regarded experts in one or several particular fields. Congrats and keep up your excellent work :)!-- 3626:, and everything looks to be in order except for a broken link in the article. I will place the article on hold until that is fixed. Good luck! -- 2805: 5797: 5624: 5356: 5070: 4147:

Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).

2067:

comment this time, not mine, so what's with the "again"? I think you need to slow down and consider what you're doing before making such edits.

1149:

I've left you commit messages with my reverts, messages on your talk page, and have been trying to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

688: 448: 229: 2949:, so you clearly realize that the argument is going nowhere fast. Why is it that no one other than those with dogs in the fight is commenting?— 6393: 6330: 6088: 3886: 2801: 1620: 777: 753: 564: 181: 58: 6537: 6098: 5807: 5630: 5366: 5054: 4594: 3725: 3552: 2889: 2811: 2730: 1698: 1626: 1315: 1214: 694: 458: 213: 38: 5620: 4375:

Adverbs ending in "ly" weaken sentences, meaning the adverb is both redundant and damaging to the clarity of the prose. To take an example:

4304: 4256: 4062: 4014: 684: 5555: 5423: 2241:

not directed at you, but at Modernist's total lack of understanding of the point of having neutral third parties deal with sensitive issues

1811:

as "irrelevent", whereas Ceoil's "Trouble making and vengeful prick" and "Also, your signature is a headace. Go back to editing comics and

161:

Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.

6389: 6326: 3882: 3505: 1616: 560: 54: 760:

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion

6370: 6361: 5102: 1660:"Zappata" is history. If he pops up again under a new name, PDFTT. Just let me or some other admin know, and he'll be removed again. -- 1429:

warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

918: 311: 5047:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

1945:... and can you give a reason for why you think she is correct in removing said commentary, despite her involvement in the discussion? 6504: 6381: 6318: 5213: 4674: 4588: 4548: 4461: 3874: 3172: 3098: 3018: 2690: 2555: 2535:, while taking an uncivil jab at me. I'm not expecting anything from you anymore, but I'm not about to let a false accusation stand. 2506: 2415: 2327: 2185: 2087: 2022: 1852: 1555: 1234: 1184: 1074: 1032: 552: 6431: 3978: 5098: 4986: 3969: 590:

Right... just notice you mss mucking. Please undo what you have done to the articles and think about using the template talk page.

6369:, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) is acceptable. Please go to 6306:, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) is acceptable. Please go to 4584: 3862:, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) is acceptable. Please go to 1230: 540:, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) is acceptable. Please go to 4552: 2063:

Further, "comment removed again" only makes it look like I've been repeatedly reverting it, especially since you've removed your

4180: 1754: 6201: 6045: 5868: 5851: 4314: 4270: 3863: 3854: 3492: 3478: 3237: 329:

Curly, I was surprised to find that you are an experienced editor, but in the Quebec Comics RM you made the following comment:

6095:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5804:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5627:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5363:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5322:

It doesn't equate with "chicken soup" which is simply not the same thing, without the chicken, as I am sure you will agree.

4591:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3962: 3722:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3549:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3280: 3030:

seems that if "℃-ute" is used, キュート is not far behind (I did find over half a million results for the two next to each other).

2886:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2883: 2808:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2727:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1787: 1695:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1623:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1445: 1312:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 948: 821: 691:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 455:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 6012:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

5051:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4939:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

4912: 4902: 4788:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

4436:

it were a matter of weakening the sentence. The "ly" adverb being used, however, was "prolifically"—which made the sentence

3499:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 3444:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 3389:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 2855: 1250: 1211:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 210:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 35:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5841:

Would it be possible to postpone the rest of the GA review until saturday or sunday?? I've been conscripted to serve in the

4173: 1449: 1161: 952: 858: 633:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 5428:, I've modified the first sentence of the lede intro per your helpful suggestion on the GA Review subpage. Thanks again, — 299:. (the current Canadian comics page would probably end up back as your user subpage, or a workpage of Canadian comics (ie. 180:

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Knowledge (XXG). If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the

4150:

Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Knowledge (XXG) will see it).

2879: 1470:

You were one person reverting the work of multiple users. If it was you and one other person, then I could see your point.

98: 6439: 5949: 4890: 4724: 4472:

Yes, apologies, I meant it as a general point because in reading your revision I picked up on the "ly"and ran a check. --

3511: 3456: 3401: 773: 761: 638: 4322: 4278: 4116: 4080: 4036: 3437: 3423: 3346: 2968:

I didn't comment on the band names argument because I wasn't interested in the actual argument (I'm not into J-Pop). I

3450: 3284: 2262:- before it gets really ridiculous...I've seen absurd and foolish obsessions and WOW this takes the cake, later pal... 629: 6426:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 5048: 1208: 828: 207: 32: 6269: 6197: 6079:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

6041: 6013: 5999: 5864: 5847: 5788:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

5611:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

5343:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

5304: 4940: 4926: 4789: 4775: 4575:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

4300: 4293: 4252: 4245: 1791: 1680: 300: 4528: 2286:

If that was the comment you were responding to, it would have been far more clear if you had placed your response

1578:", so please go easy. Just because you only did it twice doesn't mean you haven't been engaged in edit warring. -- 304: 6519: 6422: 6026: 5706: 5684: 5249: 3937:

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

1925:

To the contrary - Nikkimaria has every right and is correct in removing commentary. That discussion has become a

292: 192: 4949: 3395: 3078:

Google Translate spat out---not even that it was supposed to be saying "thank you". I'm not even exaggerating.

1567: 1441: 944: 872: 837: 805: 5914: 3941:

The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email

3687: 3632: 3605: 2224:

clearly removed by an administrator. Strange, given that, while my comment was impolite (but not uncivil, and

6239: 3660: 3149:

is the international language!"). Also "modestly" is hardly a "literal" translation of 「遠慮」 in most contexts.

749: 6479: 6472: 5008: 4318: 4274: 4112: 4076: 4032: 2348: 315: 2395:

I just noticed you restored my comment. If you'd like me to reword it to be more polite, I could do that.

849: 5942: 5300: 4994: 4883: 4717: 4699: 4643: 4544: 3801: 3594: 2983:

including katakana as a pronunciation guide. And I'm pretty sure that the 「キュート」 in the "℃-ute" logo was

1378: 1361: 1099: 967: 17: 5749: 4758:

was published as a box that contained fourteen printed objects, including cloth-bound books, newspapers,

4400: 1762: 1437: 940: 6262: 5954: 4895: 4802: 4729: 4358: 4341: 3764: 3382: 3368: 3312: 2777: 1604: 1585: 1353: 1345: 6009: 4936: 4843:

The one in 254 is a rebuttal to a takedown of the work in TCJ special edition 1. Does your email work?

4785: 3909: 3820: 3268: 1774: 397:

I don't entirely agree, but I don't disagree enough to fight it. Nor can I cite anything better... :(

5683:

And I feel self-conscious piling up kudos again so soon, but that was such a precise, nuanced edit at

3912:

account. Bad news: Your access code could not be delivered because of your email settings. Please:

6516: 6462: 6401: 6338: 6022: 5899: 5530:

Thanks again, I've taken care of the other steps and referenced your GA Review subpage. :) Cheers, —

4204: 3957:. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration. 3894: 3644: 3519: 3464: 3409: 3331: 3326:

Sorry about formatting the URL as if it was an ISBN. That's not supposed to happen. Well spotted.

3259: 2932: 2771: 2603: 2522: 2469: 2205: 2104: 1916: 1872: 736: 659: 574: 424: 405: 389: 351: 188: 5757: 5748:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge (XXG). Your edits appear to constitute

5287:

Thank you for your explanation about the use of a single date rather than the serialisation dates.

4556: 4494: 4414:

adverbs are bad, and indeed in many cases they do add value. But in general it is an area to check.

4227:. To fix the situation directly or to let me know you've changed your preferences, just email me at 4215: 4189: 4130: 3824: 1926: 1410: 1005: 956: 6256: 5239:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

5034: 5020: 4982: 4817: 4224: 3627: 3601: 3534: 3354: 2712: 2655: 2267: 1971: 1934: 1301: 1297: 1054:

I asked you politely to stop and join in the discussion. Why do you refuse to join the discussion?

895: 880: 785: 6217: 6178: 6061: 1425: 752:. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the 5726: 5692: 5673: 5407: 5329: 5296: 4930: 3707: 2851: 2344: 2151:

mere elaboration---now only elaboration without a point to elaborate on. You've removed context.

1517: 1479: 1457: 113: 6508: 4968: 1766: 1758: 1416: 928: 3786:'. I am not yet able to access the 'move' feature, and saw that you were involved in the page. 2486:

do you find justification for your deletions? And why do you keep dodging the answer to this?

890:

I've searched in a few loactions but I can't find any major references to Éditions Mille-Îles.

6512: 6221: 6182: 6118: 6065: 5827: 5765: 5650: 5386: 5195: 5179: 5126: 4990: 4695: 4656: 4635: 4614: 4539: 4443: 4266: 4072: 4028: 4024: 3797: 3745: 3669: 3572: 3220: 3191: 3154: 3129: 3080: 3054: 3038: 3000: 2956: 2909: 2831: 2750: 2672: 2537: 2488: 2397: 2309: 2167: 2069: 2004: 1834: 1718: 1646: 1537: 1374: 1357: 1335: 1282: 1166: 1095: 1056: 1014: 977: 963: 776:. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at 714: 478: 273: 130: 74: 6435: 6366: 6303: 4560: 4153:

You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

3859: 3292: 3275: 1911:

I don't read that comment as being sarcastic - snippy, perhaps, but acceptable and relevant.

1493: 1467:

3RR is a bright red line, not an entitlement. Edit-warring is still bad before you break 3RR.

1433: 1001: 936: 537: 6522: 6466: 6405: 6342: 6276: 6225: 6205: 6186: 6163: 6157: 6122: 6069: 6049: 6030: 5928: 5903: 5872: 5855: 5831: 5777: 5773: 5730: 5696: 5677: 5654: 5600: 5575: 5541: 5524: 5503: 5485: 5460: 5439: 5410: 5390: 5333: 5277: 5273: 5219: 5185: 5130: 5036: 5022: 4998: 4866: 4862: 4852: 4848: 4836: 4832: 4806: 4798: 4749: 4736: 4703: 4680: 4648: 4629: 4618: 4565: 4478: 4467: 4424: 4362: 4354: 4345: 4337: 4326: 4282: 4234: 4208: 4120: 4084: 4040: 3989: 3927: 3898: 3835: 3805: 3768: 3760: 3749: 3696: 3675: 3652: 3637: 3609: 3576: 3523: 3468: 3413: 3358: 3335: 3249: 3226: 3197: 3178: 3135: 3104: 3060: 3024: 2962: 2936: 2913: 2860: 2835: 2782: 2754: 2696: 2665: 2646:

Just so you know, peer reviews with multiple PR categories are listed in each subsection at

2641: 2626: 2607: 2561: 2526: 2512: 2473: 2421: 2352: 2333: 2271: 2209: 2191: 2108: 2093: 2028: 1975: 1953: 1938: 1920: 1902: 1876: 1858: 1722: 1669: 1650: 1588: 1580: 1561: 1521: 1483: 1461: 1406: 1392: 1382: 1365: 1339: 1286: 1190: 1103: 1080: 1038: 971: 899: 884: 795: 738: 718: 665: 605: 601: 580: 482: 426: 407: 391: 355: 319: 277: 196: 134: 6392:

and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the

6329:

and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the

3885:

and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the

3496: 3441: 3386: 2483: 2296: 2238:"Should we make the parents of murdered children judges in the murder trial as well?" was: 2155: 1781: 1743: 1421: 1153: 1047: 1009: 922: 845: 841: 563:

and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the

6458: 6397: 6334: 6246: 5895: 5789: 5344: 5066: 4497:, I would like to thank you for your editorial efforts that has contributed to the recent 4200: 3974:

Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage

3890: 3515: 3460: 3405: 3327: 2928: 2767: 2760: 2637: 2622: 2599: 2518: 2465: 2201: 2100: 1912: 1868: 1665: 1160:

you of the impending breach. Your accusing me of "threatening" you is hardly in line with

729: 653: 568: 440: 417: 398: 382: 347: 288: 225: 6427: 5863:

I've responded to all you're comments, are there anymore problems with the article? :) --

5582: 5471: 4498: 4289: 4241: 4047: 3999: 2647: 2142:

Why do you insist on adding extra commentary to the text you deleted from my comment and

1828:

If you go back and look at this all in context, I think you'll see why WP:TPO recommends

1373:

Thank you! I wasn't aware of the guidelines because I don't work with WP:Comics. Cheers!

634: 4185:

Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage

6136: 6080: 5970: 5961: 5924: 5842: 5753: 5596: 5571: 5537: 5520: 5499: 5481: 5456: 5435: 5348: 5109: 5081: 5029: 5015: 3350: 2793: 2651: 2263: 1967: 1946: 1930: 1895: 1608: 891: 876: 781: 89: 3495:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

3440:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

3385:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

840:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

412:

Not to worry, you have no chance of discouraging me. :D If you're happy with it, I'll

6109: