User talk:Belovedfreak/Archive 21

Heritage Gateway

Hi. I've added some thoughts on the Heritage Gateway links situation at Peter's talk page: see here. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

St Cuthbert's Church, Lytham

Thanks for this article. My best man lives in the the house just to the west of the vicarage! Hope you are coping OK with the National Heritage List for England. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? Small world! I started it offline ages ago, thought it was about time to get it on here. :-) --BelovedFreak 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:CorenSearchBot/manual

I thought you might be interested to know that I run a backup copy of CorenSearchBot's code which does the exact same job at User:VWBot/manual, so hopefully one of the two bots will be up and running at any given time. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks - that's good to know! --BelovedFreak 14:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Portals

Hi,

I just saw all those African portals you've made, I like them a lot, and since portals are a part of the wiki I've never got into yet you've given me some ideas. As a token of gratitude please accept a handfull of balloons Pi (Talk to me! ) 06:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah... thanks very much! :) Portal work can be quite satisfying until you realise how little traffic they get. It's still a nice way to showcase articles on a certain topic though. --BelovedFreak 12:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter

The April 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please help?

Hello, I'm sorry to be doing this but I would humbly ask if you could review my DYK, it is titled "2011 New Patriotic Party Primaries". I posted it yesterday but so far no review has been made on it. I have posted the link here [[1]]. It is my first DYK so I am a little anxious as to how it goes. Thank you very much.--CrossTempleJay (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Commented at User talk:Crosstemplejay. --BelovedFreak 15:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help so far, I have looked at the errors you talked about in the article and corrected the hook too. Could you please review it again. THANK YOU.CrossTempleJay (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, that looks much better, good job. :) I can't see any obvious problems now, but I'll leave it for someone else to review who might need something to review to make their nomination (if that makes sense!). Don't worry though, it'll be looked at soon! --BelovedFreak 18:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so so much.--CrossTempleJay (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Five days yet no review yet? Belovedfreak, I am still waiting and checking everything to see as to what is happening on DYK. Still no one seem to come around to check it. I'm very sad about it. --→CrossTemple Jay← ^{talk to me} 16:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't be sad, someone will get to it. :) Sometimes, they are reviewed at the last minute as someone is choosing hooks for the DYK queue.--BelovedFreak 10:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. CrossTempleJay  talk 12:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please look at this for me?

I was in the writing my new article Presidents of Ghana when it was tagged for speedy deletion. It had the right content with references and tag to show that it was being expanded. Could you please look at if for me. Thanks as always.--CrossTempleJay (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

whiles the issue is hanging, do I stop the expansion?--CrossTempleJay (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, looking at similar articles for other countries, we seem to have "President of X" and "List of presidents of X" articles. Right now, we already have President of Ghana and List of heads of state of Ghana. Would this news article provide anything different? I'm thinking that perhaps Presidents of Ghana should redirect to one of those. What do you think? (Some comparisons: President of the United States, List of Presidents of the United States, President of Tanzania, List of Presidents of Tanzania; for both of these countries, "Presidents of..." redirects to one of the other articles.) --BelovedFreak 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the List of Presidents before I started but I say that there was no background info about their term of office etc. I intend for this one article to be more than a list so that extra info about their rule and stuff like that can be expanded.--CrossTempleJay (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lists often have a section of prose too, in fact, for featured lists, that is a requirement. What about President of Ghana? I think the new one got tagged for speedy deletion because it contains a lot of duplicated info about that one president, although it's clear to me that you intend it to be much more. It seems to me though that the kind of article you are envisioning would work at President of Ghana.--BelovedFreak 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

President of Ghana only talks about the criteria for becoming president. --CrossTempleJay (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that's all it says now, but it could say more, right? It's not "complete". What I'm trying to get at is, what is the difference in scope of "President of Ghana" and "Presidents of Ghana"? Is there a difference? Should there be? As a reader, I would be very confused by the two titles and have no idea what information to expect at which. I really think it would be better to keep to one article of that sort, and one list.--BelovedFreak 17:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Will just have to work on other stuff for now.CrossTempleJay (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I do think you can work on the same info you wanted to, I just think it would be better in one overall article. :) --BelovedFreak 18:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

3 came through in one day!!!

So so happy, can you believe that I kept going though my first DYK was still hanging. I took your advice that it would come through. I add two more and today they all came through!!!!! The other two were:

2010 New Patriotic Party Presidential Primaries

• ... that in the 2010 New Patriotic Party Presidential Primaries, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo won 77.92% of total votes cast to be elected as flag bearer for the NPP?

Created by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self nom at 01:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 National Democratic Party presidential primaries

• ... that prior to the 2011 National Democratic Party presidential primaries, Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings former first lady of Ghana, was the first person to pick up nomination form to contest the leadership of the party ?

Created by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self nom at 10:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for how far you have mentored me. Will always remember.-- CrossTempleJay  talk 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's great, I'm glad it all worked out. Well done! --BelovedFreak 17:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Santa Claus Lane - re: review sources

I happened to stumble upon the discussion you and user Chase had regarding review sources for Hillary Duff's Santa Claus Lane, and found that you had objections to the use of my review as it was, if I remember the wording, from an "amateur site".

I respectfully take offense at this generalization. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have landed jobs writing music reviews for Rolling Stone or a major daily newspaper, and I freely admit that not everyone who spews their opinion on a record is important enough to be called a "music reviewer". (Lord knows I saw enough argument against calling Robert Christgau that - or even considering his humanity - on the discussion of Achtung Baby.)

I am not here to argue whether or not my review of this album should be included in this or any other Wikipedia article - honestly, when I first discovered I had been quoted in this article, I wondered why, of the thousands of reviews I've written, was this one selected. However, you should know some background before you condemn me as an "amateur". I have 25 years' experience writing music reviews - the last 14 of which have been focused on "The Daily Vault," which I founded in 1997. (Granted, I've never been employed by any mainstream publication in that role... but this has remained a labor of love for me.) Over that time, I've covered numerous shows and interviewed music personalities from Christopher Cross to Steve Hogarth of Marillion. Yes, the little site that I started back in 1997 will never be Rolling Stone in terms of popularity or readership, but I also believe that this works to our benefit, as we don't kiss any industry behinds, and unlike reviewers who dare to slag Jann Wenner's favorite artists (Jim DeRogatis, anyone?), writers for our site are free to express their honest beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may be.

Are all of our writers "professional music reviewers"? Honestly, no... but we are made up of people who are passionate about music, to the point that every single one of us - myself included - donates our efforts in the name of educating people about music of all kinds that is out there, not just the same pabulum that we are force-fed on the radio. We are extremely selective about who we bring onto the review panel - it's a rather elite group. Other Wikipedia articles have included links to our reviews (even if we didn't get the kind of call-out that I did in this particular article). And, one doesn't survive for as long as we have if our work sucks, methinks.

Anyhow, I'm not here to change your mind (nor would I probably do so), nor am I looking at starting a flame war over this, as I rarely delve this deep into Wikipedia - plus, I'm probably reflecting a rather thin skin that it's believed some bands have been alleged to have when they read negative reviews. But I would caution you against declaring writers such as myself as "amateurs," when some of us have been working at our craft for a very long time. After all, not every author of a book gets published by a major house, and not every person who plays an organized sport makes it to the professional leagues. That doesn't make their contributions any less important.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Respectfully, Christopher Thelen Dailyvault (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. I'm sorry if that review caused any offense. Although I meant nothing personal towards you or your work, I can understand your unhappiness with your work being called "amateur". That said, I was speaking within the very specific context of a Wikipedia "good article" review. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you work "sucks"! In fact, to be honest, I probably did't evaluate your review so much as the website itself. When we review articles at a higher standard (what we call "good" or "featured" standard, we look very carefully at the sources that are used in the article. One of our core policies is Wikipedia:Verifiability. To help articles fulfil that, we need to make sure all sources used are reliable. When I say reliable, I'm again speaking in this very specific context. It's not a personal jusgement that I can make about your work, how accurate or well-written it is. I just look at how well it meets this guideline: Identifying reliable sources. We try to rely on sources that have a good reputation as a high-quality source, that have a reputation for fact-checking, that are published by major publishing companies, newspapers, journals etc.

We do sometimes use self-published sources (which your website seems to be, you may be able to correct me), but when we do, they need to be from someone who is reliably considered an expert in their field. One thing that helps us to evaluate that a source (self-published or otherwise) is reliable is if their work has been cited by another source that has already been established to be reliable. Determining reliability of sources on Wikipedia can be even more complicated than I've gone into, and is an exact science, but my questioning the "reliability" of your website is certainly not a declaration that your work "sucks" or is unimportant. I'm well aware of the many, many important pieces of work in all fields that have been done by amateurs, yet would not be considered "reliable" for use here. Wikipedia itself is an example. A great deal of work is done to Wikipedia articles, some of it by people who are eperts in their own field, and editors are proud of our best work. But no matter hw much work goes into out articles, or how well-written they may be, no Wikipedia article would ever be considered a reliable source for another Wikipedia article. There are a few different reasons for this, but hopefully you get the point I'm making.

Note that there are many thousands of Wikipedia articles that do not conform to our core policies. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and unfortunately, just because your website is still being used in some articles, does not mean it has been officially approved as such. You might be interested in this discussion, as well as these two reviews where the website has been questioned: [2], [3]. If you want to start a discussion with other editors about the use of your website as a source, the place to do that would be the reliable sources noticeboard. If you just wanted to make it clear how annoyed you were at me calling your website "amateur" - fair enough. As I say, it was nothing personal and nothing to do with how "good" or "bad" your work might be. I hope I've made it a bit clearer why I was questioning the use of that source. Regards, --BelovedFreak 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sheriff Hill

Hi. My article on Sheriff Hill was today promoted to WP:GA and I'd just like to say thanks for all of your comments and suggestions on this article which helped me greatly in finally getting the article promoted. I'm hoping I'll have a little spare time over the summer to see if I can make some changes to the article and try and run it for WP:FA. Again, many thanks! :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm really please it got there; well done for all your hard work! --BelovedFreak 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Enter the Grave

Hi, I hope you're well. Awhile ago you commented on my FAC of the above article. With that in mind, I was hoping you could review the article with FA standards in mind, and share that review with me on my talk page? If you could, that'd be much appreciated. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I will try to have a look. In the meantime, why don't you try peer review to get a few more eyes on it? --BelovedFreak 11:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your feedback, which is much appreciated. I'll definitely act on it soon. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

St James' Church, Longborough

You certainly follow my life around. This church, which you have just categorised, is the burial place of my father-in-law's ashes! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm stalking you! :) --BelovedFreak 11:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I'm in the middle of writing a third opinion that you asked for, I agree that the source can't be included and I was hoping to make that point somewhat diplomatically but the other user's latest post indicates that(s)he might not be willing to engage in reasonable discussion and/or accept that we need to follow policies here. I'm concerned that 'jumping on the bandwagon' might lead to something of a siege mentality, but I'm happy to chime in if you still want. I can see where (s)he's coming from but it's not really reconcilable with the function of wikipedia. Drop me a line if you like. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I can see your point, but what else would you suggest at this point? I agree that we should try to avoid a siege mentality, I don't want to put them off completely and they are making a good point about our responsibility to living subjects. However, this is clearly (in my opinion!) a policy-based issue, but it's still a content dispute and is not vandalism or (I believe) being intentionally disruptive, so I was hoping that making the other person see it's not just me against him/her would help. If this was a high profile article, I think (unless I'm really missing the point here) that other editors would be agreeing with me in discussion and reverting the other editor. Of course I could be wrong and am happy to see alternative opinions, but at the moment it's just an edit war that's going nowhere because no one else is watching. --BelovedFreak 18:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah okay, I'll make some comments then, to be honest I hadn't noticed how persistently they'd been edit-warring. Give me a minute. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for the guidelines that you'd given, now i know, :)) Russart_1999 (talk) 19: 49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Cropping Geograph images

I just noticed the message you left at User talk:RHaworth‎‎ on this subject. (That page just happens to be on my watchlist.) I'm no expert on this, but I suspect the problem is that "geograph" is incompatible with {{self}}.

So the answer is probably to replace {{self|Cc-by-sa-2.0|Geograph}} with {{geograph|1238022|Geoff Royle}} (copied from the original image). Did derivativeFX automatically generate the licence for you, or did you select it yourself? -- Dr Greg  talk  23:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the reply. derivativeFX seected it for me, and the only other option seemed to be Cc-by-sa-3.0, and I didn't think that would be right. I find derivativeFX very handy to use, so I guess the answer is to just continue as usual and then manually replace the license part afterwards. Thanks again, --BelovedFreak 08:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually on second thoughts, looking at RHaworth‎‎'s reply, and the diff of how he has fixed the most recent one, it's a bit more complicated than that. It may be easier in future to do it by hand rather than use derivativeFX. Thanks anyway! --BelovedFreak 09:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

GAN

You should get a fair review from Pyrotec. Good luck. I think the article's just about there. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, fingers crossed... it's a bit of a test case for me - my first architectural GAN! I've been quite lucky with the amount of material there is on the church, so hopefully... :) --BelovedFreak 12:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just back from a few days in Geneva. Told you! Congrats. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --BelovedFreak 20:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ganas

I'm a copyright-issue helper. You raised concerns in the GAN (which, by the way, was admirably patient) about close paraphrasing. Could you revisit it, to see whether that particular concern has been addressed. I ask becuase you may be more au fait with the sources, and what suspicions had been raised at the time (partially repaired paraphrasing is difficult to spot). Thanks Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, problems still remain, eg. "Full time work is 35 hours a week, and wages cover all community expenses plus a $300/mo stipend. Profit sharing opportunities may be available to some members." from the Wikipedia article and "Full time work is 35 hours a week. Your wages are enough to cover all your community expenses plus up to about $300 per month. Some members may also be eligible for profit sharing at the end of the year." from the official GANAS website. I have removed this. As far as I can tell, the other bit I noticed has been fixed. I can't speak for the rest of the article as it stands, and to be honest, I am disinclined to have anything to do with it (which you may understand if you read the talkpage :) ) All I can say is that I am not now aware of any close paraphrasing left, although there may be. Sorry I can't help any more than that. --BelovedFreak 16:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Collin thingy

Nice catch. There's been a few like that recently - some connected to User:Moore Physics and his socks. Keep an eye out for similar things. Thanks for putting the talk page comment - you've no idea how much that helps when faced with an article that looks on the face of it to be quite normal and reasonable. (Some genuine ones look quite unlikely, like Bobble-head doll syndrome...) Peridon (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and I will look out for similar. :) --BelovedFreak 22:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent JSTOR request

I have grabbed the article you obtained for me. Thank you very much for this. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --BelovedFreak 16:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Chad's Church, Poulton-le-Fylde

The article St Chad's Church, Poulton-le-Fylde you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St Chad's Church, Poulton-le-Fylde for comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks very much... --BelovedFreak 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Beyond the Sea (The X-Files) GA review

You are certainly welcome. :) Good work on the article! Ruby2010 comment! 16:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help at Ganas

Would you be willing to give a third opinion or other assistance at Ganas article, in particular the edit warring begun by Marelstrom in April of this year? I've tried to engage them in discussion on the talk page with little progress, and as you are somewhat familiar with the article etc. etc. The user in question has admitted to being a Ganas resident but it has been redacted by oversight. They keep making the same edits, mostly eliminating anything controversial from the summary, and lately they have attributed their version to you. I've asked for semi-protection which has been denied due to little activity. Would like to get other recent editors involved. Thanks much, Eroberer (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Another request for involvement  :-) --Flyswatting (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why

Is the S&M article not on review? calvin999 (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no review on the review page, which has been deleted, so it doesn't look like it.--BelovedFreak 20:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a review, it was something i wrote, i didn't know i wasn't allowed to write on it. The page still exists, just no one has reviewed on it. calvin999 (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, it happens sometimes. The page has been deleted so that when someone decides to review it, they can start the page themselves. It might seem a bit silly but it's important because of how the GA bot works and how it shows up on the WP:GAN page. Before, it looked like someone was reviewing it, so other people might have been put off starting a review, thinking it was already happening. That's why the page would have been deleted and that's why I removed the "onreview" note. Someone will review it, it just might take a bit of time as there is quite a big backlog at WP:GAN. I noticed you asking someone elsewhere if you're allowed to "look" at the review. You are, of course, once someone has started it. If you have the page watchlisted, you will find out when the review starts and will be able to look then. --BelovedFreak 13:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Btw, can you nominate articles for B status? Or does it start at GA? calvin999 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

B status is more informal. Anyone can decide that an article is B-standard, although many editors prefer not to assess articles they have written themselves. It's up to you though. Someone can always come along later and disagree with you & change it. Articles should be assessed against the assessment scale. A detailed list of points is at WP:BCLASS. If you decide that an article meets those points, you can just change the template on the talkpage. Formal assessment takes place for GA, A-class and FA.--BelovedFreak 21:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know that you can give yourself a B status, I thought it had to be reviewed (I'm still learning about things on here lol). Thing is, I know I have really improved the S&M article and I know it can't be a C anymore, because of how much I have expanded and improved it. Do you think I am more likely to achieve GA if it is a B over a C? calvin999 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, whether it is classed as a B or C or stub, or not assessed at all, will make absolutely no difference to a GA review. The reviewer will look at the article and the GA criteria, that's all. Articles frequently go to WP:GAN and even WP:FAC that haven't been assessed yet, or still have a "stub" assessment on the talkpage. To be honest, I wouldn't even worry about assessing S&M if you've nominated it for GA anyway. Assuming (let's hope!) it makes it to GA, it doesn't really matter what it is in between. Really, the assessments (especially below GA) are for organising articles, especially in Wikiprojects. It can be useful if you're looking for articles at a certain level to improve, or working out how many articles of a certain level a project covers, but it's not really a "status" as such. The important thing is the quality of the content. If you think the article is at "B" standard, go ahead and change it, but you might be waiting for GAN for a little while, so I'd just move on to the next thing to work on, and try to get that to B/GA! --BelovedFreak 22:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, just glancing at that article, I see it has a couple of maintenance tags which should be dealt with one way or another. Otherwise, there is the risk that the article will be "quick failed" at GAN, and not be put on hold for improvement.--BelovedFreak 22:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Right ok thanks! lol. What do u mean maintenance tags? Like the "vague" one? I carried out SO many searches looking for the list of 11 countries where it got banned, but nowhere online has given a list, just that it was 11 countries, so I don't know what to do about that. calvin999 (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't worry about it then. If it's not in the sources, there's not a lot you can do, just be prepared to argue your point to a GA reviewer if they question it. There's also a massive "cleanup" banner at the top. :) --BelovedFreak 23:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I removed the cleanup banner :). It's not in the state that it used to be lol. calvin999 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Hawaiian Music Album

Thank you SO MUCH for your time and assistance. Much appreciated! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! --BelovedFreak 23:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Grammy Award for Best Zydeco or Cajun Music Album is also at GAN if you are interested in reviewing a similar article. If not, no worries. Thanks again!! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and was already thinking of reviewing it in the near future, if someone doesn't get there first.--BelovedFreak 15:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter

The May 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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

CP clerking

Hi. :) You have your fingers in a lot of pies, but I've long appreciated your work at SCV, and I'm wondering if you would have any interest in pitching in at WP:CP in the newly created "clerk" role. If so, I'd like to bring you up to a few other copyright admins in the kind of informal review process we've yet to test drive (I would imagine User:VernoWhitney, User:MLauba and, if he's around, User:TheLeftorium would pitch in). Basically, CP clerks assess listings at the CP board, as they do at SCV (with slightly different codes). You're already very experienced in that kind of thing. Since I'm working and not able to pitch in during the week and since the only other admin who really works at CP at the moment is only able to pitch in a couple of times a week, most of the work is falling on the back of the inaugural clerk User:NortyNort. He could really use some assistance. :) WP:CP doesn't get anywhere near the volume that SCV does, but cases are sometimes more complex. (Sometimes not.) You can read more about clerking there at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks. You would, of course, be welcome to come by my talk page with any questions you have; NortyNort has also gotten quite familiar with the processes there. Please let me know if you have any interest in this new pie.:D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

^{(eavesdropper)} I second the above motion and vote of confidence.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou both for the vote of confidence! :) I would definitely be interested in this. I do like to flit arond the project a bit, but this is an area that I'd like to help out in more. I just had a look at the "advice for clerks" and that's already a very useful page. So yes, please do put my name up for consideration. --BelovedFreak 16:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoot! I will do, as soon as I'm done with dinner. Thank you for the willingness to pitch in. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks—I'll keep going as usual, but with more WP:CP work. No doubt I'll come looking for advice at some point! --BelovedFreak 17:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

FLC

You may be interested to know that List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England, the last in the series of five lists, is now at FLC. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, great work as usual! At a glance, it looks good, but I will have a better look and comment if I notice anything. --BelovedFreak 16:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support; it made it! That completes the set of five lists. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Alternative gender systems

An article that you have been involved in editing, Alternative gender systems, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lagrange613 (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Manhunter (film) at peer review

Hi, Belovedfreak. Back in February, you gave some very helpful advice for me in the peer review of Manhunter (film) that helped to successfully bring it to Good Article status. The article is currently undergoing a second peer review to help it move towards Featured status, and I was wondering if you would be able to weigh in on it if you had the time. I know that the lack of pre-DVD home media is an issue with it for now, but if you could see anything else, then that would be a tremendous help. Thanks again for the first time round! GRAPPLE X 03:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, man, I appreciate it. GRAPPLE X 23:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Black Orlov

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Black Orlov, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/blackorlovdiamond.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)