User talk:PrincessofLlyr: Difference between revisions

	Welcome! Start a new section. Be civil! Sign with four tildes (~~~~). Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here. Thanks!

Archives (Index)

PrincessofLlyr /Sandbox /Archives/2010/January /2010/January /2010/February /2010/March /2010/April /2010/May /2010/June /James U. Cross /2010/July /2010/August /2010/September /2010/October /2010/November /2010/December /2011/January /2011/February /2011/March /2011/April /2011/May /2011/June /2011/July /2011/August /2011/September /2011/October /2011/November /2011/December /2012/January /2012/February /2012/March /2012/May /2012/June /2012/July /2012/September /2012/October /2012/December /2013/January /2013/June /2014/April /2014/May /2015/August /2015/October /2015/November /2016/October /2016/November /2016/December /2017/May /2017/November /2018/May /2018/November /2020/February

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Removal of {{prod}} templates on The Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer

Unlike speedy deletion templates, proposed deletion templates can be removed by any editor. The thinking is that 'no one' would object to a proposed deletion, by removing the template they are demonstrating that 'someone' does object. It's good form to state the reason for the prod removal in the edit summary, but this does not always happen.   pablo_hablo. 14:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I did not know that. Thank you! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither did I, once, until someone told me! The page is now deleted under speedy category G4, as a recreation of a previously deleted page.   pablo_hablo. 20:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It might just be worth pointing out that the proposed BLP-prod template for newly created unreferenced BLPs may well be "sticky" in some sense: most likely, no one will be allowed to remove the tag unless sources are added to the article. The whole thing is still in development: Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop‎‎. Be warned, though, that it is not easy to follow the discussion on that page! Basically, it followed on from the massive RfC on unreferenced BLPs, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people (that is phase 2, BTW!) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to confuse me?!? I've mostly ignored the whole BLP hassle - too long. Anyway, the only reason I got this wrong was because I assumed it was the same as CSD. Oh well. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... tl;dr... However, the new BLP-PROD is all but up and running, now, so make sure every article you create on a living person is well sourced from now on or it might vanish! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll remember that, but I'm already a perfectionist, so I doubt that'll be a problem! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope that fits over the tiara? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I could manage that! I'm trying to break myself of perfectionism (particularly since it inhibits WP:BOLD). I actually discussed this with Airplaneman somewhere in that mess up there - I'm more perfectionist/timid here than I am IRL. Which is probably unusual. Oh, and congrats! You're almost to 10,000 edits! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

10,000 edits does not necessarily equate to 10,000 good edits...! I saw the discussion about your persona here vs you in RL. You are not unique: my guess is that the exact opposite applies to me! In fact, no one is the same online as in RL, IMO. Anyhoo... 3.30am here! Need sleep... must go to bed... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! You do need to go to bed. About edits, knowing you (well, sort of!), they're were probably mostly good! I know it's not strange to be different online, I just guessed that being more timid was unique. Maybe not! Anyway, after tonight I'm going to try to stay off mostly. I might drop by to check my watchlist, but maybe not for a few days. It would probably be better if I just got myself used to the whole wikibreak idea. We'll see. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just testing... did you get this? Now sleep... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm going to bed now too. I'm not going to log in tomorrow, not going to log in... - PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Aw man, you logged in :D Airplaneman ✈ 01:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have an excuse! It was 1 April and I wanted to see the main page. Then, when I was reading through the FA talk page, my dad saw the post about peanuts over my shoulder and suggested I comment. So there's the excuse. I don't have an excuse for why I'm logged in today. Still, the general idea is working - my time here has dropped and I'm actually getting something done IRL. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Belated "April Fool!" (Though it doesn't count now...) --Jubilee♫clipman 03:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't resist logging in on April 1st either... way too funny! Well, at least my edit count has dropped too, so I'm technically on break. Back in about 3 days! Brambleclawx 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The 39 Clues Task Force

--mono 02:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I haven't read any of the books! It just so happens that I have read other books by several of the same authors. I will, however, be glad to copyedit and vandalism patrol for you when I'm back from my (semi) wikibreak. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! (They need a ton of work)--mono 15:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey and Haddix (and probably a lot more besides: WTS)

Hey, see that you are taking a wiki-break, but I remembered that you helped me copyedit a couple times in the past. Could you take a look at Quicksilver (novel) if you get a chance? Going through FA review, and one of the reviewers suggested a new set of eyes.Sadads (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am on wikibreak, but I'll try to sit down and read through in the next day or two. I'll warn you though, I'm not an "expert eye" that Maria mentioned needing. Still, I'll be glad to help! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Great!!! I mostly want proof that more eyes are looking at it and fixing problems during the review, that way other reviewers are not turned off as well by the same issue. Thank you so much for your help. Sadads (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I did some tonight - will continue to work as I have time. Still, from looking at the FA review, I'm not sure it's going to pass this time. And I'm definitely not an FA experienced copy-editor! It does look like User:SMcCandlish did lots of very good work, which may help you. Best of luck with this! It is a very good article and you've obviously done lots of work on it. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I know it might not pass (right now that doesn't look so good), but I want to push past as many of the objections as I can in the next couple of days. Besides only 2 reviewers have looked at it thus far.Sadads (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Very true. The experience is also probably good. I've never actually done a lot with FA's, so I'll probably read over the criteria before doing more work. And I work better doing small copyedits and then coming back, so I'll just pop in from time to time. I'll also watch the FA review page and may address any more concerns raised there. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to sound rude or something... but "FA's" is not possessive (it's plural) and therefore doesn't need an apostrophe ;). Couldn't think of another way to say it :/. I'll try to look at it as well, although I am not an expert eye, either. Airplaneman ✈ 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)You learn something new every day :). Hope this didn't come across the wrong way, Airplaneman ✈ 03:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you can use 's after letters and numbers (at least in BrE), especially if there is likely to be confusion: "dot your ts and cross your is"... :P Anyway, on a completely unrelated note (as usual (but related to the post immediately above)), I have sourced and expanded Margaret Peterson Haddix, one of the articles I was asked to watch. Any good? A lot more to be said on her, without a doubt. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 02:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(The apostrophe-s can be added after initialisms, also, BTW --Jubilee♫clipman 02:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are my trusty TPS'ers! I do use apostrophes when making letters plural (instead of FAs), which I believe is acceptable. @Jubileeclipman - I saw that, but was trying to stay away - obviously it's not working! When I actually read through the article, it does need work. I've never really content edited it a lot, just reverted vandalism and worked on articles about her books. Thanks for the improvements! I'll put it on my list of things to do when I have time. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Haddix's article is looking better! I'll drop by and do a bit of work sometime soon. Airplaneman ✈ 03:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that Haddix's article or Haddix' article? :P Anyway, no problem. If I get time (...WT:MOS, specifically the music MOSes (or MOS's, perhaps)...) I will also try to expand the Haddix (or "Naddix" as I called her at one point) article. She certainly deserves more than a tiny article that just rises above stub status, IMO, if the shear number of RS's is anything to go by --Jubilee♫clipman 07:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Airplaneman, no offense taken! I understood what you were saying. It looks like the GA competition is going to be over before I get a chance to do anything...oh well. Next time. And now I feel bad that I haven't worked more on the Haddix article! I'm so glad it's getting improved. I'm also failing miserably at my wikibreak! Curiosity, what is "wts"? (do I want to know?) PrincessofLlyr (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Watch this space" i.e. for more to come... BTW (!), I am the opposite: I am presently supposed to be auditing all of the Music Manuals of Style but the task is somewhat complex and frustating so I keep getting drawn to the lighter side of WP for hours on end rather than actually auditing the pages (WP:MOSMUSIC and WP:MUSTARD)... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation...I've picked up a lot of the abbreviations, but I'm not into Internet chatting or texting, so there are a lot that still throw me. Looks like you've been busy! I have found that some amusement makes me less willing to work on boring/hard stuff. On a totally different note, I found a discussion that scares me a bit: User talk: TheClerksWell. Granted, there's a lot more to it, but he's in trouble for editing other people's comments. Now, just to check, do you guys mind if I copyedit your comments on occasion? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That particular user goes too far at times: [Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TheClerksWell.27s_inappropriate_.22prank.22]]. Regarding his edits to other people's comments, it appears that he changed the sense of those comments. That, too, is inappropriate and, indeed, disruptive and scandalous as it makes it appear that editors actually said something they naver actually said. I have deliberately changed one word in your last comment, for example. The change might not be obvious, so you may need to look at the history... Feel free to change it back, of course! That said, the changes we make here are usually either copy-edits (quite acceptable, IMO, as long as you tell the editor that made the post) or tongue-in-cheek edits to the title (usually obvious; often, these also help to clarify that the thread moves away from the original topic). Long and short: go ahead but let me know! --Jubilee♫clipman 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)