User talk:KayPet

Hello KayPet and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. We encourage you to read our instructions for students. Your instructor may wish to add your class to our list of school and university projects and s/he may want to read these instructions for teachers. For more help about educational projects using Wikipedia, see our classroom coordination project.

Here are some other pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

It is highly recommend that you place this text: {{EducationalAssignment}} on the discussion page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and should be treated accordingly.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Soc 0438

Excellent. You have earned the extra credit point. Keep up the good job, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:KayPet/Girlosophy

That's an excellent start, it is certainly worth some extra credit, and will be worth more if you keep working on it. I will mention in tomorrow in class, as it is an excellent example of what you guys should be doing :) Great job, Kay --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

When you are done, you may want to move the article to the mainspace; you can continue to edit it later, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Things to do: remove your signature, add an appopriate category (or categories), remove or fill up the empty Author category, and add an infobox to the main body. Overall, it looks pretty good, and I'd classify this as a start-class. If you want to work on it further, here's a suggestion: non-fiction books are within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Books (this page also contains info on books infoboxes), you should tag the article with the project task template on talk, and ask the project members for advice on how to improve the article to a higher class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A picture is difficult here, as 1) it is a series of books, so we would need multiple book covers and 2) book covers are copyrighted, so you'd have to deal with the fair use issues (Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline). File:Girlosophy_the_complete_series.jpg is problematic as it is a composite of existing book covers, done by somebody (presumably not you?), and thus their creative work. You could try to upload individual covers instead, or maybe the one for the first/most important book, but my advice here is to forget about the picture (in this case), just add the infobox. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you'll want to address the issues here ASAP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

reborn doll

Good start. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I think you are doing quite a good job on that article. You can submit it to WP:GAC tomorrow after the lecture, when and if you feel that the article is ready for the review. Hopefully by that time other group members will help with the missing citations, the article doesn't need that many of those anymore, thanks to your hard work. I will likely show everyone how to do the submission process, good idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Girlosophy the complete series.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Girlosophy the complete series.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft review comments

I've posted my comments at Talk:Reborn_doll#Draft_review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, every sentence should have a citation. Something obvious to one person may be a surprise to another. Of course, we don't have to ref a sentence that is really obvious - ex. USA is a country in North America. But if in any doubt, ref it. Look also at this from the following perspective: if you were looking for reliable information on the subject, would this sentence be unimportant enough not to require a reference? Or is it something that conceivably, somebody may want to double check and/or follow through to the original source to check its reliability? References do serve multiple useful purposes: primarily, they tell readers if a given piece of info comes from a reliable source, and allow them to easily find the original source. PS. Consider the density of references in recent promoted Featured Articles: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2009. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a useful trick for you: [1] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Reborn doll/GA1

I've started the review. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I replied at the review page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try mixing the refs first, and see if the reviewers are fine with that. Removing things is easy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review

I'll keep going with this, but I want to know how you think it's going timewise. Most of my comments are easy to fix, but some may take a while. My goal, if you can't tell ;-), is to get this thing up to GA quality. I don't want to give you too much work and miss the deadline, when to meet the criteria all you might have to do is remove some stuff. Right now I'm thinking about the brand/doll line information. If you don't think you'll have time, just cut it. Anyways, just tell me how your end is going. You can reply here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit overwhelming, but your doing a good job. I'm trying to do the easier things first and I've left comments and suggestions for some of the harder things. The problem with the brands is that in order to understand reborns, its important information but its hard to do without sounding like advertising. It's definently not my intention, I'm just trying to get the general information out there. I mean if someone is looking for information on reborning these are the things they will run into. Like reborn sites will say we have a Ashton Drake Jamie doll for sale, or this a Berenguer sculpt. Maybe its just me but when I was reading that I was like what does that mean. I don't know. Its been hard to approach but if it can somehow be changed to be left in I defiantly think its important. The types and kits stuff kind of overflow like you said because you can either buy a whole doll produced by a manufacturer, and do the whole process or the same manufacturers also offer kits with a doll that just needs assembly instead of having to strip the doll of everything the manufacturers done. So while they do overlap in the sense that the same manufacturers are involved they are two separate things. I'm not sure if that makes sense. Also, although I think they are important to give information, I am not sure how to converge the Doll Reader information with the conferences and convention without sounding like advertising other then deleting the mag section and leaving the conferences and conventions section so that it says Doll Reader sponsored the Idex competition. I mean I feel like more info should be given about them especially because I use it so much as a source, but anyway I rephrase it, it still sounds like advertising. Other than that I've been trying to make the changes you've recommended pretty good. Do you think its possible to get this into a good article status in a day plus? I'm really trying but with the class its such a time crunch.--KayPet (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can get it in tomorrow. If you can figure out a good way to deal with the brand stuff, we'll be a lot close. I'm on the west coast, so while I can work on it tomorrow, it may be a bit late for you. I'm going to stop reviewing it on a sentence by sentence basis, and try and cover the major points that are left, so that you can work on them tonight and tomorrow morning.

We'll figure out a way to keep the brand stuff in. I definitely believe in giving readers who come to Wikipedia the information they need. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounding good. I'm going to keep going through some more of your comments, but I'm leaving the brand and doll mag stuff till I really get a chance to think about it, and we discuss it. There are a few things that I left comments on how I think they could be changed but wasn't sure if it was still right if you could take a look at those and let me know what you think. --KayPet (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent job, guys. Excellent job :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a few more things and we're done. Check the Reborn doll talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		I, Piotrus, award you The Exceptional Newcomer Award, for exceptional enthusiasm, skill, and boldness beyond their experience that you demonstrated leading your group project. I hope you'll stick around, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Review question

You are right, C is the correct answer. Errors in the test bank are annoying :) I will send an annoucement to everyone, since more people can get confused. Thanks for spotting that, and my apologies for that, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)