Thank you for the link, it will make things much easier. Also, please see wp:Ownership. Derild :36, (UTC) my only interest is in reporting an accurate, informative and interesting article! It is not acceptable for you to completely remove my article, which you have save a few lines here and there, but even then the overall context has been changed. You have requested I do not decimate your article, which I have no intention of doing, but I will be reinstating my text and I will utilise your extended sources. As wikipedia children's Literature assessors and experienced authors on here, i feel your willingness to overide my credible efforts with an inferior article and your lack of support very much goes against the ethos of wikipedia! ( Lifesawhirl ( talk ) 15:06, (UTC) Again, please refrain for the "my article" mentality. There is no ownership of articles on wikipedia.
The Art of, fiction
Remember, it doesn't matter what kind of support you have, wikipedia dar is an encyclopedia, therefore material is included based on WP:Verifiability. Please make as many verifiable changes as you can without decimating the referenced material already present, sadads ( talk ) 14:29, (UTC) ec I did not finish the novel so for the parts I did not read I replaced with your own work. Much of the last paragraph is your own writing, especially the epilogue part. As for the title change, it was report a" from the authors themselves. I am not insulted by saying my writing is bad, as i am aware of that. I was about to go through with a wp:copyedit of the article when you undid all of my changes just to take change the 200 to 2,000. As for that, it was the sources fault, not mine. As, for publication dates, the information that was provided by the sources was confusing, i admit, i was relieved to see you change that for. I apologize for the plot and setting mistakes I made, but it is not your right to criticize me for what i am not good. The previous summary was too long (see wp:plot ) and I shortened it keeping only the important plot elements. Also, the foreign editions sectino took me an hour because of the launguage.
I do have the support of the uk fansite team on this. The authors have often been kind enough to verify and supply content for my article. Following my notification about your changes, they have emailed me their confirmation that they would also like to see the original version writing restored. I await your response. Thanks ( Lifesawhirl ( talk ) 14:16, (UTC) fyi, i would like to direct you to wp:Ownership. This is certainly not your article, and if you have problems with the content, re-add the information with properly cited references. If you have difficulty with citation formatting, you might want to add wikipedia:RefToolbar.0 by going to your User Preferences under the gadgets tab and clicking on the appropriate box. Also, you mention the support of the authors and fan site, i direct you to wp:coi, wp:Fan analysis and wikipedia:Fancruft, all of which provide good advice in this case.
There are two versions of the audiobook in the uk (the davenport one is abridged and also the American and German unabridged versions. Chester isn't "about to killed" under setting - he is sentenced to go into the Interior! The Plot emphasis is all wrong and does not give a true insight into the overall storyline. The setting and Plot areas you have changed are so badly written - and i am well aware of my own average writing abilities, but in comparison this new version lacks significant maturity. References to the highfield Mole are confusing. Barry is now Barry cunningham obe, and there's no question that he signed jk rowling for her first two harry potter books whilst he was employed by Bloomsbury. I would like my article reinstated and with your expert help and support I would like to improve and expand my sources, and thus improve my own knowledge of wikipedia article standards. My priority is not, however, achieving ga status at the expense of diminished quality or informative reading.
The telos of the back cover - acephalous
As I said above all the content of the original article is completely accurate and can be verified. I have provided a number of source links to justify that. Should I need more, no problem just advise. As far as I can see i did broadly meet the notability standards. This may not be in the ga format that you are looking for, papers but as wikipedia content relies on volunteers passionate about their article subject, i feel you should be more supportive. As I confirmed above it was me who asked for the reassessment, only at that stage, a few days ago, did you offer to 'help' improve my article. The new article you created in your Sandbox, then only remains there for 1 day before you either lose the content or publish it - hardly enough time for me to discuss my objections about your new proposal to remove my article.
To replace my article when you have not even finished reading Tunnels is ridiculous - surely any author on wikipedia should at least have read the novel first, not sure how that can meet your verifiable notability standards! That aside i have already correctly embarrassing errors concerning incorrect publishing dates and versions, wrong character and place names like stynx and Hightail (not a one off). Others that come to mind include: The official publication date for the us tunnels was January 2008 - it might have been that copies were available on Amazon earlier than that date, but that often happens in the uk and. Nearly all territories have gone on to publish deeper, and only a handful haven't yet published Freefall (mainly due to their own financial difficulties, and not because the performance of the series hasn't merited it!) - you can check this on the publishers website m/rights. The authors changed the title with Barry cunningham - this article makes it sound as though he did it off his own back!
I spent several weeks working on the original article and can confirm the integrity of all the information on the tunnels page. I would like the original format to be re-instated. By all means tweak that and advise me of best practise (which I would welcome!) - as you originally offered, before you stormed ahead with this new version ( Lifesawhirl ( talk ) 23:32, (UTC) What are your concerns about the content? Your content did not meet WP:Notability standards, please help us understand what is missing, sadads ( talk ) 00:03, (UTC) i agree, before the article contained a lot of information, but was badly sourced. I tried to rewrite the article using the same information, but only some of the information in the previous version was properly sourced. Therefore, i had to find my own sources and write it with that.
Also, i have almost finished the book. I was preparing to finish it and then improve the article. Then, the next day i foud someone was asking for a reassessment of the article. I took the chance to reassess it and then help improve. As for the inaccuracies, what problems are there with it? Derild :43, (UTC) to derild4921 and Sadads: If your main dispute is the sourcing with the original article then why did you not contact me, as I could have provided the additional source material - you can see from my contributions I just author Tunnels.
News movies - empire
There needs to be a themes section as well using sources and reviews. This is most important as many people try and use wp:OR to write one. I will be happy to help it WP:ga if you like. Derild :36, (UTC) to derild4921: Thank-you for re-rating this page, as I requested. However, this article may well now sit well with the wikipedia style guide, but it now contains melisande numerous inaccuracies about the book, authors, publication history and more. Have you really read this book? This new article is badly written, repetitive and lacking in the all important detail of the original article. It seems to me that you value ga rating above a suitably accurate and complete reference for this book.
) 09:15, (UTC). Wikipedia children's Literature Project rating edit i have deleted the wikipedia children's Literature Project rating as I believe the assessment and rating applied is neither accurate nor appropriate for an International best selling series, number one in multiple countries, inlcuding The new York times Best. ( Lifesawhirl ( talk ) 19:11, (UTC) hi, as a reader of the book i agree and has reassesed the book as Mid-Importance. The article currently quite well written, but is far from. I advise you to use less"s, find reviews from everywhere and even ones that criticize the book. The reviews must by an accurate representation of how the books was reviewed. Also, i will do some rearraning of the article to match the wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The plot is too long and will need to be cut down to only the most important plot e characters will also need to go as a well written Plot section will introduce the characters.
Tunnels (novel dracoster ( talk ) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC). This page will be amended and restored back to The highfield Mole page only. Tunnels now rightly has a page of it's own and this page will be about the original self-published novel The highfield Mole, with appropriate references to tunnels. I have replied to the email you sent me this evening. Lifesawhirl ( talk where exactly is this discussion that resulted in the "not merge"? Active, banana ( bananaphone 16:13, (utc note that this discussion was prematurely unilaterally closed and was re-opened Jan. Active, banana ( bananaphone 00:07, (UTC) Support merge, mole is simply an earlier edition of Tunnels and can be appropriately covered in this article. Active banana ( bananaphone 23:51, (UTC) question edit What are "the Styx"?
To kill a mockingbird - wikipedia
This article is within the scope. Wikiproject novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles resume mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. Ga, this article has been rated. Ga-class on the project's quality scale. Mid, this article has been rated. Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Contents, merger proposal edit, the highfield Mole is now redundant, and should be merged with.