User talk:Figureskatingfan/Archive 5

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell

Once the FAC for Caged Bird is over, would you mind peer reviewing Jonathan Strange? It is a new kind of article for me - based entirely on newspapers and websites. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, be happy to! The Wiggles is based entirely on those sources, too, so I have some expertise in gleaning them for info. Whatever you need! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah and hooray!

		The Literary Barnstar
		For your erstwhile and indefatigable devotion to I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, I award you this Barnstar of Literary Merit. Kudos to you! Scartol • Tok 14:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What a happy sight to see that glimmering star on the Caged Bird article! As Ms. Angelou said: "The work is all there is. And when it's done, then you can laugh, have a pot of beans, stroke some child's head, or skip down the street." I daresay you've earned the right to one or more of these tiny pleasures. Scartol • Tok 14:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've done two: I've laughed and I've stroked two children's heads. This morning, while I'm at home with the kids because it's Spring Break, I'm making chocolate chip cookies! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I just added Caged Bird to Portal:Feminism. Awadewit (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Maya Angelou

You're right, Wikipedia's coverage does seem rather skewed against Af. Am. lit; the same thing can be said about Hispanic or Asian Am. lit, as well. I agree it's unfortunate, but the truth is that it's easier to write articles about dead white guys than it is contemporary, minority writers. Not that there's anything wrong with dead white guys... :) Just in case, I did a quick WorldCat search for Angelou, and there seem to be a few promising lit. crit. works available:

• Readings on Maya Angelou by Mary E Williams includes chapters called "Other works by Maya Angelou" and "Maya Angelou's poetry creates hope"
• Although I personally dislike the man, Harold Bloom's anthology includes an essay written by Selwyn R. Cudjoe called "Transcendence: the poetry of Maya Angelou"; most of the other essays in the book seem to be about her autobiographies
• Worldcat doesn't have a list of chapters/contents, but Vicki Cox's Maya Angelou: poet sounds promising
• Of women, poetry, and power : strategies of address in Dickinson, Miles, Brooks, Lorde, and Angelou by Zofia Burr has a chapter called "Maya Angelou on the Inaugural Stage" -- hey, that coincides with one of the suggestions I made during GAC! ;)
• A relatively new biography (2008) is available by Marcia Gillespie, Rosa Johnson Butler and Richard A Long entitled Maya Angelou: a glorious celebration

Forgive me if you've already been through some of these and found them to be useless! I haven't personally looked at any of these, although most are available from my uni's library, so they shouldn't be hard to find. Hope this helps (and that the WorldCat links work). María (habla conmigo) 18:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and beware the Admins that hate it when one's signature does not match their username! I've had several offers to change mine, but I feel pretty eh about it; I like the username overall, and I've used it for years elsewhere, but I got tired of being referred to as "yellow" and/or "he". :) María (habla conmigo) 18:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the sources; I'm certain they'll be of great help. I think I need to take a brief MA break, plus I have other irons in the fire. I live in a uni town too (Moscow, Idaho, University of Idaho), so I may need to break down and go on campus eventually. Our public library is pretty good here, too. I hear ya about the signature; if it gets negative reactions, I'll just change it back. Although with "figureskatingfan", the chances are pretty good that folks won't be confused about my gender. It's such a misnomer, though. I've edited one fs article in my entire WP-career. Hopefully, I won't end up regretting the change. --Christine (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

WikiThanks

Thank you so much for your helpful review of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell - it is nice to know that someone else has struggled with the same sourcing issues! Awadewit (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sam Moran

Possible... what makes you think we might be related? Are you connected to the Moran family somehow? I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but Sam doesn't really have all that much say as to the venues they play; he's employed by the Wiggles, not a part owner (as are the other three). RavShimon (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Rav, didya notice the smiley faces? When I said that your wife might be related to me, I was responding to your comment about her not being obsessive but being related to him; I tend to be obsessive as well, especially about reliable sources. I now see that you probably meant that she's related to Sam Moran. Sorry for the confusion, and for the bad joke. I was also joking about my request for Wiggles venues, kinda like someone asking me a question about them, and my response often being, "Well, the next time I see 'em..." It's a joke because it's very unlikely that I'd ever talk to them. But I also see that perhaps your wife has that privilege. I should just give up any attempts at humor, ya know? ;) --Christine (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, love, but humour often gets lost when one doesn't have tone of voice to carry it across. I have that problem all the time, and have often got myself into trouble for it... but we don't need to get into detail about my embarrassing situations, now, do we? RavShimon (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New Greg article

Hear is a new Greg Article Greg

--Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jena, I'm not gonna use anything from this article, since it's full of unsupported claims and rumors. Just because an article's in some newspaper, doesn't mean that it's reliable. The information will be added when there's some wedding and/or birth announcement. Thanks for keeping your eye out for new info about the guys, though. --Christine (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

your welcome! have a good Easter! --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Caged Bird on the main page!

I see Caged Bird is going to be on the main page on 4 April! Awesome! Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. And I was thinking that it wasn't gonna be, since the response at WP:TFAR was less than enthusiastic. Happy birthday, Maya Angelou! --Christine (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah! Well done. I hope the fallout from the TFA wasn't too bad. Nice to see (y)our work so prominently featured. Yay. Scartol • Tok 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Gervais on Sesame Street

Just wanted to make sure you saw this: link. (I'm a huge Gervais fan, and I know you like The Street.) Enjoy! Scartol • Tok 10:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Scar. It is funny. Most people don't understand just how talented and funny Kevin Clash really is. YouTube has a huge amount of SS videos. --Christine (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Scott Pelley

Hi. I'm contacting you in your capacity as a member of the Factcheck wikiproject. I removed uncited material from the Scott Pelley article, which was added back. The citations are vague (newspaper with only the year!), or don't actually have the information. Or at least that's how it appears to me. I was wondering if you could act as a second pair of eyes to review the claims of a 2009 Peabody award and 2009 Polk award? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi to you. There are all kinds of trouble with this article. It could use a good re-write, or at the very least, a tag on it calling for better sources and wikifying. I did a search on Pelley's Peabody, and found some sources, but only about his 2007 award. The pdf file listed in the reference section, which is from Peabody itself, only lists their awards until 2007. I haven't even done a search about the Polk award. The CBS News and NYT sources listed aren't at all complete. This article could use a good fact-check of every assertion made in the article, which is badly written and poorly sourced. At least the images are free. I don't have time this morning, but I can add the sources I found on the Peabody and insert the appropriate tags when I have more time. My attention is focused on other articles, so I'm not committed to working on this article. If you or anyone else wants to work on it, you have my suggestions for improving it. Hope this helps. --Christine (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I already did some quick research that seemed to indicate that there is material int he article that may not be true, but was looking for a second opinion. I'll take a hack that the article and see what happens. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Street Gang (book)

On April 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Street Gang (book), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

MemChu

I'm happy to take a look, but it'll probably be a week or so. I've already agreed to two other reviews first, and school's back in session. I think Awadewit would be happy to look at it if she has time; she's often willing to expand her horizons (not that they need expanding).. Can't hurt to ask, right?

My Easter was good; I'm nearly done with the latest Balzac article. How was yours? Scartol • Tok 14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a try. I'm also gonna hunt down an architectural expert, if I can find one. Can't wait to look at the B article, although I know very little about him, other than his mention in The Music Man. Baal-zac! Easter was very nice; went to all Triduum services, including Easter Vigil, my favorite church service of the year. Actually got to sleep in Easter Sunday morning! My newest article (see above section) made it to DYK. So it was very low-key. --Christine (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article for La Cousine Bette is up, and I'd be honored if you would grace me with a peer review. No rush; whenever you have some time. Congrats on the DYK and thanks in advance! Scartol • Tok 12:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Be happy to. I've already scanned it; I'll look at it more closely in the next couple days. Good luck! --Christine (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Awadewit is having a go with it at the moment; I'll let her finish, to avoid repetition and be more useful afterwards. Scartol • Tok 01:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I started on Rosewood massacre, so as soon as I finish with that, I'll get to MemChu. Thanks for the update! Scartol • Tok 22:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I did some copyediting a few days ago, and then I totally forgot to finish my review/edit. It looks really good. The architecture section is solid, and it's written in a very accessible style. I really don't have anything more to add, except: Good luck with the FAC! I'll be there to vote Aye. Scartol • Tok 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good, thanks. Dumb question: Does this mean that you think that the article is now ready to be submitted for FAC? --Christine (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(teacher voice) There's no such thing as a dumb question. I do indeed think it's ready for FAC. (General rule of thumb: If Awadewit is cool to start the FAC, chances are I am too.) Scartol • Tok 17:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sesame Street voice: Questions are a good way of finding things out! As my uncle Pat used to say: Okey dokey smokey! ;) My kids are home today, so I have the time. --Christine (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Greg Page

I thought it was the fair thing to move them to a disambiguation page since the American boxer just died today and he actually has more foreign language WP articles (a test of notability). --Tocino 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another MemChu historical tidbit

I see you've moved it to candidate status. I found a bit on the Trueblood stuff and also another historical tidbit. I included this on the talk page but I suspect it was well hidden.

"I observed among our soldier students the obvious strength of the Orthodox Jews with whom I met in the vestry of Memorial Church on Friday evenings." "The Best of Elton Trueblood: an anthology" (1979) page 84. publisher Impact Books. editor James R. Newby. Not quite what I remembered. I also uncovered some historical info from "A Chronology of Stanford University and its Founders", Stanford Historical Society, 2001. For February 17, 1966 (page 90) it states "The Board of Trustees approves sectarian worship services in Memorial Church on a trial basis as part of an overall expansion of the university's religious program." The entry then goes on to state that the Board of Trustees went on to get court approval to change the Founding Grant (an amendment in 1902 by Jane Stanford had prohibited "all denominational alliances" on campus) so sectarian services could be allowed permanently.--Erp (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Erp. I'll see about adding this tomorrow morning. I guess I did miss it on the talk page, sorry about that. Ya know, if it wasn't for you, we would've never gotten this far. You deserve so much credit. Re: what I said about you on the FAC page: what exactly is your affiliation with Stanford? Are you a student, or an alumni, or what? --Christine (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alumnae ('83), former staff, on and off member of the Stanford Historical Society. It has been interesting hunting down the info, and, it has made me appreciate the church more. I can't believe we are close to getting this to FA status; without you I would never have gone hunting.--Erp (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My sister-in-law was on campus during that time as well. She was pre-med, though, and it sounds like you were History, so I doubt you went about in the same circles. I will take care of the above now; as I tell Scartol above, my kids are off school today (and yesterday, too). What *is* it about those curriculum days? --Christine (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm gathering some info on the windows and mosaics at User:Erp/Sandbox MemChu notes. Feel free to add there and I will need to double check some items. --Erp (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas

On May 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 03:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Street Gang: The Complete History of Sesame Street"

While I am honored that someone took the time and effort to launch a page devoted to my book, I am disappointed that none of the highly favorable reviews of "Street Gang" were cited in the report.

I would be pleased to assist an editor to discover the reviews posted at People magazine (4 stars), Publisher's Weekly, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Booklist, Time Out New York, the Baltimore Sun, USA Today, the National Post of Canada, the Toronto Globe and Mail, and CNN.com, among others.

I'd hate to think that there was an effort to skew opinion of "Street Gang" by limiting the review voices to only those who found fault with it.

Should anyone like to discuss this with me privately or offline, please visit streetgangbook.com and click on the appropriate link to send me a message. I'll respond promptly.

Many thanks.

Michael Davis May 11, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madavis2u (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Davis,

Thanks for your note on my talk page; I really appreciate it, and it's an honor to receive communication from the author of such an important book. As this article's creator and main editor, I'm sorry that you thought the review section was so negative. Please understand that it was not my intention to present it that way or that I was in any way trying to disparage your book. In my rush to get the article published, I did a google search and those are the reviews I found. Also please understand that this is a Wikipedia article, and the article as it now stands will never be "complete". It's a work in progress. I thought an article about Street Gang was important enough to get out there. I am by no means a professional writer, so I'm certain there are all kinds of weaknesses about it, so I depend upon the feedback of other more experienced editors. I would've thought that the other sections of the article demonstrates my respect for you and for your work. I appreciate your feedback, something I always welcome as a Wikipedia editor. If you are aware of other sources that I wasn't able to locate, please send them my way, on my talk page. I'll repeat this message via your webpage, to ensure that you see it.

You should also know that I've taken it upon myself to improve all Sesame Street-related articles on Wikipedia. It's a big project, and a great need. For example, Sesame Street, at one point was actually a featured article, but it was recently downgraded for some really good reasons. It's an unfortunate state at the current time. Your book came out shortly after I took on the project, so it's been a boom for me. I thought focusing on the history of the show was a natural place to start, so your book has been a valuable resource. I've already started working on this article: History of Sesame Street, and if you look at the reference section, you'll see that I've used your book extensively. It's also a work in progess, and no where near finished. My goal is that at least this article get up to featured article status by Sesame Street's 40th anniversary in November. I can't tell you how much your book has helped me.

On a personal level, I wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed your book. It was a fun read, and immensely interesting. I was brought to tears many times, especially when I realized while reading about all that Joan Cooney and her team did to get the show on the air. See, I'm turning 45 this year, which makes me old enough to be the first audience that watched it. I had to put the book down to compose myself when I realized, "They did all that for me!" I appreciate learning about the struggles they all went through to affect my life so profoundly, and now the life of my own children, who are severely developmentally disabled and love the show as much as I did and still do. I believe that Sesame Street deserves high quality articles on Wikipedia, and I've taken it upon myself to help accomplish that. If you, as the ultimate expert, could assist me in that goal, I can't tell you how valuable that would be. Again, thanks for the feedback and communication. --Christine (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of History of Sesame Street, excellent work on referencing it all. TRS-80 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! My worry is that the article depends *too much* on the Davis book. Of course, the problem is that it's pretty much the only book that's been published about The Show's history. Much of its info is in other sources, but they're anecdotal or on Wikis. My stated goal is to get Sesame Street up to FA by November, but I doubt it's gonna happen. It's already July! I suspect that the history article will get to that point, though. I'm getting closer to at least adding all the reference material and deleting the nonsense there previously. As I state above, I'm so grateful to Michael Davis; the situation would be much more dire if he hadn't written the book. --Christine (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Hope I'm posting this correctly. I would love to be adopted/mentored. I've been around Wikipedia for a while but have very little familiarity with editing.

Thanks in advance!

Thanks

I look forward to learning from you. Thanks!

I'd be willing to help out with your FAC if you would like. Jamesrnorwood 15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be cool! Right now, I'm working on adding the content that was requested, which is proving to be a challenge since I know very little about architecture, and I've never seen MemChu. Then Awadewit is gonna look at the close paraphrasing problem. Then I'll probably have her and my Wikimentor, Scartol take another look. If you could join them at that time, that would be great. I'll let you know. I've noticed the key to success on WP is to build a group of supporters around you, to (excuse the Survivor reference, to build alliances. Then you recipocate. For example, I found Scartol's talk page, which has a quote by Maya Angelou on it, so I recruited him to help me get I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings to FA. He asked Awadewit and Moni3 to help, and it passed fairly easily. Scartol asked me to peer review La Cousine Bette, which it close to being submitted to FAC, and Awadewit asked me to peer review Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, which passed to FA. (Which is a cool book; I've been inspired to read it.) Moni3's talk page is hilarious. I've noticed that you've accepted some great advice from 790 and ceased with the tags. Good for you, and keep it up! There are lots of editors who are more than happy to help you become a better editor. --Christine (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, La Cousine Bette is at FAC now. Your feedback is appreciated there. (Forgive my wikieavesdropping, and welcome, James!) Scartol • Tok 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, shoot, let me go and give it a support, then! Good luck. --Christine (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

You didn't wrote those articles about Balzac and Barton Fink! Did you? OMG! Is this some kind of Fight Club nightmare where I don't remember what I'm doing half the time? Are we the same person? Gasp!! (Actually I'm honored that you like the code enough to use it on your page.) Scartol • Tok 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. The cover of Caged Bird is a non-free image, which we're not supposed to use on our userpages. I recommend a free image of Ms. Angelou. Scartol • Tok 19:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I messed up! I was trying to steal your tables for my userpage, and I pressed "save page" too early. Seriously, right after I did it, I went, "Damn, it'll be just my luck if Scar was online right now and sees it." Sure enough! It totally didn't work (I fracking hate tables!), so you'll notice I reverted. I'll probably use the same concept, though, but without the tables. And don't worry, I'm give you some credit, I swear! --Christine (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. As I say, I'm flattered. Swipe whatever you like, and of course if you have questions about tables, lemme know. Scartol • Tok 00:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not smart enough to figure 'em out. The code is beyond me, which is why when I see one I like, I swipe. But I was able to take your idea and make it work, as you see. And speaking of tables, what do you think of the table over at the MemChu article? I hate it; it makes my pretty little article ugly. An article about a pretty building shouldn't be ugly, ya know? I think the solution is to create a new article, and Erp agrees, as per our discussion. Would you mind weighing in? I've pretty much convinced myself that this needs to happen. (Hello, DYK!) Oh, and congrats about Cousin Bette.--Christine (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry I've been out of touch for so long.. It's been a crazy time for me in many ways (end of the school year, big bike ride fundraiser, etc). I'll try to have a look by the middle of the week. Apologies apologies. Scartol • Tok 02:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay.. The main problem I saw from an aesthetic perspective was the use of old-school clunky normal tables. I've switched them all to the much more pleasant wikitable class style. I hope this helps! (I wasn't really sure what else you might have in mind in terms of making things look nice.) Good luck! Scartol • Tok 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What you did is okay, but not exactly what I meant. Awadewit says that there's too much white space on the right side of the page. I was thinking that a nested table might do the trick. And since I'm really stupid about coding tables, and you're the master, I thought you would be the perfect person to help. I'm going to do the important stuff and add content, probably tomorrow morning. Tables are beneath me (har har), but I only say that 'cause I can't figure 'em out. ;) --Christine (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this reply the first time.. I'll try to look at it later today. Remind me tomorrow if I don't get to it? Scartol • Tok 15:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Jamesrnorwood (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wiggles move to Sprout Tv!

you should add this to the Wiggles Page The Wiggles Move To Sprout From Disney --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jena, done. This could be a problem in my household; we don't get Sprout. ;) --Christine (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

your welcome and go to my Post on the new wiggletime Board I Posted a Link that you can Request your Cable tv to get sprout I have Directv so I get it on channel 295 --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Blue's Clues

Thanks for pointing out the vandalism. Don't you think the article could use a screenshot? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably, since as it now stands, it probably won't change much. I've thought about bringing it to FA, but I'm not sure it's got the potential. Although I dunno know how to do that. If that's something you wanna do, knock yerself out. (Har har, pun intended.) ;) --Christine (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Memchu earthquake.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Memchu earthquake.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

MemChu Tables Nested and Stacked and et cetera

Oh, I see what you were looking for. Something like this? (Someone may revert it, so I put a link to the version I did. Hopefully it's still the same layout when you take a look.) Scartol • Tok 17:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes!! <squeezing tears out of my over-emotional eyes> My article is pretty again! Scar, you're a beautiful human being and I fall down at your feet. ;) --Christine (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no need to bow, Christine. Ge.. Get up. Rise, my child. And giveth me instead, $7.50 with which to buy some buffalo chicken tenders.

Happy to help. Good luck with the next FA. Scartol • Tok 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I knew I liked you! You may be a god, but Strongbad rules the universe. "Aisles and aisles of the email style..." Thanks again. --Christine (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Feminism

Hello Chrsitine, Iam having all my contributions deleted from feminism and other related articles.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_and_Eve&oldid=295962769
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&oldid=295878575 Jackiestud (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, how does this have anything to do with me? And I cannot tell you how insulting it is to misspell my name. Although it is true that it's easy to mistype; I do it all the time and have to correct it. There's just something about the way the letters sit on the keyboard.

But I digress. I see that this issue is already being addressed at ANI, and that you've been attempting to elicit some assistance from editor who may or may not be sympathetic. Shoot, I'm not even an administrator, so please leave me out of this. And I'm not all that sympathetic. I don't know why you think that your agenda, which let me tell you, is anathema to my personal belief system, is something I'd sympathesize with. Like my mother used to say when we tried to play our parents off each other: "You're not gonna get any help from me!" --Christine (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Dear Christine, I read your comment on Moni3's talk page. So you want to become an admin? I just analyzed your edits, and I think you have a potential to become a good admin. I can help you. If you are interested, please ping me on my talk page. Have a nice day! ;-) AdjustShift (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page, and you've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

MemChu

I looked over passages from each section of MemChu. The paraphrasing looks fine to me. In some places words are copied, but they seem to be the only the words possible (architectural terms, for example). Sometimes the sentences reflect the same structure as the original, but you are always switching sources, so that helps. Do you write with your sources right next to the computer? It might help to insert a note-taking step or two. Just a thought. Awadewit (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The challenge for me as a writer, especially with this article, is that I tend to depend upon the original source when I don't know much about the subject material. In this case, it was architecture. Actually, most of what I now know about architecture I learned from this experience. Now, that's cool because I love learning new stuff, but it was hard writing about it. Writing about Sesame Street, for example, has been comparitively easy because I know lots about The Show and because the subjects discussed in the history article are simpler and more down-to-earth. But to answer your question, yes, I tend to write with my sources close by, but when I'm familiar with the topic, I do a better job at summary.

On the same vein, though: A, are you finished with your review? Should I go ahead and check off the item in the to-do list on the article's talk page? More importantly, do you believe that it's now ready to be re-submitted for FAC? Again, thanks for your assistance. Hope you had a great vacation! --Christine (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm done - you should go ahead and it submit it once the OTRS permission for the ogg file goes through. Awadewit (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As my college roommate used to say, "Coolness!" But I'm gonna wait a couple of days, 'cause I've got some deadlines for work looming. I'll submit it after that's done. Hopefully, the "FAC cabal" will like the changes we've made, and it'll sail through. --Christine (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I think we should start a section on the FAC talk page: "FAC cabal" - "sign up here if you are a member". :) Awadewit (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Tee hee. Of course, you know that I was referring to last week's Signpost. The dude made some good points, but it sounded like sour grapes to me. I'm as much a victim of the cabal as he seems to be, but I think going through the process multiple times has helped me improve my writing. I'd love it, though, if I could sail through with only one FAC, like you and Scartol and Moni3 seem to be able to do. Now, is that because you've got dozens of FAs under your belts, or are you guys "in like Flynn". Eventually, I'd like to get to the point, "Oh, another FAC from Figureskatingfan/Christine--pass!" ;) --Christine (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I will definitely revisit the MemChu article and (most likely) vote aye for the FAC. A note of warning, though — it's best to just let people know that it's at FAC and that they should offer their thoughts. Encouring people to support is considered campaigning. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 13:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I know. But you're all my friends! And folks who contributed, and I know that contributors' opinions are taken as lightly. I suppose I just shot myself in the foot if ever I wanted to try for admin. Darn! ;) --Christine (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of User:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street history

I have nominated User:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street history, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street history. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Christine (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street history

AfD is not the correct venue. Use {{db-u1}} to request deletion of your own subpage. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Maya Angelou

Hello,

I still don't see that note you were talking about. It still appears to be that the list of works is almost entirely unreferenced, while the prose section is referenced. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Answered on talk page. --Christine (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A hidden note that you can only see in edit mode does no good. It's liable to get a {{unref-section}} attached to it. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So I've converted the hidden ref into something that a peruser of Wikipedia can use, since non-editors are supposed to be able to see the refs. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Christine, I can't find any guide for using this "Talk" forum, so I am ploughing ahead as best I know how. My edits are almost always corrections of grammar ('She are famous') and improvements of style ('Throw Grandma down the stairs a kiss'). I leave it to you to ferret out the details of facts. Only in some glaring abuse of fact, such as 'Al Gore invented the Internet,' might I try to right the wrong. Wikievil666 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome message

No, I did not delete it, you just have to re-examine the talk page. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Christine!

I replyed to your Blog got a Little Suprise for ya.... --Jena (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Plan

What is the reason for removing it? There is now a section that pertains directly to the plan. As for the bare feet, if the organist isn't happy, then they have to go, but I had just added an explanation (previously lacking) for why his feet were bare. It's normal to play the pedals in bare feet or sox. Amandajm (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Amanda, look at MemChu's first FAC, scroll all the way to the bottom, and you'll see why. [1] It was a copyright issue. Regarding Dr. Morgan's request, I think we should honor it, even in alt text, because he was kind enough to give us permission to use his video clip. He didn't explain why, but it's important to follow his wishes, I believe. --Christine (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see it's been promoted - congratulations! --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, thanks! I'm very proud. Thanks for your help in getting it passed. --Christine (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats from me also. --Erp (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Erp. You should take the credit just as much as I can. Keep up the good researching, Wiki-friend. --Christine (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My edits to your user page and coincidences

Hi Christine,

I've just been fixing disambiguation links to the Greg Page article which was recently moved to Greg Page (musician), so that's why I edited your user page. When I found your blog post about parallels between two articles you'd worked on, I just *had* to say something. According to my link fixing, the two most famous people named Greg Page are the former member of The Wiggles and the late heavyweight boxer. I can't think of two occupations that are more different; I certainly can't imagine someone doing both of them at the same time! The boxer and the musician had about the same number of links, so I think turning Greg Page into a disambiguation page was probably a good move. I'd heard of The Wiggles before, but until today, I couldn't have named any members of the group. I'd never heard of the boxer before doing this link fixing. I found that "Greg Page" was a disambiguation page after an edit to the article 1972, which is on my watchlist because vandals used to mess around with entries on the page. Graham87 09:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Graham,

I appreciate folks like you who do all that clean-up disamb work on the project; it's just not my thing, so these guys' pages had bad links on them. Your work sure has made the watchlist long today, since I watch all Wiggles-related articles. As my Greg would probably say, good on ya, mate! ;) I remember when the boxer died; there was all this confusion about the Wiggle being alive, especially since The One Who Used To Be Yellow has that orthostatic intolerance thing. (How many ways can I use to talk about 'em, anyway?) I think it's good that you created the disamb page; hopefully, it will clear up confusion. I agree that the two G.P.s are very different, but they've both had pretty significant struggles. Isn't it interesting the parallels that come up in our WP editing, even when we're fixin' those links! --Christine (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Stanford Memorial Church image

I checked into the OTRS status of the last image related to the MemChu FAC. Apparently you posted the email to Commons here. It was removed since we cannot post private emails onwiki. Please send the email to permissions-commons AT wikimedia.org so that an OTRS ticket can be established and confirmed. Awadewit (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this being done? Awadewit (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. My only excuse is that I've been crazy busy these days, and it slipped my mind. That, and I'm a dork in need of more detail-oriented folk like you to bonk me over the head from time to time. The email has now been sent. --Christine (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Was just notified in email that this has been taken care of. Thanks for the patience. --Christine (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Big Bad

Hi, Christine. The thing is, the entire list is rife with unreferenced characters. That fact, coupled with your edit summary, gave the impression that you doubted its veracity. I apologize for assuming otherwise. The question is, though, why just the Big Bad Wolf? Powers ^T 20:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. Big Bad, he's the wolf Muppet whose brother was misunderstood 'cause everyone assumed he was like him! ;) And it wasn't anything against him, really. Please take a look at the talk page, and read the last two sections: I started a criteria for possible inclusions, and a list of deletions. If we were to ever find a source for any and all of these, it's simple to just add them back. You can see that thus far, I've made several deletions, simply because I found no reliable source about them. I've just started; that's why I'm only on "B". It's my intention to make my way through them systematically, as I have the time and the inclination. If you wanna help, please jump in! --Christine (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street

Hi SilkTork, I'm Figureskatingfan/Christine, and I'm requesting a favor from you. I've nominated the above article to GA, but there's such a huge backlog over there, I thought I'd "expedite" the process and ask for a review. I notice that you've reviewed a GA or two in your time, so I thought you'd be a good person to ask. If it's an inappropriate request, please ignore it, and I'll be a good girl and wait my turn in the very long queue. I ask, though, because I'd really like this article to become a FA by November, which is the 40th anniversary of The Show, and it needs a GA-pass before I can get it peer reviewed and then submitted for FAC. I know that I could by-pass the GAN process, but I didn't want to do that. So would you mind helping me out a giving it a look-over/review? I'd be much appreciative if you did, thanks. --Christine (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Christine. Yes, it's an attractive and informative article. I have started the review. I have made some suggestions for improvements and put the review on hold for seven days to give you a chance to make those improvements. If you get the improvements done before the seven days, let me know and I'll check them over. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Apolo Anton Ohno

Ah, thank you for taking time to help copyedit and most of all, review Ohno's page. I understand how busy you can be~ Thanks for the heads up about the references and the style edit. I'll keep those in mind in my future edits. It would be awesome if you could suggest some citizens around these parts can be of use down the road if/when I get this article stronger. Once again, thank you for the time you spent in improving and reviewing Ohno's article! oncamera^(t) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It was my pleasure! I've decided I need to contribute to the project in a more variety of ways, so reviewing GAs is it! There's always such a terrible backlog over there. I'd be happy to suggest folks. User:Scartol, who's kind of my informal wiki-mentor, is one of the best copyeditors out there. User:Moni3 is just plain smart, but she tends to be kinda busy. User:Awadewit is also excellent, but she's not as available these days due to family concerns. I've just met User:Geometry guy with my own most recent GAC, and he seems pretty solid.

One of the great things about Wikipedia, for the most part, are there are tons of folks out there who are enthusiastic and willing to help improve articles. This is why we're all here, doncha know. You just have to keep your eye out for them. It's all about the networking, doncha know. Eventually, a community of supporters will surround you and support everything you do on the project, and stand up for you when you need it. Just do your best not to get sucked into the drama! 'Cause there's a lot of that here, too. --Christine (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street

Hi ST, this article has had three (3!) reviews for GA. Is that unprecedented? ;)

Anywho, User:Geometry guy has completed his review, and has stated that it's up to the original reviewer to decide if the changes made after his review are enough for it to pass to GA. That be you, dude! Would you mind looking at it? I appreciate all your assistance. I'm looking forward to moving to the next stage of article development, the peer review/copyedit. Thanks again! --Christine (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Christine. It is not uncommon for several people to be involved/consulted during a review, especially if there is some uncertainty. Some aspects of the GA criteria are open to interpretation - which is why we also have the WP:GAR process.

I've had another look, and I feel that the issue regarding broad coverage and use of sources prevents me passing this. I'm also aware that this is a matter of interpretation, and that you disagree with my assessment. I don't wish to press you to do something that you feel would not be right, but I can't in good conscience pass the article feeling the way I do. It's a close call, and another reviewer may pass it with no problems; because of that, rather than hold matters up any longer, I am closing the review as a Fail, and leaving the way open for you to decide what you wish to do next. You may, of course, decide to simply skip GA and go straight for FA. An article doesn't need a GA to be accepted at FA. I mention other options on the GA review.

I'm sorry not to be able to help you more with this. I'd much rather Pass an article than Fail one! Good luck. SilkTork *^YES! 09:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for taking your time to review my article Stargate literature. --TIAYN (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

Christine, I understand and sympathize with the disappointment you had in History of Sesame Street not being listed as a GA, but am encouraged to see that you have found someone you can work with as (effectively) a peer reviewer. It was unfortunate that SilkTork's request for a second opinion from Mattisse coincided with her being blocked for using sock-puppetry as a device to criticize sock-puppetry (pretty ironic, huh?). I fully supported the block, anyway. That may well have been a drama, but it involved issues tangential to the review and I see no evidence that it impacted on it. I reviewed the article in good faith and Moni3 has raised similar issues which you are now fixing: "according to whom" is exactly the way I usually describe material (including quotation) requiring qualification/attribution.

I fail to see any drama at GAC. I can only assume you meant WP:WIAGA, where there are proposals to clarify the criteria, but they have been discussed within the collaborative spirit of the encyclopedia. In particular, I would like to assure you that this was not in my mind when I added my GA commentary. For example, I do not wish to make the prose requirement in the criteria stronger. Can I also reassure you that you can raise any concerns you have about my motivations on my talk page, and this will rarely impact any content review I am involved with: on rare occasions where it does, I will recuse.

I dislike wikipolitics, and get involved in it very reluctantly: it tends to lead me to edit less and do something more fun offwiki instead (this is my leisure time). On the other hand, when I see editors like yourself determined to focus on article content, I want to help and encourage further progress. I hope you continue to work well with Moni3: she sure knows about good content. Geometry guy 21:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a lowly content editor here; I'm not in the loop about anything, and believe me, I'm just fine with that. I don't know why Mattisse was blocked, and I really don't care all that much. I'm sure that Mattisse is a nice person, but to be honest, from the little I know about what happened, she simply doesn't have much integrity with me. As a result, I look upon her involvement in this review with a great deal of suspicion. I think that you and Silktork have some very valid points about the article, but I don't think they should stand in the way of its promotion to GA. I realize that I'm not very impartial, but as it now stands, I believe that its quality is up to GA standards. It certainly is as high a quality article (if not higher) than many other GAs out there.

The "drama" and "wikipolitics" I was referring to, actually, is here. I admit that I didn't read the entire thread, but if you and others want to change GAC, that's your progative. My problem is using this article as a test case for (dare I say) your agenda. If it fulfills the criteria for GA, than pass the darn thing, please. I've seen other articles passed for less (and I've done it myself).

That being said, I really do appreciate your input. Ultimately, the goal is to improve articles. As long as that happens, the process to how individual articles get there is beside the point. This article's process is going to be different than another article's. And that's Okay. This article will get to FA, whether it happens by Nov. or not, and part of the credit will and should go to you.

P.S. I agree with you about Moni3. I have a secret wikicrush on her, and I'm as straight as can be! ;) --Christine (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Content editors are not lowly, but the raison d'etre for having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit: keep up the good work. Thank you in turn for your kind words about my input. I'm not in much of a loop myself: I watchlist very few policy/wikipedia pages, use email very little (I get enough of that at work!), and prefer on-wiki transparency. I am familiar with the GA process over the last two and a half years, so I would like to comment further.

First, different reviewers interpret the criteria differently and some have higher standards than others. This is why GA has individual and community reassessments and no time limit between GA nominations: in some cases, more than one iteration is needed to reach consensus. You could renominate now, and would have a different reviewer and a different experience. Recent improvements make a pass very likely.

It would be better if GA reviews hit a likely consensus interpretation first time around more often. For this, the criteria need to be clear, simple, and stable. They have been pretty stable in the last year or two, and the thread you cite was initiated by the need to maintain stability, especially as the proposed change added ambiguity. I welcomed the resulting discussion among well respected editors on how to clarify the mission of GA (improve articles, maximize its benefit for content) and it led to the idea of clarification of the criteria. That is not drama, but good old-fashioned plain talking, as we are engaging in now.

My personal view is that the GA criteria are a minimum standard, so that as many articles as possible can be brought up to that standard by the process. Thus I tend to favour a lower but more reliable interpretation of the standard, and by and large I have found this view favourably received. So my personal views are actually contrary to the suggestion that any agenda I might have affected a review in which you found the required standards too high.

But in any case, I don't impose these personal views on any review or any reviewer. So let me assure you again that the idea of using a particular article as a test case is an anathema to me, and I'm sad if you still consider that this might have been the case here. Each article should be assessed on its individual merits. Geometry guy 23:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, G. I believe that us "lowly" content editors are the future of Wikipedia. The only way for the project to remain reliable is if every article with potential is improved to FA-level quality. GAC is an important part of the process. I was a little alarmed at the backlog there when I submitted this article, so I decided to review at least two a month. Not many, I realize, but at least it'll put a tiny chink in the long list. I apologize for my response; my husband would chalk it up to me being an "emotional female," I'm sure. I try hard to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I apologize for falling short of that goal in regards to you and how I've responded to you. I appreciate the conversation. Good luck in all your wiki-endeavors. --Christine (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! No apologies are needed: there's so much going on here, and textual communication is not good for conveying emotions or intention. When editors' perceptions don't match, discussion is needed, and I'm also glad we talked. Thanks for contributing GA reviews: two reviews per month is great; GAN would really flow if a hundred or two editors made a similar commitment, and that's not an unreasonable goal.

I agree with you about the future, with a slightly different spin (I can explain the statistics if you are interested): lets at least improve all potentially decent articles to FA or GA. Hmmm..., so, that's c.10000 done, c.2-3+ million to go :-) Good luck to us both (!), and let me know if ever I can help in any way. Geometry guy 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wiggles

Hey Great Job Christine! --Jena (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sweetie. Did you read my most recent blog post? It explains what motivated the most recent edits. It's pretty silly, and kinda funny. I am so worried about what Anthony must think of me! ;) --Christine (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL I'm sorry! My comp chreshed after I wrote that then I forgot to all about it! I just read your blog... --Jena (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I know

I know, i could have followed all your suggestions (with the exception with your image suggestion), but i just didn't bother. --TIAYN (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your prerogative, I suppose. Hence the fail. I don't think that it fulfills GA criteria at this time. Another reviewer may feel differently, of course, so you're welcome to submit it again. --Christine (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No no no, i did not mean to be "prerogative", you were right about the grammer and etc.. So don't worry, i could have started working on it, the truth is that i was to "lazy". So no, i did not mean to be "prerogative". --TIAYN (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I know all about being lazy! You had much more important fish to fry, anyway, like your successful GAN of Walter Skinner. The X-Files is so much better than Stargate, anyway. ;) --Christine (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

MemChu

Do you see what I see on the main page of wikipedia today (Sept.16)? I wasn't expecting it to show up so quickly.--Erp (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not, not until you pointed it out just now. Wow, how cool is that? Congrats to us all! --Christine (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Frosh arrived today at Stanford (though I think that is unlikely to have played any role in the decision), I wonder if any will notice. --Erp (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I so love it that the quarter is starting out with MemChu on the front page! I will go now and tweet about it, and email Dr. Morgan to get the word out on campus. --Christine (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, TFA

Huzzah and hooray! Well done, my friend. Have a donut. Scartol • Tok 11:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't suppose you'd be interested in doing a peer review for the Balzac story Z. Marcas, would you? Scartol • Tok 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yum, thanks. Although it totally ruins my diet--a donut is what, about 20 points on Weight Watchers? Although virtual donuts are 0 points--yippee! I would be more than happy to do a PR for you, my friend, although it'll be a couple of days. I will probably ask you to return the favor and PR History of Sesame Street when it gets to that point. (I'm waiting for it to pass GA, which is been a little difficult, grr.) --Christine (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Back on the wiki - still need help?

I was responding to my talk page threads today and I just took a glance at History of Sesame Street to see how things were going. I see a lot is going on there. Let me know if I can help - I'm back to editing now. By the way, I used a "Sesame Street News Flash" (Rapunzel) on the first day of my Children's Lit class - it was so fun to watch all of those and pick just the right one. Awadewit (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So glad you're back! We're need you around here! And I'm glad your family situation is resolved enough that you're able to return. Best wishes for your dad's continuing recovery. Since you ask, I was going to ask you for two things: image review and copyedit/peer review. Before it can be resubmitted for GA, Moni3 wants the images to be up to snuff, and since you're the image guru... ;) So would you mind improving the fair use rationales of the articles? After it passes GA, I intend to submit the article for peer review and I'll solicit your input then, a little down the line. Thanks for the offer! --Christine (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do! Awadewit (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Freudian slips

"as the anonymous IP is intimidating above". I Liked the deliberate error you intimate here. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord! Actually, let me tell you, I not even smart enough to make that kind of joke! I swear, it was totally an accident! --Christine (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas/GA1

Please see Talk:Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas/GA1. A few minor fixes and it would be ready to be passed as a Good Article. It was a strong read. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Things are way busy for me this week (plus, Dancing With the Stars started this week, a real priority in my life, doncha know), so it may be a few days. --Christine (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Just drop me a line when you have finished and I'll process it through. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a good read. There were only minor concerns and I would have passed it if the lead started out a little longer from the beginning. The page looks good. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Nothing Important Happened Today"

Main page: Talk:Nothing Important Happened Today/GA1

I'm pretty sure that i'm finished. :D --TIAYN (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for passing it. And no, i have no problem with you copyediting the article. Thanks again :D --TIAYN (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul Paddick

someone added a new pic of Paul Paddick one Problum IT'S NOT PAUL! look hear is who did it User talk:Howcheng --Jena (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I talked to that guy User talk:Howcheng ... he fixed it! --Jena (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sesame Street edits

I stumbled across the Sesame Street page in its state of moderate disrepair, and noticed the crazy amount of work you've been doing. I'd like to help out. I'm rather new to Wikipedia, but I'm not new to proper writing, copy-editing, and fact-finding. I'm going to start doing some editing and such, and look forward to working with you in the Talk pages if you're still interested in improving this article.Jhfortier (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's just awesome. Working on Sesame Street has been pretty much a lone affair for me, other than the occasional vandalism, so it'll be nice to have someone come on board. I appreciate that you asked! Yah, I agree about its current state; it's much improved from when I started working on it, though. A few years ago, it was FA, but several months ago, it failed its FAR, and for good reason. It's a huge project, just in its complexity, and it's going slowly because I've been the only one trying to improve it and like the rest of us, I tend to get busy. If you'd like to go through it and do some copyediting on the sections I've already worked on ("Beginnings" through "Critical reception"), go ahead. But now I see that you've already done some nice things, which I will go and check out more closely.

One of my big pushes currently is History of Sesame Street. There are a few things I need to address from some GA reviews, but I'm waiting for a piece of material to arrive (the DVD, "The World According to SS", so I can research the Show's international versions as was requested). After that, I'll probably ask you to copyedit it when I take it to peer review. You could also tackle some of the other SS-related articles. There are tons, and to be frank, they're all mostly crap. They're based upon Muppet Wiki articles, which even though they have their place, don't have to depend upon reliable sources. The individual character articles, for example, could use some solid research, and would be tons of fun.

At any rate, thanks for coming on board! I love the Show, and think that it's deserving of better quality articles on Wikipedia. Yaaah, as Kermit would say. ;) --Christine (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Greg Page

there is a LOT of New Articles on Greg!

[2] This one is about the Wiggles too! [3]

and [4] --Jena (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know! They've been in the news a lot lately, what with Sam and Lyn's new baby, the rumors about Anthony's marriage, and Greg's recent activities. I've already included the stuff about the honorary degree, but the Age article about Greg is new to me. So thanks for that. I'll include his new band and the GP Foundation this article mentions, but not the stuff about his marriage and girlfriend and new baby, since that stuff isn't encyclopedic. I'll edit Greg's bio in the next day or so. I really like how you keep me aware of the new stuff, Jena. Keep it up! --Christine (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm Glad I could help! --Jena (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

oh and Can we use the Pic of the 5 Wiggles seince it is in a Magasine? --Jena (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. No, sorry, we can't use it. It's not free use. I have an email to somebody who posted photos on Flickr, but I haven't heard back yet. --Christine (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)