User talk:Ms. Sarita/Archive 2

Maine Coon

Hello again Ms. Sarita! I hope your editing career has been a pleasurable since we last talked. I recently came upon your submission of Maine Coon to GA, and seen the somewhat, err, brief, GA review that it was given. I have taken a look over the article, and I agree that it could pass for GA as is, as it is overall a very nice article. However, I do have a few nitpicky comments of my own. We have a couple of options:

1. I can join in on the GA review with my comments and ask the initial reviewer not to close the review until you have satisfied me to the fullest extent *grin*
2. I can close the review as is, since the original reviewer doesn't seem to be following the correct steps, and just take my nitpicky self to the talk page like everyone else would.

I'm fine either way, your choice... Dana boomer (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Dana! Great to see you again! That whole "review" seems awkward. Another user agreed to take on the review on December 3 and never did anything about it and then this user said s/he would pass it, but never did. Not to mention the drama occurring on the talk page, which I have removed myself from. I would really appreciate your input. It seems the fair way would be for you to join the review. I'm prepared to take on your nitpicky-ness!!! I was just signing on to work on the Peer Review, but maybe I'll wait until the GA process is complete. Thank you so much. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ms Sarita, thanks for your thank-you message about the peer review for Maine Coon. It's always nice to have one's efforts acknowledged. I especially appreciate it since I've done a few peer reviews where there was no response at all to my comments. Dr pda (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

JPS

Kudos on your speedy repairs to Jada Pinkett Smith; they look great. I wish I had some time to offer for the copyedit, but I'm pretty swamped right now. If you haven't found someone by Friday, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Cheers. Scartol • Tok 23:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for taking the time to look through the article. I will try to find someone to conduct a thorough copyedit, but if I can't, expect a new message on your talk page! ;-) – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 06:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear the article didn't pass. I will be happy to take a look at it, but it may be a few days. (I'm in the middle of finals season just now.) I'll look into it as soon as I can. Scartol • Tok 05:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're awesome. Thank you so much. Don't worry about the timing. I'm a full-time student, so I know how hectic finals can be. Take your time. I really appreciate it. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I want you to know that I haven't forgotten my pledge, and I will be reviewing the prose soon. (Start of the semester = additional hecticness after the dust from finals has settled.) Cheers. Scartol • Tok 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I finally got around to performing my long-promised copyedit. I also left some thoughts at the peer review page. Any questions, lemme know. Kudos on your work so far, and good luck with it! Scartol • Tok 18:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jada Pinkett Smith Niobe.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Jada Pinkett Smith Niobe.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jada Pinkett-Smith's FAC

Hi, if the "work" is globally known, such as The New York Times, the publisher field can generally be discarded. Personally, I consider small-time websites as their own publisher, i.e. the "work" and the "publisher" are the same. Jappalang (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 06:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Help on Jada Pinkett Smith

Hi, Ms. Sarita. I'm sorry that I can't help you with the Jada Pinkett Smith article, but I am floundering under deadline pressure from some "real life" projects. I don't have the time to properly devote -- especially with your article already under the FAC gun -- so it would be best for you to find an editor who can leap in right now. Best of luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thank you very much for letting me know. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 16:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ms. Sarita - I probably can't fully devote my attention to the article, but I don't have too much on my plate at the moment; I'll take an initial look through it and then start working on it some. It looks like folks at the FAC are also pointing out some MOS issues, and I could at least help fix those. I'm not the greatest FA-level copyeditor, but I'd be happy to lend a hand and chip in on the work. :-) Good luck, Jamie^☆S93 18:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words - I imagine it must feel strange to have something as hands-on and active as an FAC going on, all the while being ill, which really can hinder things. I've basically fixed all the MOS issues Dr pda pointed out, and have begun rewording some of the prose that catches my attention. I'll see if I can full-sweep the article soon, too, as a fresh pair of eyes. Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 17:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

New message!

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

DuSable Museum of African American History

Thanks for your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary says just one prose issue to take care of, but all leftmost bulletpoints are struck. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the "Prose" list, there's one left, concerning du Sable's/DuSable's name. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 19:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll get right on it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligent and attentive review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Maine Coon

It looks like you have had issues with the page "owner" of this article as well. --David Shankbone 21:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 21:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Wo0ter08. --David Shankbone 21:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wo0ter08 hasn't been accused of ownership. I have been since I was the one who revised the article and I've been watching the little "edit war" you've been having. Personally, I like your image better, but that's not up to me. And there has been so much drama over images in that article, I don't want any part of it. Take whatever action you feel is necessary. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 21:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh - looking over the contributions, it appears you improved the article a good bit. I found his reasoning suspect with "unnecessary" and then saw the tet-a-tet between you two. I didn't take the photo, I just think it's very good, at least better than the one that was there, especially since it shows the plume tail, which when I had my Maine Coon (he passed February 14, 2005) was one of my favorite features about him. --David Shankbone 21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I really wouldn't worry about it. It's obviously a better lead photo. If you need back up, let me know.

P.S. I'm sorry to hear about your MC. That's very sad. I am so grateful that mine is still around...I'd be inconsolable if he was taken from me. Cheers. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maine Coon picture

I just figured I'd throw my impartial say in, I think you were very patient dealing with the (abusive) anon user, who seemed to be looking for a fight. Keep up the good work.--Terrillja _talk 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate the kind words. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Watson's wife

Didn't say YOU expunged it, but it was expunged. It's relevant to his bio because of his current wife's similar activism interest (unless you think she is not part of his life), and her actions in support of it, sourced to a national news story (WP:RS). If the children of his first wife are relevant, the actions of his second wife are as well. Besides, it was all over Sea Shepherd home page and she's proud of it, so why do you wish to cover it up? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Took care of it, don't worry about it, Ms Sarita. --Terrillja _talk 05:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Terrillja. Mervyn Emrys, the article is about Paul Watson, not his wife, regardless of her activism being covered by a RS. A mere mention of her activism would make sense, but not an entire paragraph detailing this, this, and that about a single incident. This is not about "covering up" anything. Don't make it sound like a conspiracy. This is simply about keeping the article on point and focused. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 05:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please practice what you preach on my talk page. I see no proposal for resolution of this dispute coming from either of you except for deletion of my edits. I considerably shortened the material I placed there, or did neither of you notice before one of you deleted it? Apparently that was not enough to satisfy your demands. Don't know what would be, other than for me to go away. Wasn't that the purpose of your creating the Allison article, to suggest I go away there? Haven't seen either of you doing much there. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you choose to delete every conversation on your talk page regarding this issue, then I suppose we shall continue it here. Pray tell, what practices should I be following? I'm really curious. I have proposed rewriting the paragraph so that it contains the information required but yet still keeps the article on focus. Obviously, this was not to your liking and you have not proposed any resolution to this aside from slightly shortening the information that is unwarranted in the article. The information in question does not belong in the Paul Watson article because it has absolutely nothing to do with Paul, unless he was directly involved in Allison's actions which led her to being charged.

In addition, I was not the one who created the Allison Watson article, nor did I support the creation of the Allison Watson article (although I do understand why it was created), and nor did anyone suggest that you "go away there". Your assumptions are baseless.

I am not making demands. I am simply asking for others to keep this article focused and on point. Seeing as how that is one of the criteria for GA status, and seeing as how you have little faith that the article could ever make it to GA status anyway, this is going to be a difficult situation to resolve. No one wants you to go away and no one wishes you to go away. I think you could be a real asset to building the article. I simply wish for this to be resolved, sans the sarcasm, the rudeness, and the hostility from you. Terrillja and I have been very cordial despite your belligerence. This has gone from trying to better the article to you publically attacking two other editors. If you don't wish to work with others, then I believe this conversation needs to end.

– Ms. Sarita ^Confer 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A report about this matter has been filed at the edit warring noticeboard Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Still working on sourcing the political bits, where I found that all Canadian parliamentary election results are online. I was reading through some of the professions and thinking a few were a bit creative, such as this one:

Candidate: LONGLEY, Blair T. Party:N/A Occupation:thinker Votes:52

However the winner has to be this one:
Candidate: SALMI, Brian Godzilla Party:Rhino Occupation:lizard king in exile Votes:173

You can find more of them here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/hfer/hfer.asp?Language=E&Search=Gres&genElection=34&ridProvince=2&submit1=Search

Something to lighten up all the searching for sources.

--Terrillja _talk 15:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Userbox for GA reviews

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

This user has reviewed 6 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note...

Good morning Ms. Sarita! Just wanted to let you know that I received your warnings and will make a point to be more careful in the future. I can assure you that none of my edits were intentionally disruptive and I fully respect the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia; Sorry for the inconvenience.

Hope you have a great week.. :)

Sohollywood (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

well,

it was originally Actress...but i guess whatever. Justme89 (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I would advise that you read WP:GENDER, in which the concept of using "gender-neutral language avoids constructions that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes." I agree that the gender-neutral language should be kept intact on the Angelina Jolie article. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 02:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Marques Houston

I do believe I provided three sources, all indicating the aforementioned claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exedous (talk • contribs) 05:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

All the sources that you provided (IMDb, TV.com, and Last.fm) are considered unreliable since all of these websites can be edited by anyone. If you can find a reliable source (such as from a newspaper/magazine article, biography that cannot be edited, etc.), then the information can be allowed. But biographies of living persons are held to the highest standards and any information that could be considered controversial or untrue must be left out if a reliable source is not provided. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 07:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I do believe I supplied a source from a non-editable website.. Here's some logic though, if there was a website linking a claim that was gotten from Wikipedia, wouldn't that make it unreliable since it can be edited by anyone? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exedous (talk • contribs) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, it would make that reference unreliable. Any reference that mirrors a Wikipedia article would be considered unreliable and would thus not be allowed to source anything on Wikipedia. But who said anything about Wikipedia being a reliable source of information? ;-)

As for the reference, that is not one that I had seen. It will have to do for now. But if this article is taken to higher levels, AceShowbiz.com may not be considered a reliable source as they do not have a thorough record of gaining reliable information, nor do we know how that information is received. An example of a stable, reliable source (for BLPs, that is) would be a magazine such as People and Entertainment Weekly, or a newspaper such as the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Also, you're probably new here, so remember, whenever you write on a talk page (whether it is a user's talk page or an article's talk page), always sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Just a note for future reference.

– Ms. Sarita ^Confer 01:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: New Moon (2009 film)

No problem! And yes, I noticed you requested that the page be protected, so thank you for that. I was happy to see that it was granted. Sadly, it's only protected for one week and I'm sure we'll still have the same trouble after it expires. Thanks as well for all of the great work you've been doing to keep everything correct and sourced in the Cast section. It hasn't been easy! Andrea (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

two issues

Hi Sarita

While browsing the pages of other GA reviewers I was captivated by your userpage. Who created that?

I've requested a second opinion on the GA review of homosexual transsexual. Maybe you're interested.

Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Wandalstouring! To answer your first question, I created my own userpage. I never thought anyone would actually admire it. It's just something I threw together. Thanks for the compliment. As for the GA review, I'm a little swamped at the moment, but I'll try to take a look at it sometime today. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 17:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

When you have more time, would you give it a try and rearrange my page? Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Denise Chong

Ms. Sarita, I've decided not to review it for GA. At this time, I am only reviewing articles that pass. If it needs work, I don't review it. One of these days, I will start reviewing articles that look like they will not pass GA. The Denise article is a good effort and will someday make GA in my opinion. Sorry I did not write sooner but I was pondering over how to reply respectfully and kindly. Spevw (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Is it possible that you could add the "I am a black woman" interview to the Zoe Saldana article? Klonk (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)