Trishm
 Archives |
|---|
|
|
|
NPOVing
editIf that could be done, I think it certainly would be the ideal way to do it! What you might want to do is start up a draft copy in userspace to see how it turns out, and if there's consensus to accept it, it certainly can be copied in. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work at marriage
editTrishm, just wanted to tell you how much I appreciated your edits to the first paragraph of the marriage article. It looks like the trolls that guard that page have edited it out of existence—I wish there was a way to stop them because your work was informative and cited. Thanks for the attempt.--Riferimento 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I liked this version very much[[1]], and I do not think that it was given enough time so I am going to edit back to this version starting Tuesday. If it is edited away I plan on reverting it back periodically for a couple of days until I am sure that multiple editors have had time to review it.--Riferimento 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Caretaker Gazette
editI have absolutely no concerns with what you did in putting that article up for AFD. However, I do think it is salvagable. I just rewrote it at User:Garycdunn/The Caretaker Gazette. Can you let me know what you think of this version? In particular, has the spam problem been solved? GRBerry 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not seen any more spamming of mathematics educational articles. The article is greatly improved, but I still feel that Mr. Dunn has no interest in Wikipedia other than for promotional purposes, which makes me uncomfortable.Trishm 04:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
NPOV
editPlease discuss policy changes on the talk page of the respective policy. That way you are more likely to get a response. >Radiant< 12:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I thought I had done that here. Is this what you mean?Trishm 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 01:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you...
... for taking the time to review Leo J. Ryan Federal Building and pass it as a Good Article. Do you have any suggestions for pointers as this article makes its way towards FA status? Smee 01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
Hi Smee, I have left a comment on the discussion page. At this stage, I would try to polish the prose, and go for a peer review. Trishm 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Really, that soon? Thanks so much for the vote of confidence! Smee 12:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
- Thank you so much for your time and help. I touched up a couple of things, added another citation and some more info, and then put the article up for Peer Review. We'll see how it goes. Smee 13:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
- Think of a peer review as a chance to get some fresh perspectives on your article. I like your enthusiasm.Trishm 08:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, and I will. Smee 08:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- Think of a peer review as a chance to get some fresh perspectives on your article. I like your enthusiasm.Trishm 08:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your time and help. I touched up a couple of things, added another citation and some more info, and then put the article up for Peer Review. We'll see how it goes. Smee 13:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
edit
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| I, Smee, hereby award Trishm with The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. For taking the time to do article review, and helpful polite pointers on how to improve article quality, as well as overall polite demeanor in discussion pages on the project. Thank you. Yours, Smee 08:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
Trishm, I didn't want to upset anyone but I couldn't in all conscience agree that the Leo J. Ryan Federal Building should be a GA - I've explained my reasons on the peer review page - perhaps you'd take a look and we can discuss it? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would appreciate your comments on this, as previously both yourself as the GA reviewer as well as another editor at the Peer Review both commented positively on the quality of the article as GA status. Smee 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a Wikiproject Grammar member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Kent article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
editA new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
League of Copyeditors roll call
edit
|
Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors. |
Shifted WarningsSmall to right margin
edit19-April-2008: I modified this talk page to shift that top box of "WarningsSmall" to actually align at the right margin. I learned a trick last month: to force a table to truly align at the far right margin, just wrap the table in 5 symbols: {| class=infobox |}. As a result, the coding appears as follows:
{| class=infobox <!--auto-width fits Table of Contents-->
{{WarningsSmall|align=right}}
|}
Note that in the MediaWiki wikitable language, the symbol for start-of-table "{|" must be placed in column 1 of a line. The class=infobox is for any box that shifts to the right side; there are numerous other classes (such as class="infobox geography vcard"), and quotation marks are optional for one-word values. The article "Help:Table" has many typical examples of wikitables, but wrapping with "class=infobox" is a rarely seen trick. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
ROSETTA BARNSTAR for Windows Vista
edit
|
The Rosetta Barnstar | |
| Wikid77 awards Trishm this barnstar for deciphering "Windows Vista" (March 2008) as a sales brochure when no one else could quite figure out why a computer salesman seemed near: excellent work on noting priority placement of details. Insights there will likely affect all Windows articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
GA Sweeps invitation
editHello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Opportunity to testify
editHi, I was wading through the mess at the Sandra Fluke Afd. I saw this:
- she was denied the opportunity to testify to the Issa committee
Could we find a source for this? I can't figure out whether the Democrats submitted her name "too late", or whether the Republicans deliberately excluded her. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Ed: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Democrats-Hold-Hearing-on-Contraceptives-amp-Women39s-Health/10737428508/ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rep-darrell-issa-bars-minority-witness-a-woman-on-contraception-2/
And don't forget that the House refused to televise the testimony when it was given. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73132.html Trishm (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- My question was about why they excluded her. Democrats seem to be saying that it was
- because she was a a women
- The committee (R-dominated?) seems to be saying that it was:
- because they were only hearing from religious leaders
- Am I reading between the lines, or is this what the sources really say? It's so hard to tell with political battles, where each side likes to demonize the other. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
True, and I think the problem is that staying neutral means not just repeating propaganda, under the umbrella of "sources say", but also ensuring that the context is clear. The initial reason this was newsworthy is that Issa had convened a panel discussing the insurance options that were to be made available to women, and framed a women's health issue as a religious freedom issue. The fact that there were no women on the panel itself was a political decision designed to impress that women are not the decision makers on this issue. A second hearing was convened, where two women testified, one a doctor, but not Fluke. This shows that the idea that Fluke was not a timely nomination was not the reason she did not testify. The sources say that she was excluded because she was a Democratic nomination to speak, and that this was tit-for-tat and par for the course. (Issa in the abcnews source) That she was "blocked" is verifiable: Issa denied that she was on topic for the first hearing, I don't know about the second, and the Republican's blocked her testimony from being televised. When it was made public, Limbaugh did his best to discredit her.
Look, Ed, I'm not in the US, and maybe this political dance seems a little more obvious from far away. I don't get to see the US TV, or hear the US radio. But I do read a lot. I know you will want sources. Try this: http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/how-contraception-became-a-train-wreck-for-republicans-20120304?
For sure this is a political battle, and this is why in order to be neutral, the statements cannot be taken at face value, but must be placed in context. Limbaugh's statements need to be compared with the source material he is talking about. Issa's comments need to be taken in context with the how the meetings were convened. Trishm (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, that was the most thoughtful and penetrating analysis I've read anywhere. Perhaps distance is required for perspective. "One issue framed as another", wow! As a software engineer, I'm not used to such deviousness; quality assurance is all about accountability and transparency. I'm going to refer to your remarks frequently as I write further on these issues. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Why, thank you Ed. Very kind words. Trishm (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
editHello, Trishm. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Paul Ryan and speech reception. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
editHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 08:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
edit
Hello, Trishm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
edit Hello, Trishm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)