I'm Melty Girl, and I have a background in communication research, media criticism, American socio-politics and music, as well as a lifelong obsessive mind for pop culture. I had a baby in 2008, so my Wikipedia activities have narrowed precipitously given my time constraints. I'm rarely around anymore.
I used to mainly poke around actor, director and film articles, making small additions, modifying articles as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, adding sources, and reverting vandalism. I also occasionally helped out with FAC reviews. But I made some larger contributions too...
Here's the progress on my pet project, the Cillian Murphy article:
- March 24, 2007. The article before I began contributing.
- August 24, 2007. I was the sole major contributor who brought this article to GA status: article then.
- September 17, 2007. And on to WikiProject Biography's A-class status: article then.
- September 21, 2007. My first FAC nomination: article then.
- October 23, 2007. FAC fails with 8 supports, 3 opposes: article then.
- November 4, 2007. After an immediate renomination, FA status is awarded: article then.
- Today. Cillian Murphy. (I haven't been updating the article very often anymore. I stop by occasionally.)
An editorial comment on the FAC process seems a bit odd and unconsensus-like, though I'm not sure precisely how it should be changed. Anyone can instruct you to do anything to the article, and it seems like you're just supposed to do it, whether or not the idea is on the mark -- it's not like the community often tries to evaluate each reviewer's ideas and come to consensus about them. It's usually the nominator going one-on-one with each reviewer as s/he pops up, negotiating separately with each, even as one contradicts the next. There's no way to know if the FA director has judged a rebuffed idea as ill-suited for the article or deemed a criticism inaccurate or unactionable, or rather if he will simply decide that a nominator didn't follow a reviewer's commands and is therefore out of order. The process just doesn't always feel collaborative or clear, and it can be a veeery loooong slog. I'm certainly pleased with how the article turned out ultimately, and that it did attain FA status, but I doubt that I'll work toward braving the FAC process again. Comments on this topic are very welcome -- I'm interested to know what others think.
Other major contributions/works in progress
No longer have time to be sure these are kept in decent condition, but for what it's worth...
- Juno (film)
- Once (film)
- 28 Days Later
- Watching the Detectives
- Kirsten Sheridan -- I created this article and am the sole major contributor.
- Yvonne McGuinness -- I created this article and am the sole major contributor.
- Breakfast on Pluto (film)
- Breakfast on Pluto
- Hippie Hippie Shake -- I created this article.
- Velvet Goldmine
- The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film)
|I would like to award you this barnstar for your respectfulnesses, civility and quality as a person. I am glad that you have given us the chance to meet you by joining our discussion on Template:Infobox actor and I look forward to more of it in the future. -- Kudret abi 06:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)|
|The Barnstar of Diligence|
|Even when it seemed like you and Cillian Murphy were not meant to be, you stuck with him. When times got rough and stayed rough you were there by Cillian's side and so I award you the Barnstar of Diligence. (Next time pick an actor with normal eyes and the whole process will be much easier ;) Congratulations! JayHenry 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)|
|The Original Barnstar|
|For your thorough review of and helpful edits to Joey Santiago. A great help. CloudNine (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)|
|The Tireless Contributor Barnstar|
|I present this award to you for your great work on Juno. Honest to blog. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)|