* [[October 23]], [[2007]]. FAC fails with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cillian_Murphy/archive1 8 supports, 3 opposes]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cillian_Murphy&oldid=166449168 article then].
* [[October 23]], [[2007]]. FAC fails with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cillian_Murphy/archive1 8 supports, 3 opposes]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cillian_Murphy&oldid=166449168 article then].
* [[November 4]], [[2007]]. {{icon|FA}} After an immediate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cillian_Murphy renomination], FA status is awarded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cillian_Murphy&oldid=169010168 article then].
* [[November 4]], [[2007]]. {{icon|FA}} After an immediate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cillian_Murphy renomination], FA status is awarded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cillian_Murphy&oldid=169010168 article then].
* Today. [[Cillian Murphy]].
* Today. [[Cillian Murphy]]. (I have been updating the article very often anymore. I stop by occasionally.)
:<div style="font-size:0.9em;line-height:1.4em"><b>An editorial comment on the FAC process</b> 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.</div>
:<div style="font-size:0.9em;line-height:1.4em"><b>An editorial comment on the FAC process</b> 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.</div>
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.
What
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...
Where
Main focus
Here's the progress on my pet project, the Cillian Murphy article:
Today. Cillian Murphy. (I have 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...
On November 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kirsten Sheridan, 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.
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)
.svg){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
I was the sole major contributor who brought this article to GA status: article then.
And on to WikiProject Biography's A-class status: article then.
After an immediate renomination, FA status is awarded: article then.
