User talk:Figureskatingfan/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

DYK for International co-productions of Sesame Street

On November 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International co-productions of Sesame Street, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maya Angelou article

Hi Christine, Thanks for your message. My Nov 15th edit was a little over-enthusiastic, I agree. I wondered if I replaced the section below and started a new thread about that content on the discussion page - would you be ok with my other syntactical changes and copy editing? I think the removed piece you pointed up were these three paras (below). It would seem a shame to lose all the copy editing in a full revert.

I understand you and others have done a great deal of work on the article - didn't mean to tread on any toes.

Best wishes

Anna

...................................

Her most common speaking engagements would occur on college campuses; the events tended to be sold out far in advance. In 1997, over 2,000 tickets were sold when she spoke at the Woman's Foundation in San Francisco. By the early 2000s, Angelou traveled to her speaking engagements and book tour stops by tour bus. She "gave up flying, unless it is really vital ... not because she was afraid, but because she was fed up with the hassle of celebrity". In 2008, she charged approximately US$43,000 per engagement.

Starting in March 1999, a poem called "Clothes" that was attributed to Angelou circulated on the Internet. The poem makes a number of false and defamatory claims labeling various clothing manufacturers (such as FUBU, Timberland, and Eckō lines) as racists and/or members of the KKK. Angelou has denied on her website that she wrote the poem. In 2002, Angelou lent her name and writings to a line of products from the Hallmark Greeting Card Company. Also in 2002, scholar Molefi Kete Asante listed Maya Angelou on his list of 100 Greatest African Americans.

In 2006, Angelou became a radio talk show host for the first time, hosting a weekly show for XM Satellite Radio's Oprah & Friends channel. Also in 2006, singer Nancy Wilson set Angelou's poem "My Life Has Turned to Blue" to music in the title track of her CD, "Turned to Blue". In 2007, she became the first African-American woman and living poet to be featured in the Poetry for Young People series of books from Sterling Publishing.

................................

Hi Anna, thanks for the message. Copyediting is fine, but you can do it without removing content like you did. I'm sorry for the wholesale revert, but to honest, it was due to laziness more than anything else. I suppose I could've gone through your edits and added back what you removed and kept your syntactical errors, but I didn't want to spend the time on it, really. I agree that this article is in dire need of a good copyedit. The passages above attest to that. I also agree that some of the above constitute "trivia", like the stuff about "Clothes". In the history of the article, I've even recommended removing it, but others have disagreed. If you had brought it up on the article's talk page (and perhaps for future discussion, we should move it over there), I probably would've been happy to agree. As for the rest of the content, it's true that they're really a collection of facts gathered about Angelou's recent work and activities. You could say that the entire "Later career" section is like that, and we could talk about each item and why it should or should not remain. I'd say that the problem with parts of the bio section of this article is that it doesn't flow or contain good transitions. That's something that definitely needs work, and I'd be happy to work together on it. It's true that I'm very invested in this article, and in all MA articles. It's also true that I've been mostly alone in the effort, so I welcome your input and assistance. --Christine (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Christine,

Thanks for your feedback. I have made some copy and syntax changes to the biog section of the article and not really touched the content. I hope this works for you.

....................

• the intro is edited for readability - to change list elements. And have taken out the dead links

• Early years - I have changed the syntax a little to make it sound more encyclopaedic - with a little less POV / biography close up view point. I put the PBS programme details in the notes. Dead links changed. No facts have been taken out - just rephrased.

• Adult years - edited for syntax and repetition. Dead links changed. No facts have been removed.

• Later career - took out dead links. Edited paras 1, 2 and 7 for syntax and readability. No facts have been changed.

...................

It's many hours work so I really hope no-one makes a quick revert - I've pointed to the to the discussion page for more details in the edit summary. Hope it holds.

Also - the article could have a 'writing' main heading and subheadings: works, influence, critical reception, uses in education, style & genre. What do you think? Spanglej (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I promise that I will not quick-revert. ;) I'm a little busy work-wise today, so I hope to get a chance to examine what you've done more closely later on this afternoon (I think). Or maybe tomorrow morning. We'll see. Just know that I'm not ignoring you. --Christine (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, tomorrow morning. ;) I apologize for not getting to this sooner. I've now looked at your copyedit; no content removed, very good. I would've copyedited a little differently, but much of that is due to choice and style. I've made a couple of comments on the article's talk page. I think that it needs another pair of eyes, but I'm not in any hurry for that to happen. I think that your ideas about the subheadings are good ones, and if you want to go ahead and make them, that's fine. Someone else has suggested that Angelou's poetry should be discussed more, since the discussion, thus far, focuses on her autobiographies. To that end, I'm currently doing research about it, but more needs to be done. I'm also currently adding content to Angelou's other articles, and working towards expanding The Heart of a Woman. Thanks for your hard work! --Christine (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: My Talk Page

First, thanks for your pleasant feedback on my talk page. I must say that i agree with everything you said, especially what you said about my GA nomination rampage. I'll stop mass nominating on the GAN page, and i'll start to nominate them on the Wikipedia:Peer Review page, before nominating them on the GAN page. And yes, i understand that none of The X-Files articles can become FA's, but with three exceptions.

Thanks again for your feedback, i really do appreciate it. --TIAYN (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your quick-fail of Christopher Wilder

Just a heads up, I've commented on your quick-fail of Christopher Wilder here. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have responded in kind. --Christine (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey Route 162

I actually just got a start on reviewing that. Would you still like to do the GAN? If so, that's fine with me. MuZemike 17:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we're good. Knock yerself out. I'm probably not the best person to review it; I'm from the West coast and have never been to NJ, so it's all foreign to me, anyway. --Christine (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You Are Now About the Witness the Strength of Street Knowledge

(Little N.W.A reference there for ya..) I'd be happy to do a review of History of Sesame Street — that show gave me so much insight and entertainment when I was kid; it's only fair that I give something back. You'll probably need to give me a couple of weeks, though. If you haven't heard from me by 10 December, drop me a reminder? Cheers! Scartol • Tok 19:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So glad you explained the reference--I'm too white to know that! ;) Anyway, thanks, and will do. I will hound your a**! I know what you're saying about The Show. Not only was it a positive influence on my life, it has profoundly benefited my little dd kids. Plus, it's been loads of fun learning about it, including what a huge accomplishment it was even getting it on the air. --Christine (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous! Wonderful! Superb to the max! Thanks very much for that. It's so interesting to see him in a context where he can't bring out his usual dark sick humor. (I mean Ricky, not Elmo.) Speaking of which, it's the perfect time of year to enjoy this Ricky Gervais Christmas song. Merry merry!

PS. I haven't forgotten the article.. Today's my last day before break, so I'll get to it soon. Scartol • Tok 12:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The marvelous thing about the SS clip, though, is that you can see tinges of that humor, right at the edge. Those familiar with RG can see it, which is what makes the interaction memorable. And Kevin Clash is so good, he brings Elmo right along with him. Those are always my favorite celeb/Muppet interactions, anyway. Clash seems to excel at bringing out the best and the trueness of his co-performers. And the Muppets are at their best when they brush up against weirdness but retain their sweetness. The Bohemian Rhapsody clip is like that. Anyway, I'm done rambling and want to wish you a Merry Christmas! No hurries with the article; I'm already in break mode myself, which is why I haven't been working at all this week and been playing with improving the images on The Wiggles. --Christine (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sesame Street History Peer Review

That sound you heard? Was the sound of my last exam! Haha, sorry, a little post-exams student enthusiasm.

I'm going to start the peer review of of the History of Sesame Street article now. I'm going to make changes, but please please feel free to revert them. I can pretty much guarantee that most of them are going to be opinion-y stuff about re-wording; I know your research skills and attention to detail on this subject, especially with the sources you have, are a step above mine. If I have any big concerns, I'll let you know on here. I've read over the previous GA attempt, so I'll keep an eye out for the things that they were picky about, but have you considered changing the name of the article to reflect the fact that it only covers the American production? Perhaps we could put a tag at the top, saying something to the effect of "This reflects the history of the American show. For other productions, see the International pages" or something? I'm just thinking aloud here, because that seemed to be the biggest sticking point of the last GA review.

Anyway, I'll hop to it now. Have a great weekend!Jhfortier (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, J! Congrats on the end of your term! Was it to you that I suggested pizza and a viewing of The Princess Bride to celebrate? ;) If not, it's a good idea; it's how my college roommate and I would close out our finals.

Anyway, I looked at your edits, and I appreciate them. I removed your "need citation" tag and replaced it with a valid reference. I think that your idea is a good one, and a good compromise to the GAN concern. I will go and find the appropriate tag now. Again, thanks, and you have a good weekend and great break and holiday season as well. --Christine (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's great that you found a citation for that cite-needed tag; I was editing really late, and it was more of a placeholder than anything else. I intended to go find a paper today, but that's great that you already found it. I've done the first section (Pre-production) and will work on the others tonight or tomorrow.

I think the tag at the beginning works; it'll definitely help allay the concerns of some of the GA reviewers. If the article were "History of CTW productions" then a more internationally-oriented article would be in order, but since it's Sesame Street, I automatically assumed it was the American one. Oh well. I'm sure you've got an eye on the page, so I'll work on some more review stuff tonight, and hopefully have it done tomorrow or Tuesday? We shall see :)

One more question: how do you change your signature from the standard one? I'd like to put my actual name in it, but am not sure how the signature changing works. Is there a page I could refer to? Thank you! Jhfortier (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, finding the citation was pretty easy. I have a bad habit, left over from college, of under-citing. See, I learned that if you put the source at the end of the paragraph, you don't have to cite every thought. It depends upon the method you use, so it really depends upon what reviewers catch, since WP seems to use a combination of both APA and MLA. It really doesn't matter, though; as long as you're consistent. I gave the exact same argument during GAN about the assumption that the article is about the US version of The Show, but I like your solution. It's a good compromise, like I said. Sometimes GAN and FAC is all about making folks happy--something I'm more than willing to do, but it can get annoying at times.

Re: changing your sig: You can do it at "my preferences". You can make it fancy, even. Although why would you? Jhfortier is so cool! Maybe you can use the pipe to include your real name. ;) --Christine (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the signature advice; when I figure out what I want to write to put, I'll change it.

Re: the under-sourcing, for scientific papers (my usual stuff) I'm completely in support of under-citing: technically speaking, you're absolutely correct, and you cite just the way I would if I were writing a submitted paper. I just think that given the broad range of facts cited to a smaller number of sources, it's easier to punch in the extra citations, and allays everyone's concerns about missing citatitions etc. Agree completely: GAN and FAC is all about pleasing the masses and compromising, especially on things that don't really change the feel of the article. I really hope that you can get it through GAN this time! Let me know when you submit it officially.

One more question: last one, I promise! How do you know when an article is ready for GAN? Can GAs be quite short? I've been filling in stub articles relating to Canadian Supreme Court cases (... I promise, they're not as boring as they sound!) but many of them are brief because they're on very specific topics. Is there a guideline on the length an article must be before it gets GA status? Thank you! Jhfortier (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to these loose ends. To answer your question about GAs, I direct you here: WP:STUB. Perhaps it seems like a strange direction, but I think it answers your question about the difference between stubs and GAs. If you've exhausted the topic, there should be no reason its article shouldn't be a GA. I'd advise submitting it and see what happens. It can't hurt, right?

Re: the history article, though, if you (or anyone else) thinks that an article is good enough, you can pass it without a formal submission to the GAN list. Unlike an FAC, which requires consensus, it only takes one reviewer to pass an article to GA. I made the mistake, when I initially submitted it for GAN, of asking someone to review it because I though I could get it to FA before The Show's 40th anniversary. I picked the wrong person, though, with an agenda that affected the status of this article. I learned from it, though: if I want an article to sail though GAN, I need to submit it for a peer review first. So here's my thinly veiled effort to suggest that if you think that this article is so marvelous, as you've stated in the PR, you can pass it to GA--if you want. Strong enough hint for ya? ;) --Christine (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, in the words of the three-year-old I take care of, "That's tricksy". This makes some of my comments on the History page from a few minutes ago quite moot, but oh well. I'll grab the GA criteria, work on a couple more things, and then see about passing the GA because honestly, I think the article deserves it! If I don't see you before, have a great Christmas! Jhfortier (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you are still watching the PR, but I finally got back to it and made some more comments, mostly on the images. I am not an image expert, so feel free to disagree with me, but the concerns I raised seem to me to be consistent with what I have seen at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

When a PR is archived, that just means it is no longer transcluded on WP:PR, so it is fine that you edited the History of Sesame Street PR after it closed. I will make some more comments there next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Who's Your City?

Thank you for reviewing the article and helping out. There appears to have been an edit conflict when you removed it from the nominations list here and it was added back in. --maclean (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for the catch; I went back and fixed it. I also remembered that I had forgotten to add the book to the GA list, so I did that, too. I should finish my copyedit in the next few days. Best regards! --Christine (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Images

WW came out of nowhere with an offer to help, which was very kind. Hopefully he can locate some images. I'm sorry about your Wiggles article, hehe. If the pictures are licensed under Creative Commons, I don't even worry about asking permission ;) Off topic, I must say that I admire the little niche you've made for yourself improving children related articles; I've probably seen every Blues Clues episode because my little brothers watched it when they were young. I cant say I miss it now that they are older, but its good memories. :) -- Noj r (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably will do that; things are a little busy work-wise these days, so it'll probably be into next week, after the holidays. There was just an agreement made, so I feel a little bad about it. Tee hee, my daughter's watching BC as we speak, literally, the episode about feelings. Improving these articles has made me an expert of sorts about children's TV, which is loads of fun. The stuff I've learned! The Sesame Street articles have been a huge undertaking, but it's been so worth it. A TV columnist in San Francisco has said that he thought that everyone should watch Sesame Street everyday because it improves one's mental health, and I agree, of course. I'm not sure that I'd say the same thing about BC, but it sure has improved my developmentally disabled little kids' lives. --Christine (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cockroaches album cover

This guy Aspects is deleting Album covers from Articles he did it for Paul Field and the Cockroaches Pages look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Aspects is that right? I mean can this guy just delete Album Covers? he deletes the Images from the Pages THEN he goes to the Photo link and adds a "orphan" tag look at his talk Page! User talk:Aspects --Jena (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. It's obvious, though, that he has an agenda about album covers and whether they're free use. I don't pretend to even understand the intricacies about WP image policies, but it looks like there's been a discussion about it, and he's been advancing his position by doing what you've described. I have no idea about what the end consensus will be, but you were right to revert him in the meantime. This is exactly the reason there are no album covers on The Wiggles, an FA, although there are other FAs about musicians with them. I, as the main editor, made the arbitrary decision to avoid the controversy. And here we are, anyway! ;) --Christine (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

groovie! I did the right thing! just keep an eye on him ok? he is editing anthony greg and muzza's pages and deleting the flags or something... I'm too tired to revert tonight maybe tomorrow... --Jena (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that his deletion of the flags in the guys' infoboxes is an accurate interpretation of the manual of style, which states that we're not supposed to include icons of national flags in infoboxes. See, ya learn something new everyday, even in WP! ;) So I went ahead and reverted your revert on Anthony's page. That's not something I mind Aspect doing, since my tendency is to be anti-infobox, anyway, especially for bio articles. But I will keep an eye on him, I promise. --Christine (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

he is doing it AGAIN and when I tride to fix it someone els reverted MY edits! --Jena (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Plagiarized! and AAO nom

Hey Christine, that was an interesting read about that news article obviously using the Wikipedia article for its information. That isn't the first time; I edited Randy Moss' article a certain way, and while looking for new sources, I saw the New York Times copy-pasted paragraphs (that I personally wrote) with just slight changes to the grammar. It's amusing to see that happen! Anyway, I nominated Ohno's article for FAC. Thought it would be good to get started, like you said, before the Olympics! Thanks again for all the helpful help. Hohoho, happy holidays, oncamera^(t) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Christine!

Treat yourself for wading into the unknown waters at FAC, getting knocked down a bit and returning to conquer! Have a wonderful holiday and I hope see you and your work to come next year! --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography/works of Maya Angelou

Good question First off, I am not an admin myself, so I am not taking any kind of authoritative action. I moved it because I wanted to standardize the articles in Category:Bibliographies as much as possible. You may well be correct that some of these "bibliographies" are really broad enough to be a "list of works" instead. If you feel strongly about it, move it back; it should be able to be moved over the redirect. If you need to respond to me, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done List of works by Maya Angelou. Also, WP:MOVE, just in case. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiggle Picks

Forget it they have all been taken down guess you can't use Flicker --Jena (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I know, all that work for nuttin'! I'll see what I can do about it later. --Christine (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL If you Ask Nice Maby Greg will give you some .. he has Facebook ...

HOLY COW you are having Bad Luck with Imagies!! I'm sorry about that--Jena (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that's bad, you should take a look at my first talk page: [1]. Actually, the Jon Stone image I downloaded today should be fine; the editor who posted those warnings was way too quick--I hadn't even finished posting the non-free image rationale. I'm glad that someone's eager to make sure that copyrights are satisfied, although I have to admit that I don't always understand the policies. That's one area of WP that I've never been able to get, no matter how many times kind souls have tried to explain them to me.

Jena, just today we watched an episode from the guys' first series, which my husband downloaded from the internet. Hadn't seen it in years! It was so much fun watching it again with the kids. The guys looked so young! Dorothy tells Anthony, "I want to adopt you" (I'm sure you remember the episode), and I said, "I want to adopt you, too!" Anyway, have a happy New Year! 2010, I can't hardly believe it! ;) --Christine (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Jonstone.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jonstone.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Jonstone.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jonstone.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them. And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul." —"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Pass!

A quick note to let you know that History of Sesame Street has passed its Good Article criteria, and has been listed on the Good Article page. As the nominating editor, I thought I'd let you know the good news. Thanks for improving this article so much, I look forward to helping you with editing projects in the future! Jhfortier (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What a cool surprise to find as I check in during my vacation! (Brandon Mroz totally broke my pen while he was signing an autograph for me tonight!) Thanks, I appreciate it. I will most likely elicit your assistance when attempting to bring it to FA.

I'll check over the repairs and replies when I have some time -- start of a new semester is always a really busy time. But soon! Cheers. Scartol • Tok 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's just an excuse; you're always busy! ;) Don't sweat it, whenever you can get to it is fine. --Christine (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Help? Sarah G

Hi there! maybe you're wondering why I'm here. User:Scartol told me, or should I say, recommended you that maybe you can review (or if it won't hurt you, edit) Sarah Geronimo.[2] I ask User:Scartol if he can help me out to follow this so called "neutrality" that Wikipedia requires, but he said he can't view it at the moment. When you review the article, please feel free to edit it if you see something's wrong. Anyway thanks in advance! --Wht_Pal888 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi to you! I will look at it, perhaps over the weekend. Scartol doesn't think that neutrality is an issue with this article, but I'll peer review it for you anyway. Give me a couple of days, though. Christine (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! In advance, thank you so much for reviewing that article. If you have comments and criticism about it, I will gladly accept it. Again, thank you for your time and help.--Wht_Pal888 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's ok.. Actually, I'm waiting for you to review it. Please do! thanks!--White paladin888 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh! and please, can we make the article semi-protected? because I saw the history and some IP address users, keep writing unsourced information in the article.--White paladin888 (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you with that, not being an administrator and all. You could try asking one to protect the article, but there needs to be chronic and persistent vandalism before he or she would do it. Some admins will protect a page before others. It helps that it's a BLP. I know, in spite of some nasty, horrible vandalism of one of the articles I care for, Maya Angelou, it only was recently permanently protected, like last week. I'd keep an eye on it, and revert the unsourced content with an explanation why in the edit summary. For some articles, it takes persistence. --Christine (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok! thanks for that info's. Anyway, if you have time, please review the article. A week ago when I asked you to review it and comment about it, the article was only in C Class. But now, I've finally made it to B Class, though if you have time, please review the article and if it isn't too much if you see mistakes, please edit it (If only you have time). Thank you!--White paladin888 (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Things are been crazy busy for me work-wise, so I'm sorry I've haven't yet been able to look at it. I will try my best over the weekend. I haven't even been able to edit my own Wiki-projects. It really sux when real life gets in the way of my Wikipedia projects, doncha know. --Christine (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it really sux! Actually, I'm supposed to work on 3 articles, but I don't have enough time to do that because you know, busy busy, too many work in real life.--White paladin888 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Thank you so much!--White paladin888 (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! It's been a week since the last time I logged in because, I've been accused by "uploading copyrighted images as own, falsifying sources" even though, I'm the one who shot those pictures.

Anyway, If you have time, can you please edit that article? Because, a STUPID user keeps tagging the article as "FANSITE" even though User:Scartol and you said that the article doesn't have any problem in the "Neutrality" thing. Please edit some grammars and other errors as well. I've already answer some of your questions that you post in the Talk page of the Article. --White paladin888 (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I've been so negligent; my only excuse is that I've been way busy. I'll make this a priority and work on the article tonight. It looked like to me that the user you mention put that tag on it after some editors added some pretty fan-y content. Once I put my hands all over it, perhaps he/she won't have a reason for the tag any longer. Again, sorry for the delay and for my flakiness. --Christine (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's okay! don't worry.. Actually, I'm very busy too and I feel embarrassed because, I keep on calling you for help. Regarding that user, I review the past versions of that article and the history of that user as well. He keeps tagging articles as fansite. Even my own images in that article, he accused that it is from a DVD or a video. Obviously it's not because the DVD (of that concert) is set to release next week.

Anyway, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR HELP!!--White paladin888 (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to be of help. To be honest, I steer clear of reviewing images because I'm really bad at it. I'd suggest going elsewhere. Perhaps you haven't given adequate fair-use rationales; I'll take a look to see if the issue is that simple. --Christine (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! the article looks better now. I admire your editing skills! anyway, I search more sources about her(Sarah G) and to say, I think we should add another section; "Products and Endorsements", since other artist like Beyonce, Britney Spears , etc. has their article in it. And honestly, Sarah Geronimo has all over 25-30 endorsements from 2003 up to present. We just need a good source and a lot of work of course. If my time permits, I'll try my best to find good sources about that so we can add it. BEST REGARDS! and THANKS AGAIN!--White paladin888 (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I already answered the questions that you put in the article's talk page and I really appreciate your hard work to improve that article. I will help you in the best way that I can. --White paladin888 (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have More important matters to do like other articles, please do them first instead of the things that I requested you to do. I felt so embarrassed for calling a help because it isn't your priority to help and work with that article and yet, you are doing a good job. Anyway, Thank you again and please if you have other important matters to do, please do them first. :) Regards!--White paladin888 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't do anything I don't wanna do here. Just ignore my comments below; I was just expressing frustration that this was bigger than I first thought. WP is such a huge project, and it can get overwhelming at times. Hopefully, I can make a difference, even in a small way. Thanks for the opportunity, and look for me on Sarah's talk page! ;) --Christine (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I replied and asked some questions regarding the sources and images as well in Sarah's talk page.:)--White paladin888 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I would've given you a response last night if I weren't so bloody exhausted! I'll do my best to devote the time it deserves tonight. --Christine (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry if it took me so long to finish my assignments because I had several works last week so this is my only time to finalize everything. I already finished doing the sources format and changed those imdb sources. I hope that this source will satisfy you: http://www.sarahgeronimo.com/teleseries I think it has EVERYTHING that I need to replace those imdb's. If you have time, you can check that site cuz I think it has the complete information regarding her TELEVISION shows.

Since (I think....) I've finished my job, what do we do next?:)--White paladin888 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I pray that our hard work (especially yours..) will be worth. Whew! I'm a little nervous since it is my first time to submit an article for a peer review. I'm thinking what will the other editors say about it.

Anyway, I pray that all will be fine :)--White paladin888 (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yah, lots of prayer usually accompanies the articles I put up for review, too. ;) The first time you put an article up for peer review, and then through the WP:GAN and WP:FAC process, can be kinda of harrowing, but you'll learn an awful lot. Reviewers can be harsh, but most of the time they're fair and they sincerely want articles improved. You just have to be willing to do the work. Sometimes their requests seem arbitrary, but the end result is an article that lives up to its potential. --Christine (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I read one comment about the peer review of the article and he/she said that the article is missing a major section which is VOICE and MUSICAL STYLE. I think I should research about that part. But I will first put those infos in my USER PAGE for the editing and experimenting and such.

Oh! and one more thing! Do you think I should combined those 2 sections? Musical Style and VOICE? Because I think it includes the same topic. But I saw some article and they separate it. What do you think?--White paladin888 (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw Awadewit's comments on the PR, and I recommend always listening to her and doing as she suggests. She knows her stuff! I think that her generous offer to do a source review is great; it should be done by a different pair of eyes than mine. I also think she's spot-on about the new sections. See, that's why we need each other; I have very little experience with articles about musicians, so that's something I would've never caught. To answer your question, though, I think that a Musical style section is enough in this case. Mariah Carey has a Voice section because her distinctive voice is what she's known for, and that's not so true about Sarah G. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't include some info about her singing style, though, if there's info out there about that. It definitely requires some research, so have fun! (I think that sometimes that's the funnest part about developing an article.) ;) --Christine (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! Hehe.. My computer crashed after I went on a vacation and then I have to buy a new one. GRRRR.. too much expenses and such.. so... There!! I must get back to work!! hehe.. As usual, I have to research and continue to improve that article with the use of the peer reviews as guides =).. Again, thanks for helping me 2 months ago.. God Bless!!(White paladin888 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Re: Olympics

Oh, I know; It wasn't promoted to FA, but that's alright because the article is very nice indeed. I just looked up the stats and it's unbelievable! It went from 3.5k --> 6.5k --> 7.7K --> 15.4K --> 46.7K --> 212.4K over the past six days! Haha, that's totally awesome. I hope he can continue to do well at the Olympics and it's nice knowing readers have something informative to read.  :) oncamera^(t) 00:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I agree; I mean, it feels good knowing so many people are stopping by the article and the hard work put into the article is being showcased. Thanks for the help, too, in reviewing it and giving me outside views to get it up to par. oncamera^(t) 06:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Geronimo

Thanks for your input on the article. As you may notice, it has been the target of numerous fans and, well, noobs, who, frankly speaking, don't know how to add or edit content in WP in a proper way, and that they put unnecessary praise, rumours or speculative nonsense, like the oft-deleted Boys Over Flowers hoax, of which the singer was "said" to be doing a remake. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and you're welcome. It's obvious that the editors don't know how to add content or cite sources properly. Some of it is just horribly written. I didn't think that a simple copyedit would take as long as it has, but that just goes to show you how bad it was. To be honest, it's a colossal waste of time that I'd rather be spending on more worthwhile projects than an article on some pop singer whom I've never even heard of. But I was asked, and I like to help, so... At least it's bringing my edit count up. And if I can educate the above-mentioned newbies (we were all one once, doncha know), I can be okay with it. --Christine (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey there C.. I appreciate your note. (I've been showing the article off to the students today.) I know what you mean about being of a stature when you can take an article to FAC and have people be all like "dude of course I vote yes -- look who's nominating".. But of course there's a risk that we'll be voting for the person, not the article, which we don't want.

Whatever. Thanks again for your kind memo. I wish I had more time for Wikipedia these days. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 02:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. As they say on American Idol, dawg, I am such a fan of yours. But I've been thinking about your statement above. What the heck is wrong with there being an elite group of editors that get that treatment. Folks like you and Moni3 and Awadewit. People who have a consistent track record of high-quality articles with a proven track record. Like I said, it gives the rest of us something to aspire to. I mean, this place should be about making sure that the quality of writing and research is high, and that's what all you guys are doing. So I'd vote for you if I were reviewing one of your articles. Dude! --Christine (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Because a name should never precede quality. No one should ever trust that because my name is attached to an article it is better than someone else's or deserves to be promoted without scrutiny. That intones a "Trust me!" approach, similar to a toothy used car salesman in a loud sport coat. On the flip side, once someone gets a certain number of FAs, it sometimes becomes the goal of a few folks to give them an extra hard time, just to make them prove themselves a bit more. An extra helping of skepticism, just to counter any favoritism that may have come their way. I can see why Wikipedia was originally envisioned to be for anonymous users only. We are animals that apparently cannot help from choosing sides, politics on another scale. --Moni3 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't worry that Moni or Awadewit would abuse that privilege, but it doesn't matter -- we need to examine the articles, not the person submitting them. And besides, we all make mistakes, right? We might submit something to FAC that has a big hole that we just don't know about (and just doesn't get caught in PR). Etc etc. Now Moni: Where's my police shooting update!? Scartol • Tok 02:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do my eyes deceive me? Is my hero, Moni3, a talk-page stalker of me? Wow, how cool is that. Of course you guys are right. It's all about the work--the articles, the content, the research. That's why we're all here ultimately. I stalk enough talk pages to know that it's unfortunately not always the case. Fortunately, though, my realm of influence is small and I don't pick real controversial articles. I mean, I avoided working on the Sesame Street articles for months because I didn't want any drama. There's almost been none at all, knock on wood. I just got some minor drama recently with Maya Angelou, but it was really no big deal. The two of youse, though, are the kind of editors I aspire to become. Maybe someday. --Christine (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Maya Angelou

Hi. I would appreciate it if you would stop reverting my additions to this article. They are not sourced by IMDB, but by the TCM database, Allmovie, and the Internet Off-Broadway Database (IODB), all of which are reliable sources. Plus, in the case of the film, I actually watched it myself on Turner Classic Movies, and Angelou was introduced by name when she performed the two songs. If you have any questions or concerns about this, I'll be glad to discuss them with you, but the reliability of the sourcing of this information is just not questionable. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, it would have more polite to respond to my comment rather than going to the Village Pump and editing the article. Communicating with other editors is a significant part of the collegiality expected on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I understand that, really I do. I was in the middle of figuring things out and going to the Pump and writing what's below and making a few changes in the article and dealing with an edit conflict. Really, I've been around too long for this. You're obviously watching it, so I'm not going to bother posting a notice about my response on your talk page. I'm just gonna go to bed. As you will see, it's long and well-thought out. Yah, I'm pretty slow tonight. Our internet connection sucks! Just read and I'll deal with it more in the morning. Good night.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me. I admit that I tend to be a little protective of this article, since most of the edits made (other than by me) are malicious, evil vandalism and personal attacks of the subject. I also admit that I reverted because I assumed you were just another one of those editors, and for that I apologize. I need to give more people the benefit of the doubt, I really do. I understand that TCM and Allmovie are good, although Allmovie is less helpful. Also notice that I changed the referencing format, to make it consistent with the rest of the article.

I suggest changing note #26. I don't think WP is a place to list every time a movie is broadcast, even obscure and rare ones like "Heat." (I need to see that movie. It speaks volume that Angelou doesn't even mention the movie in her writings.) However, because of its obscurity, I think that it's worth nothing that some cable stations are still showing it. Therefore, how about we say something like: "Calypso Heat Wave was still being broadcast on TCM in early 2010." What do you think about that?

As far as your edits about The Blacks: ya know, it's in my plans to add that info, because Angelou discusses the play extensively in The Heart of a Woman. I've haven't gotten around to adding the content yet; my only excuse is a general sense of being overwhelmed by life. Sorry, but I think that her book is a better source than the Broadway database, and I think that when the content is finally added, it'll reflect that. For now, it's fine. You should know, though, that I posed the question about the site's reliability in the Village Pump: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Internet_Off-Broadway_Database.

BMK, I think you can probably tell that there are huge gaps in the bio section of this article. In the past, you could drive a mac truck through those gaps; these days, just a small SUV, mostly due to my lone efforts. I appreciate the assistance, since like I intimidated above, things are busy for me IRL. I wish I could edit more, but I squeeze it in whenever I could. (I really should've gone to bed a half an hour ago.) So if I stepped on your toes, I apologize. Again, thanks for your assistance in the improvement of this article. --Christine (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I appreciate the time you took to write it, and I can certainly empathize with you about feeling tired (not right at the moment, though, since I'm currently unemployed, between shows, but when I'm working...). I don't disagree with you about the ref citing the film showing on Turner Classic Movies, I simply added that as a re-inforcement for the other refs when you dismissed the IMDB ref out of hand. In this specific case, I knew that IMDB was accurate, because I was watching the film as I added the information, so I felt I needed to make sure that the info was accepted by citing it with whatever I could find. If you agree that the TCM article and the Allmovie cite are sufficient, I have no problem with just deleting the other ref.

As for The Blacks, as I said in response to you on the Village Pump, the IODB is indeed a reliable source. It's run by a not-for-profit foundation, the Lortel Foundation, and works with the records of off-Broadway theatre & producers, Playbills, and information from Actors Equity. (I know that all the information on shows that I've worked on has been accurate.) If you've got a print source for the information, that's excellent, but I would think it would be best to add it to the IOBDB cite, rather than supplanting it. (In any event, it sounds like a production I wish I had been around to see, with that cast!)

I do see that Maya Angelou and her work are important to you, and I understand the sense of guardianship that such a connection brings with it (I wrote about it here with an earlier account), so there's no hard feelings on my end, and I hope not on yours. I'm sure that we both want the same end, the best possible article. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

BMK, sorry for the strong reaction; in addition to being tired, I think I'm catching my daughter's cold. It was only a matter of time, let me tell you. As I said over at the Pump, your responses to my question about the Broadway site is satisfactory and even useful. I have no problem with citing the film itself as a source, if the credits have the info needed. You'll notice that I used the info from a documentary (made by the Beer summit guy, Dr. Henry Gates) early in the article. You just didn't source it accurately. In the long-run, what will probably happen is the main support will be Angelou herself and then the IOBDB. Yah, I agree about being around to see the original production. Her account of it in her book is exceedingly interesting, btw.

I also agree with your words about stewardship, and that WP policy should honor and reflect that. I make no apologies for my emotional attachment to this article. Heck, if it weren't for me, this article and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings would be a source of embarrassment for this project. And like I said above, I tend to be somewhat protective of it because of all the evil (which I totally mean) vandalism. There's a reason why this article is semi-protected. At any rate, welcome aboard, good luck with the acting career, and happy St. Paddy's! --Christine (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Christine: Thanks - but a minor correction: I'm a stage manager, not an actor. (I couldn't act my way out of a paper bag!). Best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I will amend, then: Good luck with your the-a-tre career! I'm fairly certain you could act better than me. ;) --Christine (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick favour -- Sesame Workshop

Hi Christine, I'm wondering if you might have a spare second to pop over to Sesame Workshop and see if you think the newly-revised introduction adequately summarizes the article? I'm wanting to get the "insufficient introduction" flag taken off the article, and I think I've improved the lead enough to warrant it, but I hate taking down flags when I've done the work... it feels like cheating. If you have a bit of time to do that, I'd definitely owe you one! Thank you! Jhfortier (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

But it's not cheating; it's allowed! But I understand that sentiment and applaud you for your integrity. Give me a few days; I want to carefully read the whole article before I support the tag removal. I'd do it now, but it's getting close to my bedtime. Thanks for your patience. --Christine (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, wasn't aware that it was allowed, but it makes sense; having listed things in categories before requesting a re-evlauation of its class rating (three months later, still nothing!), I know how difficult it is to find impartial people to make decisions and evaluations. But I digress... I took your advice and expanded the lead to two paragraphs, including the names of the original founders and mentioning Sesame Street as their first and biggest production. Perhaps if you have a chance (after the long weekend of course! Family first!) could you take a quick peek at it again? And do let me know if you ever need anything done on an article (peer review, GA eval, etc)! Thank you! Jhfortier (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, it's almost as if you read my mind! You really echoed the sentiments rolling around in my head with respect to the article as a whole: it's slapped-together in a lot of places, copied from other articles (not a bad thing, but sometimes leads to extraneous/off-topic info), and painfully low on information in some sections. One of the sections which sticks in my mind is the "international" section, which has a single sentence about recruiting somebody for international marketing (if memory serves correctly).

I think what I'm going to have to do is ink up the red pen and just go to town removing information that's unnecessary/irrelevant. Then hit the books, as you suggested, and get some information on the important areas to expand this article and more completely cover the topic. Thank you again for your (always helpful) suggestions! Jhfortier (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Singin' and Swingin'

I'd be happy to take another look. It might take me a couple of days to get to it. The backlog at WP:PR is emitting squeaks and howls. Finetooth (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It now looks fine to me. I found and fixed a tiny number of minor proofing glitches, and here are two questions. In the "Background" section, "Diiie" looks like a typo (leaning on the keyboard) in the title of the poetry book. In the "Plot summary", maybe "likes him" would be more clear than "is taken by him" in the sentence, "She introduces him to her son, who is taken by him." Finetooth (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen what you've done, and they look like good changes to me. Let me answer your questions. "Diiie" is correct; it follows the vernacular of slave speech that Angelou attempts to capture in her poetry, and of that poem in particular. I like the wording of the phrase in question; it's more poetic and was inspired by Angelou. I agree with my friend User:Scartol that an article about a writer/poet should retain some of the writer's use of language. Of course, I could be blowing smoke, and it may get caught at future reviews. If you feel strongly that it should be changed to more concise language as you suggest, I won't object if you change it.

I'm really concerned about the images in this article, or rather, lack of them. I've racked my brain trying to come up with alternatives, which is why I added the P&B image, even though it isn't of Angelou's cast. I'd like to see a map created highlighting Angelou's journeys in this book, but that's way beyond my abilities. Perhaps I'll see if someone else can come up with anything in the future. A picture of the Red Onion, or of the reviewers cited. Any ideas? --Christine (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd go for it. It seems to me that if objections are raised (as they always are at FAC), they will involve a limited number of fixable things. I don't think you're going to run into anyone who says, "Oh, yuck, get this thing out of here." Sometimes unexpected things happen at FAC, but my feeling is that you'll be fine. I wasn't bothered by the number of images, but it wouldn't hurt to add more. Could File:Angeloupoem.jpg or any other image of Angelou be made to fit? I know this is not the young Angelou, but it's Angelou. Finetooth (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I was actually thinking about adding that particular image; none of the images in this article depicts the correct time period, anyway, like the image of Fillmore Street (2007) or the Porgie and Bess cast (2009). I found an image of The Purple Onion on flickr, too. In a perfect world, there'd be era-appropriate images of all those things, but we unfortunately don't live in one, as yesterday (Easter) pointed out. Thanks again. I'll submit tomorrow. --Christine (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hanging head sheepishly.. Scartol • Tok 11:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wiggles and deletion of Awards and nominations section

I dispute your recent reversion/deletion of The Wiggles, Awards and nominations section. I have presented my reasons on the talkpage. I have cut 'n' pasted your comments from my talkpage to provide context for other editors who may wish to comment on this issue. Please provide your responses to The Wiggles talkpage.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Shadow-Fighter

Hi Christine!

You left a very thoughtful comment yesterday on the talk page of my son, The Shadow-Fighter, which I want to thank you for--I saw it, and it was very nice. However, you made him feel so comfortable that he ended up telling you his full name in his response (!!!)--I think he saw your name on your page and wanted to reciprocate. Fortunately, he then went and told me about this, and after my wife and I scraped ourselves off the ceiling, he went back and removed his name (as you know, this does not really remove it, but merely relegates it to his page's history, but then an administrator came and suppressed the whole exchange--how he found out about it I have no idea, but the rapidity of the response was amazing).

So anyway, after I got done outlining for him the horrors of child predators masquerading as benevolent maternal figures, I went and perused your page, and have become convinced that you are, in fact, a benevolent maternal figure. I also noticed your user box referring to the WP Adopt-a-User program, which is fascinating and which I had not heard of before. So I wanted to ask you: is my son (Jed--I don't mind him using his first name) eligible for that, even though he's been noodling about on here for a couple years now? He's just starting to try his hand at creating new articles, and frankly I'm just not able to monitor his activity closely enough--and for that matter I'm not knowledgeable enough myself--to provide good guidance on a lot of the issues involved (the bulk of my activity on here is confined to drive-by copyediting). If he is eligible, would you be willing to adopt him? I would love it if there were somebody besides the occasional random administrator with an iffy bedside manner giving him pointers. Any little check-in you did would be helpful and appreciated.

Thanks for your time, Christine. Could you please respond to this on my talk page? I'm liable to forget to check back here in a timely fashion.

Best wishes,

AdRock (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC) (My name is Adam!)

---

Hi Christine--No, actually Jed thrives on any positive feedback he receives on here, and actually he was pretty disappointed when Keegan suppressed that whole thread, including your original comment, because he liked having it (I spoke to Keegan, and he offered to email the content to Jed "for posterity," which was nice). So age and musical differences are totally secondary. I don't know what you mean when you say you're an "old lady," but I'm 39, and my mother-in-law, Jed's grandma, whom he adores, is 61 and the organist in her church. And furthermore, Jed's a hyper kid and was attracted to fast music very early, but frankly these days he exagerrates his interest in it--nowadays he's more into teen pop, of the sort they peddle on Nickelodeon; you and he might intersect slightly right around "American Idol."

Anyway, my point is that what he would appreciate from you is the positive attention and gentle guidance. I don't know if there's a formal "adoption" process, but if you just wanted to look in on him every so often, that would be lovely. What I'm concerned about is that I'm just too busy to follow what he does on here very closely, and sometimes he gets ahead of himself, and if you look on his discussion page, a couple times he has actually been accused of vandalism. So thank you for your offer to help, and we accept! Do you want to leave him a message saying you'll be around?

Something else it may be helpful for you to know about Jed is that he has Asperger's syndrome, a mild form of autism (and for that matter his Asperger's is pretty mild--so I cannot at all pretend to relate to your situation, except that both your and my kids have fallen into the extremely broad category of special education). What that means, among other things, is that he tends to be very literal-minded, not good with subtlety, and he focuses intently on a narrow range of interests--hence his recent forays into creating new articles for child actors and actors with bit parts in kid movies--and he's been having to learn about the WP concept of "notability," as some of his efforts have been promptly nominated for speedy deletion. (And of course he may read this, and that's fine.)

Okay. Thanks again--see you around this place!

AdRock (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout

Your name was on the 2nd dramaout signup and the organizer of the 2nd one suggested notifying those who signed up the last time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians

and also a mention on WP:ANI. We would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

PBSKIDS

Hello Figureskatingfan, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

Capital B for black

Hi Christine, just intrigued about your changing all your bs in 'black' to capitals In Maya Angelou. Haven't seen it done before. Also a question - do admins have access to all users email addresses? I was mailed out of the blue and was slightly shocked as I don't know how the system worked... Happy July to you. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spanglej, yah, it was discussed in another MA article, Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas, as we were preparing it for another FAC. See here [3]. I'm intending to make the change in all her articles; I've already done with I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. I suppose I should've put a note on their talk pages, and I will. Christine (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Christine

Hi Christine and thank you for replying.

I would like to have a page just about me no advertsiing just a page like others that are on wiki. I was inquiring about that.

Can I even have my own page just to tell about me? If so is there someone I can give my information to that knows more how to list here?

Thank you again, Laurie Wolfe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriewolfe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Laurie, I will answer your question by referring you to two policies. Wikipedia: Notability explains the "criteria" for someone's bio getting onto Wikipedia. Wikipedia: Autobiography advises against someone creating or editing an article about him or herself. I'm sorry, but if you're looking for self-promotion, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Fortunately, there are plenty of other places to use for that purpose. Good luck. Also, please remember to follow the conventions here; please add a new section when you're starting a new subsection on a talk page, and please sign your posts. Christine (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Billie

Hi Christine, I was just wondering if you have any of the books on Billie yet, or have plans to get specific ones? I'd still love to help you get the article into shape, and I'm just about to order a couple of books, so just thought it might be a good idea not to overlap too much. Are you still thinking of getting Lady Sings the Blues? I'm probably going to get the Nicholson one and one or perhaps two others. Possibly the Angela Davis one. I'm not sure what it's like as a source, but I'm also interested in working a bit on the Ma Rainey article, so that would help there too.--BelovedFreak 18:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Overlapping isn't an issue for me. I think that if you're gonna contribute to an article, you need to become an expert in its subject if you aren't already. That means doing research. I was gonna invest in some books, too--starting with Nicholson and Lady Sings the Blues. We'll have a nice book club going. I think that we should start a reading list for all interested parties just for fun. I was also going to buy the Diana Ross movie, just because it's been so long since I've seen it. Just to demonstrate how silly I get over WP articles, yesterday I listened to a Billie album from Napster. That's acclimating myself to the subject, doncha know. I really need to stop neglecting the Sesame Street articles I've committed myself to, though. Billie's a nice change of pace, and immensely interesting. The more I go through the sources, it becomes more obvious how much it needs attention, so I'm in, too. Should be loads of fun! Christine (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I've ordered Nicholson, Davis and Donald Clarke for now. Better go and put some tunes on now! It'd be good to have some samples in the article, although I think she's a little late for any of them to be public domain unfortunately.--BelovedFreak 19:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Figureskatingfan, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Figureskatingfan. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)