User talk:Ginsengbomb/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Lois Lane

Thanks for reverting my comment about that paragraph, I only put it there so an editor might fix it up. Unfortunately, all you did was delete my comment but left the paragraph in its original state. A pity you couldnt take the time to read the paragraph and realize it made no sense and correct it. Still, I am sure it made you feel good to do a revert! Its always so much more fun to revert than to fix.!!! As I am not an editor nor do I have the inclanation to be one, I have not fixed it myself. Anyway, my experience with wikipedia has always been that regardless of what you write, someone will always revert your work. So now I dont bother, it really isnt worth the angst!!

cheers and happy reverting.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Your edit was disruptive and did more to harm the offending paragraph than leaving the paragraph as-is. That is why it was reverted. I am also sorry you feel that "regardless of what you write, someone will always revert your work" -- this is pretty clearly not the case. Regardless, you are right -- I didn't take the time to fix the paragraph. I would suggest you consider the notion that, you know, neither did you. You just broke it more. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
For future reference, the proper channel to go through to bring up concerns such as yours with a given article is to use the article's talk page. Bringing your concerns directly to the article is disruptive. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)



thanks for the honest review, constructive criticism is exactly what i was looking for. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. I hope it's helpful -- I enjoyed putting it together and looking at your work. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Fwanksta's Editor Review

Hey, thanks a lot for the review. I had some further questions so I posted them on that page. (I wasn't sure where to put them.) The Fwanksta (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, my pleasure -- you're a good editor. I'll take a look at the questions and try to answer them tonight. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your edit, even though the comment is direct from the biography!SENIRAM (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move

Hi, Ginsengbomb. Because you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move. Cunard (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the editor review. I was pleasantly surprised to see such positive feedback! I appreciate the comments and guidance. I may follow your advice and transition to AfD soon, so don't be surprised when I show up there. (I may bug you for guidance, but I'll try to keep it to a minimum.) Thanks again! Avicennasis @ 03:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumper 2

I fixed your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumper 2. The closing template should be placed above the header. And there is no need to SHOUT. A simple "The result was redirect" is more aesthetically appealing. Not only have you made such egregious mistakes, you have also forgotten to include a period after "redirect." See here for an example of the CORRECT way to do it. For making these unexcusable errors, I was thinking about getting you banned. But then I saw your carefully crafted closing rationale and have relented. Oh well, maybe some other day. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This wanton abuse on my talk page is entirely uncalled for and completely vicious. Please don't bite the newbies -- I've only been here since 2006 and I have no idea what is going on. I'll see you at ANI, when I report you for your vicious slander, you execrable monster. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't wait. Let's start a huge dramafest at the dramaboard; see who gets banned first. Biting the newbies? It's the other way around. I've only been here since 2008. You're biting me. You are an abusive troll who can never seem to stop making mistakes. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(Considering how this conversation started, that I then screwed up a freaking talk page posting was pretty amusing) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice edit summary. Your second mistake is hilarious though I find Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 7#Michelle Obama's arms to be more so. By the way, you never did answer my copyediting request for Middlesex (novel). If you don't have the time/inclination I understand. But I do need some help with making my tortured prose flow better. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That is, indeed, substantially more hilarious -- particularly given the editor's username. Regardless, as far as Middlesex is concerned, I apologize -- I actually forgot all about that! I'll take a look. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The OP is one of the most entertaining users I have seen; two other articles he created are Markus (prostitute) and The Chimpcam Project.

Thanks for taking a look at Middlesex! I was afraid you would ignore/reject my shameless pleadings, as did the guy who wanted to nominate me for adminship. Cunard (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My stars, that is amusing stuff. As is the original deletion debate regarding the first lady's arms (that there were as many people in favor of keeping as there were is...well, not entirely surprising, given how easily the notability guidelines can be spun in certain cases). I'm going to have to follow this particular deletion review, if not participate (although, knowing me, I'll have a hard time not participating).

Regarding Middlesex, I just went through and made a number of very small changes. I think it actually looks quite good, and the detail (and sourcing) is excellent. My knee-jerk reaction is that it's a bit on the lengthy side, but there's nothing in there that I would wholesale remove. I may take another look tomorrow (ie after a night's sleep -- I'm about to fall over), but I think one way it could be tightened up a bit is to remove and/or shorten some of the critic and author references during the thematic exploration sections in the latter half of the article. There were a few places when I was going through and making my tweaks where I felt that the quotes being used were either unnecessary or too lengthy. Regardless, I'll take another look. On the whole, though, very excellent. You misused a period in one spot though so you can basically go to hell. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Much thanks for catching this and this. I'll have to serve myself a WP:TROUT for letting thousands of readers see such unprofessional work. How could I use a period in place of a comma‽ I'm so depressed now that I'll have to cry myself to sleep tonight.

I agree with your comments about the quotes. I'm so wary of violating Wikipedia:Plagiarism that I use quotes excessively. By the way, I modeled Middlesex after To Kill a Mockingbird which has much longer theme/reception sections than Middlesex. Contrary to it being on the long side, I'm thinking that those sections aren't not long enough (I'm planning to take the article to WP:GA and maybe even WP:FA), so I will be expanding it over the next few weeks/months. Thanks for going over it and fixing the choppy parts. One concern I have is that some parts of the article may be disjointed. Have you noticed anything like that, or is the article okay in this regard?

As to the first lady's arms, I'm not sure if I'll be participating in that discussion. On the one hand, it would be uproarious to have such an article, but on the other, I don't think its very encyclopedic. My vacillation will likely translate into my viewing the debate at a distance, too. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's actually some "disjointed" quality that's making some of the thematic sections feel over-long to me. I regret that I am once again only getting a chance to return to Wikipedia after a lengthy day and with minimal left over brain function, but I'd like to take another look. I checked out the To Kill a Mockingbird article and can see what you are going for -- I think, however, that the sections as-is I want to say "repetitive" but I'm not sure that's quite right. Frankly, I don't (personally) think that the TKaM (ooo, acronym) article's reliance on extensive quoting from various literary critics is quite encyclopedic. It's almost -too- exhaustive. This is an encyclopedia, not a lit-crit warehouse.

I mean, this is fascinating stuff:

"Carolyn Jones argues that the dog represents prejudice within the town of Maycomb, and Atticus, who waits on a deserted street to shoot the dog, must fight against the town's racism without help from other white citizens. He is also alone when he faces a group intending to lynch Tom Robinson and once more in the courthouse during Tom's trial. Lee even uses dreamlike imagery from the mad dog incident to describe some of the courtroom scenes. Jones writes, "[t]he real mad dog in Maycomb is the racism that denies the humanity of Tom Robinson.... When Atticus makes his summation to the jury, he literally bares himself to the jury's and the town's anger."
...but is it encyclopedic? I'm not so sure. The themes in TKaM (this is an awful acronym) are notable in and of themselves but they are explored to a depth such that the tone pushes well past that which I, personally, would consider encyclopedic. There are huge sections of that article, such as the above snippet, which read like A- undergraduate English major essays. Maybe even a solid A. But undergraduate English major essays nonetheless.

I apologize if I'm not making sense, here. I am certainly babbling, and clearly not providing helpful links to examples.

That said, the Middlesex article is strong, and I'd like to help more, seeing as I'm a fan of the book. The themes being explored should be explored. They're prominent in the book, and no discussion of the book would be complete without them. And incorporation of literary criticism is vital, but my take is that it needs to be done very carefully. Granted, apparently my take is at odds with the take adopted by an FA article, so what do I know. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the writing of TKaM is unencyclopedic and a number of editors at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/To Kill a Mockingbird agree.

I strongly agree with Awadewit (talk · contribs)'s following comment:

"I would like the defend the inclusion of a "Themes" section. Literary scholars, the experts on literature, discuss themes and symbolism far more than they discuss plot. Leaving out a discussion of these key topics would mean that the article did not discuss the "meat" of the book and did not represent the published work of experts. The article would not be comprehensive. I understand that the above editor wants readers to think for themselves and I would hope that they would still do that after reading this article. However, literary scholars can often offer insight into texts, particularly because they are trained to point out rhetorical elements that readers often miss in the "heat of the reading moment" and because scholars take the time to investigate historical and cultural connections."
And also JayHenry (talk · contribs)'s comment:
"One-third of an article about a work of literature devoted to its themes? That actually seems just about right to me. I'm sorry, Benjamin, but I'm not seeing any sort of reason to exclude scholarship on themes, or really any sort of reason to make it shorter, since it's a substantial portion of the available sources. We read books because of what's inside the covers, plots and themes. There's not a lot of literature that has no real themes, but a *great plot* (sorry, Mr. Grisham). It's absolutely essential information for understanding why people read TKAM. And it's not as if having a summary of how academics think about the themes of TKAM is going to prevent a reader from liking the book for whatever he or she sees in it."
Your comment about the TKaM article being like an undergrad essay could be true, but it could easily be considered a graduate essay too. For example, see this master's thesis by Anika Götje; her lengthy analysis of the literary critics' analysis of Middlesex is comparable to the analysis present in TKaM. (By the way, can this source be used in the article? I am inclined to believe that it cannot.)
Here is an insightful comment by Iridescent (talk · contribs):
"Something I always try to bear in mind and am always telling others is a variation on something Giano once said; on Wikipedia, in the absence of evidence to the contrary always assume that whoever you're dealing with is a reasonably bright 14 year old and write accordingly. In talk/userspace, that means less shouting and swearing unless you're sure the person is of an age not to be offended. On articles, that means work on the assumption that they have a relatively short attention span; are better at processing images than text; won't necessarily be familiar with things most adults would take as basic concepts but are intelligent enough to look up things they don't understand; and are going to be more interested in human-interest stories, personal relationships and "wow-factor" snippets than they will be in technical information." (mine emphasized with bold text)
Maybe that's why the tone of that section can be less formal and more interesting? I don't know.
P.S. My apologies for filling up your page with so many quotes and blocks of text but I just want to let you know why I hold the position that having a lengthy theme section with lots of quotes is acceptable. :)
Cunard (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You know, Awadewitt makes a fine point, and puts it very well. And I have an English degree, so this is hardly something I would unhappily agree with! So color me happily mollified. BTW- didn't mean to unintentionally impugn the content by my "undergraduate" reference -- I could (and probably should) have used "graduate." The word wasn't entirely germane to my point. Regardless, agreed, and no apology is necessary. I tend to err on the side of being wordy, so having someone else dump heaping mounds of interesting text on my talk page only tells me that I'm not the only one given to being rather exhaustive in service of proving a strongly held point. Regardless, I'd like to keep checking in on the article. Feel free to let me know if/when you've added new content and I'll take a look. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for switching positions and for taking my text dumping in good faith. If you didn't agree with Awadewit, I would have had to post several pages more of her insightful comments from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/To Kill a Mockingbird. ;) I'll be sure to let you know when I expand the article and need help with copyediting. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It is pretty easy to get me to switch positions on something when intelligent argument contrary to my position is presented. Maybe even too easy, heh. Anyway, enjoyed reading some of the comments on the FA candidate page, and look forward to helping out more w/ Middlesex as needed. I need to spend some more time in the article space, anyway -- the policy space drives me crazy at times (as you might glean from the fascinating dialogue below). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


  • shrug* I find it curious that you would take sides and assume bad faith on my part. I really do have information against this individual. But I'm too lazy to do anything about it except offer it up to anyone who wants it who is more motivated than me to do something about it. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You find a lot of things "curious," don't you? What are you trying to insinuate now, "hmm?"

I am not "assuming bad faith on your part." I am telling you that you are acting in bad faith. There is no "assumption" involved. Assuming bad faith means that I am making some assumption concerning your motives. No assumption is taking part here, nor are your motives at issue. Your actions, however, are. You came into an AfD and accused an editor in good standing with 26,000 edits of sockpuppeting to stack votes in an AfD, and then you called him a "red link newbie." You did this before any vote-stacking had taken place, and no vote-stacking has thus far taken place. That is acting in bad faith -- you assumed he was going to do something in bad faith. Note the words "assumed" and "bad faith" in that sentence, in case it wasn't clear. My calling it "bad faith" isn't an "assumption," it's an accurate description of your behavior. It's not "assuming bad faith" to call out someone who's plainly acting in bad faith. If I am taking a side, the side I am taking is "assuming bad faith is bad." It's not "JBsupreme is right."

You should take the information that you claim to have somewhere relevant then (you know, "offer it up to anyone who wants it," as you say), rather than stinking up a perfectly fine AfD with your irrelevant accusations. I have no objections to you bringing your accusations to someone. For all I know, they're entirely true. I have no idea, nor do I particularly care. But they are irrelevant to the AfD. Regardless, commendations again on your brilliant "red-link newbie" commentary -- that was hilarious. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You clearly won and I lost. Have a nice evening. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


I just saw this and wanted to thank you for your swift action. ^_____^ You can call me Salvio (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

/* Disturbed is epic! */

This whole exchange is going to keep my chuckling for a while I think. Shadowjams (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. Yeah, I have to say, it's so much better when users shouting stuff on your talk page actually manage to come up with hilarious lines like "and jam is made of fruit not shadows dumbass." Damn. I haven't had a good exchange like that in awhile. I must not be provoking the right "contributors." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

N.I.N.A. again

Talk:N.I.N.A.#Redirect_discussion could use words from you.—Kww(talk) 21:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, not N.I.N.A. again!! :) I responded on the talk page. If I'd gone back to the AfD before it closed (which I mean to -- and unfortunately forgot to), I very likely would have changed my vote to where it is on the talk page. In full support of a redirect, particularly given your expanded argument presented on the talk page. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Edited article, and then relisted at AFD with Silverseren's consent.—Kww(talk) 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I threw my redirect vote up at the AfD just to make my position "official" and listed my reasons, which are in essence the arguments you lay out on the relevant talk page. Also pointed out that with the benefit of hindsight, my vote in the first AfD could/should/would have been to redirect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Google search

Plenty of citations you can use are found here, I added the one, but there are plenty more!

WritersCramp (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! And thank you for the good faith note -- I'll be honest, when I see a new post on my talk page from the creator of an article I've AfD'd, I have a moment of anxiety (something like "oh crap, I'm about to get flamed," hehe). So I appreciate the helpful tone, seriously. And yes, I am aware that the phrase is used very frequently. My issue is pretty simple, and your Google search results back it up (at least to me): the vast majority of usage is in reference to the song of more or less the same name, and beyond that using it to refer to Christian militiae or Christians who have "armed themselves" or similar seems to be at most a tiny minority opinion. Regardless, this is basically why I favor any number of things other than keeping the article as-is. Redirecting to the song seems the most valid approach, with disambiguation as a second or third preferred option. The sheer number of proposed alternative solutions in the AfD is of concern, because they are mostly all valid topics for a given article but no single one of them represents what a "Christian soldier" is -- because there is no single definition of the term! I think this is more or less the argument being advanced by the disambiguation fans on the AfD, and it makes logical sense, although I have POV-ish concerns with moving in that direction.

Either way, certainly an interesting discussion thus far, I hope you agree! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I read this before I checked in on the AfD and noticed that you are accusing me of vandalism. I guess I can safely redact the bit about good faith. Check out my latest edits and tell me more about how I'm removing content in order to support my delete tag, and then please read up on WP:AGF, because you could clearly use a refresher. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Middlesex (novel)

Hi, I've done some more expanding of Middlesex (novel) and have listed it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive1. Any suggestions or copyediting would be welcome. :) Cunard (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll check it out! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, a quick review of your changes since my last bit of effort doesn't reveal anything awry, to my eyes. It looks fine. I'll be interested to see what, if anything, our peers have to say or add. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Would you mind taking another look at the article (but this time just at the lead)? I've just expanded the lead and am sure that it needs a lot of work. By the way, I based Middlesex's lead on that of To Kill a Mockingbird. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I enjoy stalking your contributions. You better watch out! Cunard (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding point 1, happy to. That will be my final action before I go to sleep. Regarding point 2, what a zinger you just pulled there. *applause* ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Made a few quick edits. The first sentence of the second paragraph is still bothering me for some reason. Your initial wording felt a bit clumsy, but now I worry that my wording suggests that thematic explorations of "nature vs nurture" and "rebirth" flow naturally from the story being a bildungsroman and family saga, which isn't quite the case. Hmph. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedits. Well, I based the first sentence of the second paragraph on this sentence from TKaM: "As a Southern Gothic novel and a Bildungsroman, the primary themes of To Kill a Mockingbird involve racial injustice and the destruction of innocence." I'll think about breaking the two parts of the sentence up, though, as I agree that this doesn't flow. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw the TKaM bit. I don't actually love the TKaM sentence for the same reason, to be honest, but I'm completely nitpicking. You know, "As a somewhat chubby person, Ginsengbomb was interested in cutting back on eating bacon" works better than "As a somewhat chubby person, Ginsengbomb loved music," even though I do love music and will never give up bacon. The TKaM bit works a little better than combining the phrases in Middlesex...destruction of innocence flows pretty well from bildungsroman, and one could argue that racial injustice flows from Southern Gothic. Either way, I know you already get my drift on this so I don't know why I'm blathering on. I should have stopped with the cheeky bacon bit. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Your blathering amuses me and is very educational, so I don't mind if you keep blathering blathering blathery. ;) What do you think about this change I made to the article? Cunard (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Is good! They're split properly/effectively. Seems fine.

And holy SHIT another person who knows the verb form of "effect"! This reminds me of an amusing post on my talk page from eons ago. And now I'm signing off, for serious this time. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I enjoy when people like (talk · contribs) lecture about what they know not. I think it would be close to impossible effect changes in such people's ignorance about the differences between "affected" and effected". My favorite grammar mistake is "The reason why" and even worse "The reason why is because". Some other favorites are listed at this Reader's Digest article. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-read the whole article again. Very sincerely not intended as mere flattery: this really is excellent work. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the kind words! Cunard (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about my restructuring of the "Reception, nomination, awards" section"? I also chopped out much of the plot since it was too long. Would you see if took any important parts out that belong in the plot summary? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary re-work is very well-handled. I rephrased and reworded a couple of things but I think you've cut the fat out of what was a long and unwieldy section (but one that was difficult for me to find cuts in!). The restructuring is a great idea, too. I want to look at it a bit more, but it's a good idea and serves to make the critic/scholarly notes feel less like a dump of alternating praise and criticism (however interesting) and more like useful information. I dig it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and the copyediting. Good as always. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I need some help with this paragraph I just added to the "Nature vs. nurture" section. I am befuddled as to when to use "he" and when to use "she". The specific sentence to which I am referring is, "Cal's embracement of the male identity inherent in him and renouncement of the female gender identity nurtured in her is articulated by Cal when he reflects..." A mouthful, isn't it? Are my uses of "he" and "she" all right? Cunard (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah! An interesting quandary. I believe the standard is to refer to the person by the gender pronoun reflective of what gender the individual has finally decided upon -- in this case, it'd be "he/him/his" throughout. However, I'm not 100% certain of this. I agree that switching gender pronouns from sentence to sentence and even mid-sentence is a bit confusing! I wonder if the relevant wikiproject might have further insight. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this supports my thinking on this. What do you think? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change to all male pronouns, given my findings above. Feel free to change back if you believe this to be incorrect or find more authoritative sourcing for the alternative pronoun usage. Frankly, I got bored of waiting for you to reply, you lazy good-for-nothing deadbeat, so hopping over to Middlesex to make some fun edits was a welcome respite from AfD controversy hell :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Reads much better. I will have to leave your defacement of the article there because I can find no other resolution to this predicament. What I find amusing is your talking to yourself for two days. ;) Well, now I have to address the second set of concerns raised at the peer review. It's going to be agonizing to cut out the short paragraphs in the theme section; I'll try to expand them. Cunard (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have the gift of gab, and it gets me into all sorts of "oh, were you talking to yourself?" predicaments. I'll take a look at the additional PR concerns as well. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I need much help with the "wordiness and repetition" that María pointed out. It seems that both of us lack succinctness. ;) Cunard (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey- Yeah, despite that being absolutely not a strength of mine (certainly not when I write!), I do intend to still take a look at this. Was out of town for Easter, just got back. I'll take a gander tonight or tomorrow. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hope you had a fun Easter. Thanks for re-reading the article again and again to search for and correct my errors. Cunard (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir- I just made some additional copyedits to the opening sections, per the direction to get it to a less wordy and more succinct place. I hope they are to your liking. I removed at least one whole sentence (a reference to Eugenides meeting his wife at an art colony) which seemed more or less irrelevant. Beyond that, most of my edits are purely copy in nature, things like replacing "conflagration" with "fire," etc. Let me know what you think. I can continue in this vein if you wish. Taking a few days off from looking at this is making it a helluva lot easier to slice tons of words out! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I also axed an element of repetition, wherein the opening paragraph detailed several thematic elements which were subsequently listed with near-identical phrasing later on in the article (the bit about it paralleling current events, prohibition, civil rights, et al). That was the other significant change. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know you had succinctness in you. From what I have seen, you would have made the article 10X longer. ;) But seriously though, nice work! I like your changes but am saddened by your removal of Eugenides's meeting with his wife. :( I found that bit recently and thought it was so sweet, a nice bit of trivia that would warm the hearts of all who read it. I agree with you though that it is irrelevant to that paragraph and actually knew that it didn't belong there when I added it earlier in the week. Is there a better place to include that piece of information, or should we just leave it out?

Other than that little issue, I fully support your axing of the article. *ouch* Please continue in this vein and axe out anything else that is irrelevant even though it will be like shards of glass slicing through my heart. ;) Cunard (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I asked SMasters (talk · contribs) to do a copyedit on the article, since he is very familiar with WP:MOS and hasn't read the article before. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that story is pretty cute, frankly, and Wikipedia doesn't have to be an icy land of no feelings, so let's make sure to find a spot for that bit of trivia. Maybe even restoring it to its original place. I'm going to hold off on doing any more of this type of work on the article until I see what SMasters does -- interested to check out his approach. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
SMasters has done a nice job with the MoS aspect of the article. And he also caught a couple errors that we missed!

Would this piece of trivia be more suitable in Middlesex (novel)#Autobiographical elements after the sentence: "While Cal has a romantic relationship with Julie Kikuchi, a Japanese-American woman, Eugenides married Karen Yamauchi, a Japanese-American artist."? Cunard (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've put the article for GA, by the way. Cunard (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
'ello! And yes, so you have. Interested to see the outcome. I would argue it's deserving, of course. I suppose that bit of trivia is more well-suited to the autobiographical elements, given its arguable reflection in the book, and assuming it's not a connection you yourself are drawing, if you get me. (I see that it's cited!)

Sorry about slow response -- have been away from the Wiki for the past week or so. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Middlesex (novel)/GA1. So many concerns to deal with but I think I got them all.

Trivia restored. I thought you were going to continue chopping up MY article? What happened; did you forget? Gingsengbomb, I am extremely disappointed in you for being an indolent good-for-nothing. You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a lazy loafer. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't see that you'd gotten the review back. Damn, I would have enjoyed helping with that.

I stopped chopping because you went with another chop expert, you unfaithful bastard. Well, that or I've taken a small mental vacation from Wikipedia, punctuated only by my inability to avoid having opinions in inevitably controversial AfD debates. Do you think it'd be worthwhile for me to take another jaunt through Middlesex for copyedit purposes? Wait, this is Wikipedia, I don't have to ask your opinion on this. But... I'm asking anyway. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, I got the review on 05:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC) and finished the preliminary round of corrections at 09:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC). You didn't have a chance in beating me to correct the mistakes of my article. But if you'd like to fret about your lack of support, I most certainly wouldn't mind. ;)

Hmm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination) seems like a fun debate. Too bad I'm occupied with this.

Would it be worthwhile for you to continue copyediting Middlesex? Yes! Yes! YES! María mentioned at the peer review that the sentence structure is very "samey" and watch out for the wordiness and unnecessary repetition throughout. Your chopping of the article on April 7 was perfect, though heart-wrenching for me. I urge you to continue on with your good work. I sought copyediting from SMasters (talk · contribs) in the hopes that he would choppity-chop the article, but he has only succeeded in fixing grammatical errors, MOS issues, overlinking/underlinkg, etc. Since he's not the long lost chopmaster I search for, I can only hope that you are the one. The chosen one. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, flattery will get you everywhere. I made two edits last night before sleep overcame me. I'm not 100% certain I like one of them, wherein I removed the examples of autobiographical elements in the opening paragraph. My thinking is/was that these examples are elucidated elsewhere, and that merely mentioning that the book is arguably autobiographical in nature is more appropriate for the very first few sentences. That said, what I left behind seems clunky. I won't cry if you revert my change.

An anon also appears to have made a good change, affecting the usage of the word "normal" later on in the article, although I'm not sure the language left behind is quite right. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Good chopping; the sentence you removed contained too much extra detail for the lead. I expanded the sentence before the one you chopped to parallel the corresponding sentence in To Kill a Mockingbird, so I think it's less clunky. I really love TKaM; what would I do without it?

I rephrased the IP's change to emphasize the "opposites" theme so that part should be all right.

Keep up the chopping! I'm enjoying it. Cunard (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it passed GA! Cunard (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Sincere congrats! It's clearly worthy. *applause* ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! The big question is: is this ready for FAC? I'm not 100% sure, so I've asked Brianboulton (talk · contribs) to take a look at it. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And AfD?

Thanks again for your help earlier today. I was checking out random articles to see what I could fix, and I found CrossCribb. I'm not sure what counts as notable, but I definitely know this has no sources. Can you help me know what I should do when I come across articles like this? Katiedert (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again! Was my pleasure.

First things first: to my eyes, that's a straight up AfD candidate. Regarding notability, the relevant guidelines can be found here. They are both simple and complex. Basically put, an article topic has to be notable in order to appear in the encyclopedia.

Now, what to do. If I stumbled upon this article and noted its problematic lack of sourcing, I'd start by checking the history of the article. In this article's case, the history is telling: in 4 years, it's been on the receiving end of an extremely minimal amount of activity, most of which is by anonymous editors or the original author, and some other editors helpfully doing maintenance-type edit work. After that, noting the lack of sources, I'd try to find some. Google, Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books are all good places to look, of course. Having done that, you'll note that CrossCrib apparently has a total lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. As such, to my eyes, it plainly fails the notability guidelines. So, next step is beginning the deletion process. In this case, it's not a candidate for speedy deletion, and the fact that the product is an actual product means that it's probably not so uncontroversial as to be a proposed deletion candidate. I'd take it to Articles for Deletion.

The instructions for bringing an article to AFD are here. I use an automated tool called Twinkle to start AfD's (because it's a bit arduous to do it manually), but it's wise to do it manually the first few times so you get a sense for what each step does. Do you want to take a shot? Nobody's going to get pissy if you screw anything up (or at least they shouldn't, hehe). If not, I am happy to do it for you -- with Twinkle it only takes a few seconds!

So, uhm, yeah, that's a ton of words, and I actually edited that down a bit. Basically, when you see an article like this: 1) Check the history, 2) Try to improve it by finding sources, 3) If you can't find any sources that establish the article's notability, consider one of the three deletion options. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I love a thorough response. I'm busy this week, but I'll try to go through the AfD process sometime next week. I'll keep you updated! Thanks :). Katiedert (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello Ginsengbomb. This could be interesting for you. Cheers. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. That's pretty shocking. Regardless, don't really have anything to directly contribute to the talk discussion there so I just went over to the AfD and listed the same vote and grounds I did last time around. Thanks again. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your question...

Your cogent question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Fantini caused me to do some research and insired an essay. I invite you to visit User:MichaelQSchmidt/The GNG and notability for actors and share your thoughts. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to reading it. I know you to be an extremely capable/policy-knowledgeable editor, even if not someone I agree with 100% of the time, so I hope you took my question for what it was -- sincere, and not snarky! The various ins and outs of notability fascinate me. I'll read your essay and will share any thoughts I have, and look forward to possibly learning a little. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and no... I've never felt you to be snarky, and hope I do not come off that way myself. I appreciate that discussion with you keeps me on my toes and encourages me to think more fully on my comments. You may also wish to as well peruse some discussion already on the essay's talk page. Best --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate the kind words, and they are certainly reciprocated. I read the discussion on there, re-read the essay a few times, and posted my own admittedly rambling thoughts. Hope they are at least interesting, if not particularly useful. This kind of thinking does tend to give me pause at AfD's like Mr. Fantini's, although I'm not sure in this case it completely changes my mind. Anyway. Good stuff, sir. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Saw something above and went for a look.....

You observation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochlophobia (2nd nomination) was quite on-point. Numerous delete opinions calling the topic a non-existent phobia, and/or then debating on how and what the article "should" state, and/or where it should be redirected, are woefully unsupportable personal opinion. Yikes. In reading through the discussion, I went on a search for sources myself and found the topic to be well-covered in reliable sources as far back as 1930... easily meeting the GNG. When an editor responded to my well-reasoned keep by stating the phobia is fake and implying that the artcle was copyvio, his disdain only acted to encourage me to trot out some of the results of my search. diff I sure hope the closer makes note that many of the delete comments are unfounded opinion and not supported by guideline... and that they do indeed have an air of IDONTLIKEIT. --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah- it's not every day that I vote "keep" by directly quoting the AfD nominator. Bit of a strange conversation, that one, and I'm glad you chimed in -- and yikes, what a fantastic bit of chiming in, at that. I'll be curious to see where that conversation goes and, of course, how it turns out! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have rarely seen a nomination made so strongly of IDONTLIKEIT and overt hostility toward an article's author. Yikes. --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


I have replied to both yourself and Ginsengbomb on my talk page. Thank you. Decora (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


There's no need to apologise - that comment wasn't really aimed at you, and I fully appreciate how frustrating working on this issue is. I suppose ANI will get filled with these sorts of comments now. Hut 8.5 21:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. Felt I got a bit carried away there, is all. I am confident this will all be resolved fairly soon, although clearly not to everyone's satisfaction. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the fear you noted that you experienced at the ANI thread. I started this entire mess and did not know how far the SPAs would go. Luckily for me, I've been busy for the past few days so I did not experience the nastiness surrounding the end of the AfD, the DRV, and the harassment.

I am absolutely ashamed of myself for not working on Middlesex (novel) during my hiatus. The FA star must wait; I have much work to do with the long list of sources from MLA. I now sincerely (or insincerely?) order you to have a nice day. Cunard (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't exactly followed through on any of my recent promises with regard to Middlesex, either. My excuse is that I have been in a rather foul mood of late, thanks to an unwelcome temporary relocation to a city I despise, and when in foul mood I am far more inclined to contribute to debates rather than to the actual generation of useful information. Either way, you have certainly outdone my own greatest "achievement" in nasty-AfD creation, and are to be commended for this. Mine even had the audacity to end rather nicely, whereas yours ends with at least one person recommending that an admin contact the police to protect his creditworthiness and/or personal safety. Four stars! (For what it's worth, I'm over my strange Wiki/RL crossover anxiety -- I mentioned my fears to my wife, who promptly recommended I check my scalp for a tinfoil hat) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dorothy of Oz

Interpretation of application of GNG vs SNG aside, many delete comments in the AFD deal with whether or not principle filming has commenced. Its easy enough to figure the begining for a live action film... the cameras roll, the actors act, and filming begins. But as this is an animation, it is not so obvious. In that actual animation and character design has commenced (as shown by release of images as provided in the proferred sources), it might then reasonably be concluded that for an animation, this IS the "beginning" of filming... as it specifically involves particpation of director, artists, and animators. And at this point in the artistic development of characters and the creation of animation in animated film and getting the images onto film, it is not pre-production... it IS production... with voicework by the various voice actors being among the final steps of production. I've posted the question to a few editors over at WikipProject Animation, asking at just what point "filming" is considered to begin for animation projects. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy of Oz (film)

My own thought, expanded at the AFD, is that by coverage meeting WP:GNG it passes the specific allowance for "other notability guidelines" as instructed at WP:NFF, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The allowance is expressly for films that have been confirmed to have commenced principal photography ("films that have already begun shooting"). This film hasn't. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes... I had thought so myself... but as I have recently learned, failing the SNGs NF or NFF does not overrule the opening instructions at WP:N and the instructions at WP:GNG... and believe me, such new understanding will affect many of my current and future arguments at AFDs. It is coverage in reliable sources for ANY topic that can show notability. Please feel free to join the dicussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#inre: The General notablity guide. It was an eye-opener for me. There is a brief, though related discussion at User talk:Thumperward#inre Wikipedia talk:Notability#inre: The General notablity guide Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I took a quick read through, and will take a closer look later. As in previous cases, I agree with you from a technical standpoint but from a practical standpoint I do not agree. SNGs are intended to refine and give context to GNG. Certainly, GNG technically is the parent of any given SNG and has to take priority, but using that argument to throw out any SNG just because there is evidence of notability is not something that I agree with, nor will a discussion at Talk:Notability change my mind on that. There is a pretty clear consensus that SNGs are useful, and if they can easily be dismantled and/or blatantly contradicted, then why should we have them? Your arguments at the "Oz" AFDs are a polar contradiction of the WP:NFF guideline.

There are strong, logical reasons to have WP:NFF, and some form of consensus is behind those reasons. I cannot agree with someone simply disregarding one guideline in deference to another guideline, nor can I agree with applying the general instead of the specific, in basically any context.

All this to say, you have a strong technical foundation for this argument but I don't agree with the manner in which you apply it (and, of course, no offense is intended with this -- simply stating my opinion!). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, and as below... all the SNGs encourage a presumption toward sources (IE: If meeting a presumption of an SNG, then sources may likely exist) so as to encourage a diligent search for such... but failing sources fails the SNG. (IE: If no sources are found, then the topic fails the presumption and fails the SNG) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, the discussion at that Talk page doesn't necessarily convince me that SNGs don't overrule GNG, at least in the way in which it's being applied at, for example, the "Oz" AFDs. I suppose it's reflective of how one reads these things, though. You read it and see "Just because something fails a SNG, if it still passes GNG it's fine," I read it and see "If something doesn't pass GNG, passing a SNG won't save it." Would you say that's a fair representation of the different ways in which that discussion can be read? Either way: interesting. Perhaps a bit dangerous, too :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been enlightend in that the SNGs are set to encourage we editors in a presumption toward sources being available, and allowing an article to remain and be improved if those sources exist. But if the sources do not exist, the SNG presumption is failed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
(BTW, I put a version of this question to the Notability talk board...which is probably the last Talk page I want to be engaging myself with while at work, seeing as this type of theoretical and nuanced argument is very addictive to me!) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
But remember that "one ring to rule them all"... "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT"... and everything else follows "A topic can also be considered notable if...", where "can also" does not mean "non-notable if failing", else it would have said so. Good talking with you... but don't get in trouble at work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
What a great discussion you joined, and some terrific questions. Might the article in question be perhaps wothe considering for WP:INCUBATION? I would not be adverse to such. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Revised my vote to make clear that I'm fine with any number of outright deletion alternatives.

Additionally, I note the following quote from that discussion: "It should always be the case that if a work passes the GNG, it should be included unless specifically excluded by criteria in an SNG". That's basically my position on this. NFF specifically excludes all of these films, except possibly the animated film. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (2011 film)

Per the discussions there, might you consier modifying your delete to either redirect as has been suggested or perhaps even consider incubation? I would feel more confident in my removing the keep from my comments if it is more apparent to a closer that there is consideration for redirect or incubation. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I'm intentionally trying to avoid Wikipedia until this evening so I don't end up slacking too much at work (insofar as due to my involvement in yet another interesting AfD, Wikipedia currently represents an all-too-attractive time-suck). I am completely fine with a redirect and completely fine with incubation -- I am nearly certain that this topic will be beyond-any-doubt notable at some point in the future. I'll make that clear in the AfD now and try and ignore the rest of the conversation until this evening ;). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
....and I've failed at avoidance :P. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr Kim AfD

I have replied to your recent comment in the AfD, but I must say that I found the insinuations that you made in it, implying that I was being disingenuous, rather insulting and improper. I might have expected something like that from a newbie, but not from an experienced user.Nsk92 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, but I am not sorry for my comments -- particularly now that you've wrongfully accused an IP editor of sockpuppetry in an AfD. Having participated in well over 100 AfD's, I have never seen an AfD require "a few dozen" newspaper articles in order for newspapers to confer notability, and I stand by that. I was not implying that you were lying. I was openly stating that I disagree with you. I am sorry you inferred something that wasn't there, but I do not apologize for my words. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I also took the luxury of scanning your talk page just now (I'm not accustomed to getting accused of bad conduct like this), and I see you propagating the same "double digits" standard to People Bios there as well. I would advise that you at least make clear to new editors that this is a personal standard of yours when you communicate it to them, and not accepted Wikipedia policy or guideline. Requiring newspaper sources to number in the "double digits" -- or to have a number greater than another type of source -- is in no way codified Wiki policy or guidelineanywhere. You are perfectly allowed -- encouraged, even, in my opinion -- to exercise your own standards, but acting as if this is somehow rock solid, inevitable Wikipedia standard practice is something I would consider slightly disingenuous. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Really? Thank you for your kind and sage advice, interspersed with calling me disingenuous, while denying calling me disingenuous, but I have no intention of following it. I have been here long enough and participated in sufficiently many AfDs to know what I am talking about in relation to WP:BIO standards. Nsk92 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It's clear nothing good will come of continuing this conversation. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My insincere order

User:Slacker, I sincerely hope you followed my insincere order. Did you? Your attention is now directed to here. Have a nice day! Cunard (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim

i think i am getting the hang of this...

ok i have this so far please can someone help with this??? there is an article that says dr kim is the ptosis expert it is from the korea daily news which is the biggest korean american newspaper in the nation it is saying that dr kim is the ptosis expert it is (in translation) chuh jin noon soo sool moo lyoh sahng dab bahd eu sae yoh" which means get free consultation on whether or not you need eye surgery the article is on his ptosis correction (which is the eyelid surgery) he's been really helping out a bunch of people in our community by operating either for really cheap or for free i'm trying to get the article on the other two articles but my parents wont pick up once i get them can someone please please please help put them up or cite them i dont know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you so much ginsengbomb im sorry im just really upset my friends started this to help me out because my brother just went to jail because he's been trying to live the thug life like he sees in stupid movies and i kept thinking if he had more positive role models he wouldn't have done the things he did but maybe i dont know i just hate that there are so few and the ones that are here arent even that GREAT they just do silly things like harold and kumar...not that i want to disrespect but i mean come on now.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

hi ginsengbomb sorry if i am not doing this correctly but i just wanted to say thank you thank you thank you so much i wasnt able to get a hold of my parents yet i am still waiting for them to call me back (i think they are busy and its mainly my mom cuz shes the one that knows more about this sort of thing since she has a friend that works with the newspaper which is actually my friends parents...sorry this is a bit of a tangent...but anyways) so i found this one article i kept on him that i scanned but i dont know what else to do with it should i upload it? but i dont know where or how this wikipedia is REALLY confusing i am really surprised how complicated this is and i love my friends more for even figuring this out because they saw how upset i was about my brother... i am really sorry too for being so emotional but its been really hard i cant help it....

hi ginsengbomb sorry i also found a list of his publications my dad just sent them to me he got them from some rotary club meeting that dr kim presented at it also has specific dates/years for his school and stuff could you please add these too? i really really cant tell you how much this means to me i feel sooooooooo grateful this means so so so so much to me...

(sorry about the weird formatting my dad got it off some cd he got at the rotary club meeting

dr kim info

Video Editor for Elsevier Medical Publishing, Amsterdam, Netherlands Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery Manuscript editors: Elizabeth Hall-Findlay, MD; Gregory R.D. Evans, MD In press


Kim P, Kim KK, Casas L Superior Pedicle Autoaugmentation Mastopexy: A Review of 34 Consecutive Patients Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2010 Apr; 30 (2): 201-210

Kim KK, Zhao L, Belafsky P, Patel PK, Strong EB. Technical note: "look-ahead" navigation method for K-wire fixation in rhinoplasty. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Feb;105(2):168-72.

Kim KK, Mueller R, Huang F, Strong EB. Endoscopic repair of anterior table: frontal sinus fractures with a Medpor implant. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Apr;136(4):568-72.

Kim KK, Ji C, Chang W, Wells RG, Gundberg CM, McCarthy TL, Centrella M. Repetitive exposure to TGF-beta suppresses TGF-beta type I receptor expression by differentiated osteoblasts. Gene. 2006 Sep 1;379:175-84.

Strong EB, Kim KK. Diez RC. Endoscopic Approach to Orbital Blowout Fracture Repair. Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery. 2004;131:683-95.

McCarthy, T.L., C. Ji, Y. Chen, K. Kim, M. Centrella. Time- and dose-related interactions between glucocorticoid and cAMP on C/EBP-dependent IGF-I statement by osteoblasts. Endocrinology 2000;141:127-137

McCarthy, T.L., C. Ji, Y. Chen, K. Kim, M. Imagawa, Y. Ito, M. Centrella. Runt domain factor Runx-dependent effects on C/EBPd statement and activity in osteoblasts. J. Biol. Chem. 2000; 275:21746-21753

Chang, D.L., C. Ji, K.K. Kim, S. Casinghino, T.L. McCarthy, M. Centrella. Reduction in CBFa1 and TGF ß receptor 1 on bone cells by glucocorticoid. J.Biol.Chem. 1998; 273:4892-4896

Chen Y., H. Shu, C. Ji, S. Casinghino, K. Kim, C. Gundberg, M. Centrella, T.L. McCarthy. Insulin-like growth factor binding proteins localize to discrete cell culture compartments in periosteal and osteoblast cultures from fetal rat calvariae. J. Cell. Biochem. 1998; 71:351-362

Kim, K., McCarthy TL, Centrella M. “Autologous Regulation of the TGF-β Type I Receptor on Osteoblasts” 1998. (Abstract) Howard Hughes Medical Institute Scientific Publication

Kim KK, Lear ST, Erickson SK. “Expression of LDL Receptors Along the Small Intestine and its Regulation due to Various Cholesterol Levels” 1992. (Abstract) American Heart Association Publication


AO North America Table Instructor Advances In Minimally Invasive Techniques Course 2004 Facial and orbital reconstruction


1999-2006 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Residency Northwestern University Chicago, IL Chief Resident 2005-2006

2003 Facial Trauma and Reconstruction Fellowship University of California, Davis Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Sacramento, CA

2002-2003 AO Craniomaxillofacial Research and Development Fellowship at AO Institute Davos, Switzerland

1997-1998 Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research Fellowship


1994-1999 Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT M.D.

1990-1994 University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA B.A., - Molecular and Cell Biology