User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Twinkle delema

Hi, did you figure out what went wrong with your twinkle? Like you, mine just up and stopped working. I can't figure out what happened. I'm not sure if it was a Weirdos XP update or not that killed it, but I get the same can't grab editform error. I gave up on policing the world, but it is nice to have when I need to revert something on my own watch list. I'm still puzzled.. --DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 14:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but it's still not working for me. I try it every so often in case something has changed. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm still trying to find out what the deal is. It's been a while so maybe it's time to do a wipe and reload. --DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tried that. I took everything out but Twinkle and reloaded, and it didn't help. I've installed it with Firefoxman's alterations, which helps me a little. It allows me to rollback changes, but won't let me leave warnings. I could just uninstall it altogether, but at least the pulldown warning menu reminds me ofthe templates to use. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I resolved it. I had disabled the Zone Alarm Agent from startup, thinking that was the root of all evil. But as it turns out it is only the little icon in the system tray (clock box). Meanwhile, ZA was still running in the background, hence the "can't grab editform" errors. I had to actually shut down Zone Alarm from the programs control panel itself. Once I did that, Twinkle worked. Pop-up windows and all.. --DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So it is ZoneAlarm. Hmm. Work unprotected or use Twinkle? :O --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, I'm not sure how it works with Windows Firewall. But also if you run a router most routers do have a firewall. Not bullet proof mind you, but they do block most unsolicited connect attempts. So you're not totally naked.. lol But of course I'd recommend you turn it back on again after you get your RC Patrol fix. --DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 03:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. :) Thanks for letting me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your informative answer, it gave me a lead to better figure out how this works, and as a result I learned a lot. Also, thanks for the formatting help on my talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I glanced back to see if you had needed further information and noticed that the TOC had been messed up by an earlier commenter. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

John Bardeen

Hello Moonriddengirl. How are you? I hope you are doing well. Can you please look at the biography of John Bardeen and check grammar and spelling? You can do it when you have time. And, please reply about it on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

R & I

Please you could restore the reference section of Race and intelligence which at the moment is a dead wikilink. This seems to be an uncontroversial change, although User:Kevin Murray thinks it requires consensus. However, it seems unreasonable to expect editors to discuss this article with all the orginal source wikilinks dead. Thank you in advance. Mathsci (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that's not really my decision. I see that the section was merged into the article following AfD and later removed as unneeded. If you'd like me to userfy the list for you so that you can use it in your discussion, I can do that. Just let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re. Page reversion

I'm off doing some harmless CSDing, and little do I know.... Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know how that goes, happens all the time. I suspect that the vandal that hit your page is this guy. Again just a suspicion though. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Wonder how this person noticed me? I'm usually dealing with others. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha, again I know how that, goes. Those two in particular really don't like me. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm waiting! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

you missed a bit :P KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fish Karma

An article that you have been involved in editing (in looking at Speedy nomination), Fish Karma, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Karma. Thank you. Springnuts (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. :) I'll take a look at it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the article is now sourced to the extent that I am happy to withdraw the nomination - are you able to close off the AfD please? Regards, Springnuts (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I participated, it's a bit irregular, but there are no !votes to delete, and your request makes me feel comfortable that doing so is for the best. :). Hopefully, others will agree. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Isode Limited

Hello there!

In response to your concerns with regards to the Isode Limited entry (thanks for editing btw) I've added an additional section to the entry which I hope will satisfy the questions you have about notability. Could you take a look? Thanks. Wsheward (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The notability guidelines on corporations are a little strange. As it currently stands, the rule of thumb here is noting whether the company has received significant or widespread coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the company (excluding company PR releases and information solely available on the company website—these sources may be used for additional information after notability has been established by secondary sources). The best way that you can demonstrate the notability of Isode Ltd. is to incorporate references from newspapers, journals or respected industry organizations demonstrating that other reputable sources regard the company as of encyclopedic interest. These can be frustratingly difficult to locate. I've spent a bit of time trying to find something myself through google, but have so far only found press releases, which are explicitly excluded by the guideline. Has ISODE won any industry awards for which independent reference might be found? Has it been written up in any print journals that could be cited? These kinds of things can be invaluable in establishing an article of this type. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that the IETF qualifies as a reliable source? It's an international standards setting body that has defined most of the protocols that we are now using to communicate. Incidentally I would have thought that Isode's participation in defining and refining the LDAP protocol alone would qualify it for inclusion as, in all likelihood, every time you or I sign on to virtually any noteworthy service on the internet or swipe a card to gain access to a building or resource, our details are authenticated against an LDAP directory. Wsheward (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already removed the notability tag, for the record, since we're discussing this; however, these kinds of articles are frequently scrutinized carefully. If Isode's claim to fame is the widespread use of a protocol it helped define and refine, you should set that out in the article's lead. (The article's lead is meant to be an overview of the article and should in itself explain why the company is important.) Also, while you don't need to retread the ground of every Wikipedia article, you should put enough context in on LDAP to make it evident to laymen why it's of encyclopedic importance. As far as the reliability of IETF, it's used solely to reference this statement: "Steve Kille, together with Tim Howes of the University of Michigan and Wengyik Yeong of Performance Systems International, authored the original LDAP[5] protocol." That's good, though it doesn't constitute "significant or widespread coverage". Nevertheless, it may be sufficient, if LDAP is as important as all that (not my field), but that should be asserted within the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to labour the point here (who am I kidding, I'm enjoying this!) but I've added an entire section on Isode's relationship with the IETF and the RFCs that its employees have authored. I could add them as references as well as links but to me, adding the extra 39 references seems like an unnecessary duplication.Wsheward (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I must have been unclear in my last note. :) My last point is that more referencing may not be necessary, given the significance of the development you assert, but the lead section needs to explain why the company is notable. I do not have the background to write such an assertion, or I would do it for you. Whipping out my college essay skills (useful in pretending knowledge of things one doesn't know), I might tack to the end of your existing lead, "Isode and its employees have contributed significantly not only to defining and refining the LDAP protocol, a directory that does something really big that Moonriddengirl doesn't quite follow, but also to the creation of over three dozen Internet standards (RFCs)." If I had even a remote guess as to what an RFC does or why it matters, I'd put that in there. :) The lead should assert notability, hopefully in a way that works for a lay audience, or somebody else will come along and tag it for {{cleanup-jargon}}. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Righty ho! I've added a bit to the lead section. I think rather than try to explain in the lead section to Isode why RFCs and Internet Standards are important, I'll have a go later on at trying to add a little more 'plain English' to the entries on RFCs and Internet Standards. Wsheward (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Moonriddengirl. Thank you for checking grammar and spelling. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the speedy deletion tag from the biography of Jonathan Gruber. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I spend quite a lot of my wiki time evaluating CSDs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi there! Thanks very much for your support on my recent RfA, which was successful. I appreciate your comments and participation, and intend to use the tools carefully and for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Thanks again! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Would you Like to adopt me?

Because I would Very Much like it if you adopted me...

We seem to have simular intrests and i believe that i could learn alot from you...

xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristineinyourface (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Kristineinyourface. Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm currently talking with another editor about potential for adoption, so I'm not sure until that resolves if I'm available to adopt anyone else. Hopefully one of the other editors you approached about this will be unencumbered. :) Meanwhile, I find your username interesting. How did you arrive by it? What do you plan to do on Wikipedia? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete an article I wrote?

My friend made a website named Maczimum. I recieved lots of questions and emails asking me what it was, hence I wrote an article on Wikipedia about it. I did this, not to advertise the site, but to enlighten people to what Maczimum was. Please reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.18.33 (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted as being an article about a website, blog, forum, or other web content that did not indicate the importance or significance of that web location. Wikipedia's editors have formed a consensus that certain kinds of articles must at a minimum indicate why their subjects are of encyclopedic importance. What makes a website of encyclopedic importance is set out at the notability guidelines for websites. For websites, there are three criteria, meeting any one of which is sufficient:

1. The website has received major coverage in multiple published works not related to it (such as newspapers, magazine articles, books or even respected industry websites. This does not include press releases or trivial coverage).
2. The website has won a well-known, independent award from a publication or organization.
3. The content is distributed through a respected and independent medium, like a major online newspaper or magazine or broadcaster, EXCEPT on entertainment-like sites, such as GeoCities or personal blogs.

If the website meets the criteria, or any of them, an article about it can be created. It will need to verify its claims with proper sourcing to avoid being challenged by other steps in the deletion process.

I hope that I've answered your question. If I've been unclear on any point, I'd be happy to explain further. Please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 44 support, 4 oppose, and 3 neutral. I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools (and don't worry, I'll be careful).

  jj137 ^♠ 01:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. :) Enjoy admin school, and I hope you're not as nervous starting off as I was. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Thank you for your kind wishes, and I hope that your weekend and holiday is filled with love, friendship, family, and good food. Travel safely, my dear Moonriddengirl! Ariel♥Gold

Ariel♥Gold 03:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: My Editor Review

Hi! I just got back from an extended WikiBreak (tough semester), so I completely missed my editor review going by on my Watchlist. I'm back, and I checked it; I'd like to thank you for your comments! You're very kind, and I'm encouraged to continue working each day to exceed the standard I set for myself the day before. I've taken your advice in hand, and I expect it to increase the quality of my editing still further.

I know it's been a few months, so I don't blame you if you don't remember. But I thank you anyway! Hope you had a great holiday and a fine vacation. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 18:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Djsamfares (talk · contribs)

Hello again, I have found myself in a rather difficult situation with this user. While I was new page patrolling I noticed he/she created the page Worteh Sampson. As standard practise I marked it as unreferenced; but he/she just keeps removing the tag without addressing its concerns without comment. I tried using another tag to see if the tag choice was an issue, but he/she removed the tag again almost immediately! I have warned the user up to a final warning, but he/she is clearly ignoring these warnings. I have stopped editing the article as I am not edit warring over it, and this user clearly is not accidentally removing it as I first thought. My admin coach is on holiday and I need a third opinion from an administrator, what do you suggest I do now? I am a little hesitant to go to WP:AIV, as this is not simple vandalism, and per advice given I would rather receive a third opinion before going to WP:ANI. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'd suggest you wait and see what happens next. I've tagged it and put it on my watchlist as well, with a friendly note to the editor. I agree with you that s/he didn't remove the tag accidentally, but s/he might not have understood it. And, even if s/he did, having somebody else back you up might help. :) Either way, the creator is so far a SPA and may or may not become active now that this article is established. He or she may return with proper referencing. He or she might try to squat on the article and remove all such tags. Once we see what s/he does, we can figure out the best way to proceed.

Often, in such cases, I will try to be particularly helpful, so I spent a little time trying to verify some of this material myself. I'm sorry to say that I'm having no luck and have begun to wonder if this is original research. If this were my discovery, I would watchlist this article and in a week or so challenged and remove the unverified, leaving only what's verifiable. At that point, efforts to introduce unsourced information can be met with the templates in the {{uw-unsourced1}} continuum.

Alternatively, I might also ask assistance from a related wikiproject, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/USA and Canada task force. They might have access to references that will take care of this issue immediately. :) Or, conversely, they might not answer you at all. Depends how active the project is and how motivated its members are. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I agree with waiting to see what happens next - the next actions of the editor will help determine his/her intentions, and I have already placed the page on my watch-list. It is reasonable to believe this user might not understand the tag and the warnings I gave, I did personalise the first one to be clearer but that obviously was not enough. In a similar case before now I suspected language and communication issues were the problem - but the fact this user has created an article in good English means this cannot be the case. The note you gave should be helpful for the user if understanding is a problem.

Improving the article my/yourself by adding sources is certainly a good idea, but I have not had much luck in finding sources either; I am really not that familiar with the subject. If within about week the article is not properly sourced, I will go in and remove everything that is unsourced, just using {{fact}} and leaving it is not advisable with WP:BLP related articles. I have already added categories which I am sure you agree is helpful.

I have never thought of contacting the relevant WikiProject, I might try that depending on how things go. This user could come back, re-remove the template, and do nothing else; after your note and a final warning (which was given after the last template removal), if this user is editing in good faith he/she will not do that. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to make things clear for him/her; I have added a detailed template based but personalised paragraph on use of the edit summary box; and have linked this to the warnings I gave. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the categories are good. :D Appealing to WikiProjects has sometimes proven useful to me in the past. Some of them are very active; often, I get no response. But I'm not familiar with football at all, and it's possible that those who are might have access to referencing that will help. Your note on how to use the edit summary should certainly clarify things if that was a source of confusion. :) Once you've gone well out of your way to demonstrate an assumption of good faith and to give an editor a chance to live up to that, it's a lot easier (in my opinion) to deal with it if they don't. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am still keeping an eye on the article. The user has so far not re-removed the tag which is a good sign, our method might have worked. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

CSD:A7

Thanks for the heads up on the usage of CSD:A7. Keep up the good work :) SkeletorUK (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaron1

You requested notification for when my RFA starts, it has now started, and you are welcome to add your comments to the RFA whatever they are. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jonathan Lee Riches

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Lee Riches, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Lee Riches. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Bristol Entry

hi Moodridden Girl

happy christmas.

i wondered if you could help. I made some changes to the above entry which appear to be accepted. However the contents box has dissapeared and tnot all the information is being dispalyed although it is there in the editing box.

i'd be very glad if you could take a quick look and see if you can remedy the situation. many thanks Greg aka dorkinglad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorkinglad (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Greg. Nice to see you again. :) The problem that you ran into is a common one with people first learning to use <ref> tags. When you place a reference in text, you put the citation inline with the information. At the bottom of the article, you create a "reference" section with a tag telling Wikipedia to look for the notes above. If I wanted to cite a quote, I'd do something like this: "She said pink was the new black.<ref>Hilton, Paris. (date) [websiteurl Hilton blog] Accessed December 28, 2007.</ref>. Under references, I'd put {{reflist}}, and it would put that information in the proper spot, with a footnote in the main text and the source under the reference section. Even people accustomed to using <ref> sometimes forget to close it with </ref>. When you have a reference note and text is disappearing, that's usually the first thing to look out for. :) You can read more about it at Wikipedia:Footnotes. Hope that helps. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Old AFDs

Crap, sorry. Thanks for telling me, that was a major oversight on my part. Thanks for cleaning up my mess! Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ohh...that *would* be a good idea. Thanks. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns

I have responded to your comments at [[1]] Thank you for your attention to this and polite thoughts. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiFame: Oscar Peterson

Well, Oscar died on Dec 23, and death brings notability -- both on radio stations, discs (I guess), and Wikipedia. Here is a list I did of Wikiedits to the article. (thanks for your interest)(All dates/times Greenwich Mean Time, of course).

December 19 -- 2 edits before death (and no public announcement of illness). routine edit. There had been about 4 routine edits per month throughout 2007.

December 23 -- 1 edit. Died that day, but not public announced. Edit has no hint of death.

December 24 -- 42 edits. Death announced in the morning news. I heard it at 1200 EST. First edit of the day, by someone else was at 1722 GMT (1222 EST) containing the news of Oscar's death, altho inaccurately saying it was Dec24.

December 25 -- 40 edits. Further refinements. Quotes, Canadian content added.

December 26 -- 33 edits

December 27 -- 17 edits

December 28 -- 10 edits

December 29 -- 10 edits (weekend brings out more editors?)

December 30 -- 13 edits (till now, but GMT almost ready to swing over to December 31, and I gotta go).

Bellagio99 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Quite a lot of work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually,MY work was easy. I just went to Revision History and counted on my fingers. 10 minutes to do; 5 minutes to write up. (COI, a bit, as I contributed a bunch of edits.) But Oscar Peterson did improve a lot in the editing, until perhaps yesterday, when the debate has been into trivia, IMHO (such as "great pianist" or "great jazz pianist".) I am going to stop watching tomorrow, as it is becoming a time-sink. G'nite. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nino & April

Yes they have a joint entry on AMG, but that's because they do not have individual entries, which they already do here. Perpetuating a third article only makes worse a hopeless content fork. If we're going to keep the joint article, I suggest we do as AMG does, merge the individual articles into it and break them down to redirects. Ford MF (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Merging the individual articles into it and breaking them down to redirects may be a good way to go. As a duo, they make a plausible search entry, given their notability, and it's difficult to redirect the duo. I don't ever remember having heard of them before coming up the article today, so I'll leave it to you to decide if it is best to be bold in performing such a merger or propose it and wait for consensus. Neither of the articles seems actively edited, so it might not be controversial to proceed with it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"well said"

Thanks mate; much appreciated. Hesperian 00:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Moon ridden girl?

Moon ridden girl, I need cheering up. I've had a lot of bad luck today, and Od Mishehu won't give me a barnstar! Please respond on my talk page.Kitty53 (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't a barnstar, but thank you, anyway! Now I feel so much better! I'm having a Happy New Year again!Kitty53 (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Page

I recently re-created a page that was deleted last month titled S.T.A.R.S. (Resident Evil) and within approximately 2 hours it was deleted (I was still in the process of writing it when it was tagged for speedy deletion). Although I admit it was a "stub" and the people who said it needed to be deleted had some valid points I don't feel that the article was given enough of a chance. Considering that fact that many different articles on Wikipedia that cover the RE universe make direct reference to S.T.A.R.S. and even have links to the now deleted page (one article, STARS members in Resident Evil, actually lists the S.T.A.R.S article as its main article) I think the article is important to the Wiki community and given the chance it will grow to a full sized, fully referenced article but if it is deleted 2 hours after it is created every time then it has no way of becoming what it should be. I would like to recreate that page but I will only do it if it wont be delete as soon as I am done.
Thank You
--Pyode (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The article was not deleted, although as a recreation of an article deleted following deletion discussion that did not address the reasons for deletion it generally would have been. It was, as I indicated on your talk page, userfied to Pyode. I have also offered you some suggestions on your talk page about how to establish it. As you were advised by User:Ridernyc, whose comments were also moved to your talk page, real world references need to be provided. I hope that this will help you proceed. I understand that it is frustrating to try to create an article and encounter such difficulties, and I hope that you will be able to bring this in line with guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: speedy

Actually I was just undecided on which CSD to use, there wasn't a specific one for it but I realized that the article wasn't a good one especially with its last sentence that showed that the user wrote that page with POV because of a personal liking. I didn't know about redirecting it to its album, I'll do that next time. Thanks! -- Mentifisto 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I've run into articles now and then that just obviously don't belong. :) It can be frustrating to wait through the other steps of the deletion process, but in cases where an article isn't doing any specific harm, it's sometimes the only option. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hello Moonriddengirl! Happy New Year! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Belatedly, thank you, and likewise. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Florian ZaBach

Re: his birth date, you are the best. Thanks for the advice. The article has been updated. Truthanado (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to offer my opinion. Hopefully the other editors of the article will agree. :D Sometimes "bold revert discuss" seems to be the best way to get things done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wow!

Did you really type all that, or is it a substed template? :) Rt. 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

All typed. :) However, I've said some of that stuff so often that it might as well be a template. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That really is incredible. :) Rt. 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your (my?) Editor Review!

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, but thanks for your helpful comments on my article Sarah Cahill (pianist). I will try to incorporate your suggestions as time permits. Since there are many many citations in print media on her, would it help to list those? As far as her notability, it is quite well established in the contemporary music world, so perhaps I should seek out comments made by other notables in the field.

Thanks again, and happy new year! Reechard (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Reechard. :) Some articles incorporate a list of external links (sometimes tagged "Further reading") or citations to print media, generally including notable reviews or interviews at reputable media. That would be entirely appropriate, although you'd do better to choose a few representative outstanding entries than create a long list without context. :) In terms of establishing notability, third party sources are what's used to verify that. For instance, we have this sentence in the article: "She is best known for insightful performances of new works, many of them written for her." Lacking citation, this is not verified and also falls under the definition of "peacock terms", which Wikipedia policy is to avoid. Who says they're insightful? It would strengthen the article to let us know. This is a perfect place to provide an inline citation to, say, the respected music critic who used the term. :) Wikipedia:Citing sources includes information on when to cite and how. And Happy New Year to you, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, you left a set of comments at my editor review a while back, and I am curious as to your opinion of whether I could nominate myself at WP:RFA with any measure of success. Frankness and bluntness is completely appreciated. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look at your contributions soon, and I will tell you if I see anything that would concern me. I have limited participation at RfA, so I may not detect issues that would be of concern to others, but I'll do my best. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through your more recent contributions, and I see nothing that would lead me to oppose you. That said, although I am extremely impressed with the work you do, I would personally feel more confident supporting your use of the tools (as opposed to abstaining, which is my usual approach) if I knew you were familiar with CSD (since I don't see a lot of work there) and if I saw more evidence of your ability to judge consensus. However, other editors focus on other things, and I think that you would likely receive quite a lot of support at RfA. You're knowledgeable, diligent and civil, all characteristics of a very good admin. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)

Thanks for sorting that out. This is just a heads up to let you know that the article remains move protected. Now the debate has been settled I think the protection ought to be removed. I could of course do it myself but it's probably better if you do it, since you closed the debate and haven't been an involved party. Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Happily. I'll go see to it now. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) --kingboyk (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

4 Years in 4 minutes! ;)

See the headers at User talk:Deathlord999, I smiled :D -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I always have trouble with the new year, but I don't usually go backwards. :D (I removed my warning, since your block renders it unneeded. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you didn't issue that block, but any idea why he got indef blocked after just one silly edit? --kingboyk (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't one silly edit, but two libelous attacks in edit summaries. :) (I deleted the one, so it's under his deleted contributions.) I suppose he was blocked as a vandalism-only account and will contest it if he had more than bad intent. (Both lucasbrf & I were drawn to the editor by a post at ANI; the one remaining edit is up for oversight.) I don't do a lot of blocking myself, so I'm not really sure if it's common practice on suspected malicious account creation to indefinitely block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor me. Fair enough I guess, the chances he'd become a productive editor must be pretty low :) --kingboyk (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks card

Hello, Moonriddengirl, thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which closed successfully with 47 supports, 3 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I am glad that the community thinks it can trust me with these tools; I will try and use my new mop and bucket (or vacuum cleaner!) carefully. I would like to personally thank you for your comments in my editor review and beyond, I hope I meet your expectations. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The BMHS Drama Department

Hello,

I thank you for your help, but I really dont understand what to do here (I'm new). A few nights ago, I made an addition onto the Brien McMahon High School page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brien_McMahon_High_School) about the school's Drama Department. Many people were asking about it and I felt that they should have a Wikipedia page. It has a long history and i wanted to give an overview to the department. My main aim was to write a little history on the school's page and then go indepth on the Department's page. Please help!

DonDemio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondemio (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dondemio. The issue here is that Wikipedia's article are governed by policies on what is notable enough for a stand-alone article. The high school likely qualifies. The drama department may not, unless you can demonstrate that it is notable with reliable references from uninvolved sources (not the school's own web page, for instance). Newspaper articles, for example, are generally good for this, but their coverage needs to be substantial. It isn't enough for them to report, say, the time and date of a performance.

Notability requirements are less stringent on sections within articles, which is why I recommended that you might want to utilize the material there. It still needs to be verifiable, but in that case it can draw material from primary sources. (Note that it may still be removed if other editors of the article disagree that it is necessary for inclusion; in that case, you would work out the issues on the article's talk page as recommended by the dispute resolution guidelines.

If you have the kinds of secondary sources necessary to show that the drama department is sufficiently notable on its own to warrant an article, then you can certainly create such an article, but unless that can be demonstrated the article is likely to be speedily deleted again or deleted by another process. Please let me know if I can clarify this any further. I would like to be of assistance if I can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the information. The Norwalk Hour (The city's newspaper where the school is located) covered the shows with many articles. Also, there are letters from the Principal of the school (Who had nothing to do with the shows). Would this be enough? Please let me know!

DonDemio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondemio (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Letters from the principal, probably not. As far as the city newspapers is concerned, it's a little bit iffy. Do you have links? That would help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, I dont have any links. (Do you mean to the newspaper's website?) It would be hard to get the articles. they are from a year ago... Is there anything else i can do so that i can write the page an not have it get deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondemio (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can cite the source, that might help, but I strongly suspect it would not save the article, since city newspapers may not satisfy the requirement of widespread coverage. I really believe that incorporating the information as a subsection of the high school article might be the best way to go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was going to add alot of detailed information (enough to make a new long article). My goal was to create a new article so that the School's page would not be so filled up by one part of the departments. So should I write the article then post it asking for it to be locked (can that happen?)--Dondemio (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably instead of adding a lot of detailed information, it would be better to add some well-chosen facts. As I said, if you overwhelm the article, there is a chance that you'll run into a content dispute. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by asking for the article to be locked. Do you mean protecting it so that others can't edit it? If so, that is not done pro-actively to deal with problems, but only after problems develop. As Wikipedia's reminder goes, "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." See the page protection policy for more about page protection. If you mean something else, please let me know. It might be advisable to create an abbreviated section on Wikipedia and link it to an external site (as long as the exteranl link complies with Wikipedia's external link guidelines—for instance, if you get permission to host the history of the drama club on the high school's website, there.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for deleted article

Could you restore the article Theater_Hopper to my user page so that I can add it to Comixpedia? Kyven (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kyven. It's done. You can find the material at User:Kyven/temporary. (If you decide you don't want it anymore, please let me know or add {{db-userreq}} to the top of it so that an admin can clean it up.) Note that it includes the monstrously long "history" section. For GFDL purposes, that material must be made available, too, if any of that information is incorporated verbatim into another article, otherwise you find yourself in the odd position of violating the copyright of a deleted article. You have three options here that I can think of. (1) You can be sure that you've rewritten all of the text, since sentences and phrases are copyrighted but not ideas. (2) When articles are transwikiied, information on authorship is often incorporated into the page history by inclusion on the talk page. You could leave an edit summary something like "Material merged from Theater Hopper. See talk page for authorship information" and create a section on the talk page called "Authorship history of material merged from Theater Hopper". Then you'd copy the authorship information to there. (I'd recommend copying the code, so that numbering and whatnot is intact. It's probably easiest.) (3) You can ask the deleting administrator, User:Bogdangiusca, if he objects to the article being restored and blanked as a redirect so that authorship history can be preserved in the usual way when one merges an article--that is with a direct link in the edit summary to the source article. If he's on board with it, he can restore it for you for that purpose or I will. Before doing all that, please be sure that the addition of material from the deleted article to the other article has consensus. :) And please let me know if I was unclear about any of this. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rgoodermote

That was an indented comment, sorry if it accidentally went as a second vote (didn't mean to do that!). I'll fix it.   jj137 ^♠ 12:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Friends International

(duplicate note from article talk page) Please don't remove speedy deletion tags from articles which you have created. I have restored the speedy tag and also added a "hangon", which is Wikipedia's method of indicating that you are offering an argument on the talk page against the deletion of the article. You may wish to review the notability guidelines on web material, which might help you determine what kinds of information are typically included to substantiate notability on websites. You may also wish to consider creating articles within a user subpage, which will allow you to develop them incrementally with less fear that they will be deleted before you can finish. Many Wikipedia editors (me included) use a sandbox for this purpose; you might want to create one at User:Askeladden2006/sandbox. When articles are finished, they can be moved into article space. Another useful way to let new page patrolers know that you are still working on an article that you might want to consider implementing is the {{inuse}} tag. Added to the top of an article, it expands with a template to let others know that you are working. This will not necessarily prevent edit conflicts or stop someone from prematurely evaluating an article for speedy deletion, but it might help. I'll duplicate this note at your talk page. :) If you'd like clarification on any of this, please let me know there, as I will have your talk page watchlisted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your note at the article's talk page, I understand if you are frustrated by the repeated deletion of an article on which you were working. I would like to point out, though, that I am not the only administrator on Wikipedia and that I have never deleted the article. All I've done is attempt to help you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, everything is now deleted. Even the talk. This is so unfair. I am disabled and I was not even allowed to use the time I needed to start the article. You have to understand it takes time to type an article without using arms or hands. Also, you should be consequent and not only go after nonprofit groups for sick people. You should concentrate on all the articles about forums you have already! And let me finished!

[title] yes, happy new year!

Another try: I amAskeladden2006 by dictating program is unable to type the sign for a --{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC) maybe it worked anyway! This is very hard to do. You should read by other articles on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has many articles, and sometimes articles that do not meet guidelines are overlooked. That doesn't mean that all articles that do not meet guidelines should be overlooked. Again, I understand that this must be frustrating for you. However, I have done the best that I can to advise you how to proceed without running into these problems, and I note that you have made use of a sandbox as I suggested. I do understand that it takes time to develop an article, which is why I made those suggestions and did not myself delete the article. I hope that none of the material was lost when it was deleted, as you had already copied the contents of the article to said sandbox. I also hope that utilizing a sandbox will allow you time to develop articles at your own pace with less concern about swift judgment. If you wish to discuss this further, I have—as I noted above—watchlisted your talk page, and I will see your responses there. However, if you'd prefer to continue it here, I would be perfectly happy to do so. In the meantime, I will duplicate this response at your talk page to ensure that you see it as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. How can I find out who deleted it? Even my comments on talk were deleted. I think the article would have been finished today if I didn't have to discuss everything and do the start over and over again.sigh. you have to admit it gives the wrong single to let all the other articles stay.--{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC) you will find me on my talk page, thanks.

Hi. You can see the deletion log of an article by entering its name in a search. Friends International was deleted by three different administrators. User:Mike Rosoft deleted it at 9:14 UTC under WP:CSD#A7, as a website not indicating importance per the guidelines at WP:WEB. User:Od Mishehu deleted it at 9:41 for the same reason. User:East718 deleted it at 11:26 because at that point it had become a redirect page and the article to which it pointed was gone. User:Xoloz deleted the article at Friends International Support Group, also for failing A7. The same administrator deleted the talk page, which is standard practice when the parent article has been deleted. This is why I duplicated my notes from the article talk page at your talk page, because I knew there was a chance this would occur.

You're free to communicate with any of these admins about their choices, of course, but in this case I think I would probably instead continue to develop the article at User:Askeladden2006/sandbox and later move it to article space, when it may no longer be subject to A7. On the deleted talk page, you mentioned NikeTalk as an example of another discussion forum. The Media recognition portion of that article is a clear assertion of notability, and it is thoroughly cited, which is probably why it hasn't been deleted. (Even so, it's been nominated for deletion twice.) Survivor Sucks was also nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivor Sucks), so it's not a valid candidate for A7, and it has a source to Time (magazine). It would be very helpful to your article if you can offer source distinct from the forum's own site, which can't be used to verify notability according to policy.

Again, I am sorry that you've been so frustrated in this experience. In my observation, articles about websites and companies are among the most difficult to establish, as Wikipedia editors tend to be very suspicious of advertising or skeptical about notability. I hope that using a sandbox will help you avoid these problems with this article and any future articles you may choose to write. I wouldn't want to have to start over multiple times, either. I've been using a sandbox on articles that I thought might be misjudged before completion since early September, and so far it's worked well for me. I also routinely use the {{inuse}} template I recommended on articles when I first start them, even if I don't think they'll be controversial. If you want to see what it looks like in use, you can take a look at this edit, which was my first in a new article. As I mentioned, it doesn't always work exactly as you might hope, but it helps. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been very helpful and I understand it was not your fault.

It is not difficult to find media recognition for friends international support group. Thank you for pointing that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Askeladden2006 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Philippine Business for the Environment

See you deleted it, just about the second I was about to put a tag on it :)...Thanks ...Also, thanks for the suggestions! Ohmpandya (Talk) 23:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So...

...whatever happened to that project I started, then unceremoniously bailed on? To be honest, it was either that project or bring a recall amendment to my home county's charter.

Speaking of changes, we see you've become an administrator! Congratulations!

...and what the hell were you thinking?! Sidatio (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back! I'm thrilled to see you. :) The project you started and unceremoniously bailed on went the way of almost every wiki proposal I've seen. People argued; people agreed; people dithered; nothing was done. I decided henceforth to have nothing whatsoever to do with lists and focused my energies on policies I could work on in small pieces. In terms of policy, I hang at WP:CSD and WP:BLPN primarily these days. My RfA was a real nail-biter. :D When I was nominated, I thought, "Great! I can take care of that CSD backlog!" Ha ha! I had never actually realized that some days you can work two hours steady on CSDs and wind up with more than you started with. (I know this; I have tried it.) I'd ask what y'all have been up to, but I'm going to go peek into your contributions and find out for myself. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Administrator oversight

I have completely re-done the Sniper (disambiguation) page. This is my first attempt to fix one of the cleanup-tagged Disambiguation pages. My question is: do all the entries I have included fall within the scope of what should go on a Disambiguation page? Pen of bushido (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Pen of bushido. I'll go take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Now that is one complex disambig page! My admin tools don't necessarily give me any better ability to judge disambig pages than the next joe, but I will happily give my opinion. :) It looks very good to me. Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), I would suggest that you might link to link to the primary topic in the lead, the way they demonstrate with school. So you might want to eliminate the primary definition from the list and open with

A sniper is a sharpshooter.

Sniper may also refer to:

MOS also suggests with people to "include their birth and death years (when known)" and, to eliminate excess white space, use {{TOCright}}. Finally, to conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style, your section headers need to be reformed so that only the first letter is capitalized, since none of these seem to be formal titles. That's about the extent of my suggestions. It looks good to me; very structured and usable. :) If you want further feedback, you might want to wander over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, where you're likely to find people who know the guidelines about disambig pages backwards and forwards. For instance, I'm not entirely sure if convention is to list people notable for the thing being disambiguated. I don't recall having run into that one. And it leads me to wonder if it's considered appropriate to link to categories in the "see also"--say Category:Military snipers. I just don't know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Editor Review

Hi. Thanks for the editor review yesterday, and I appreciate you taking the time to do it. As you mentioned, I was away for a while (not specifically in relation to the whole giano thing), but as my family has increased I haven't had enough time to contribute. In fact almost all of my contributions are while I'm supposed to be at work as I only have a (very poor) dial-up connection at home. This may explain the limited number of contributions I can make, and why I'd like to be able to focus my wiki-time a bit (I do have some work to do also!).

If you have time (and I really mean only if you have time, as you do seem to be very busy here), I would appreciate a more in-depth ER, but it's quite alright if you can't do this, I do understand. Thanks again, and you have already given me some things to think about. --The.Q^(t)(c) 14:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Family increase! Congratulations! :D I will certainly make time to look more in-depth and see if I can offer you some more specific pointers. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Demo

Sorry about that. I didn't really realise what it was. It wasn't a very clear article and mabye I should of read it a bit more carefully. (Respond on my talk page) Thundermaster^TRUC 13:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD

You know I realized that after I did it, but I have seen movies deleted for that in the past. I'm putting a PROD on it as soon as I'm done here, thanks! Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes people do stretch those criteria, but so far (in spite of tons of conversation) there's just no consensus to delete films and the like by A7. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Theater Hopper article

Hello, I'm relatively new to the process of recreating entire articles, and didn't realize the person who deleted it was an admin. The text I used in the recreated article was taken from a Comixpedia article which had apparently gotten the deleted text from the Wikipedia article. Therefore, I assumed it wouldn't be a problem considering they had taken the info from Wikipedia to begin with. If it still needs to be removed I understand, or I could attempt to get the permission/explanation of the creator of the Comixpedia article.

As for the notability of the article, you suggested I take it up with the admin who deleted it which I'll try to do as soon as I can. Thanks! -Fearfulsymmetry (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I know the text was the same as that Comixpedia, because I supplied to the editor who put it there (his request here; that's the only reason I noticed the article had been recreated). The problem is that the author information for the Wikipedia editors needs to be incorporated; you see that the editor who put it on Comixpedia placed the author information on the article talk page there. When you write for Wikipedia, you release your writing under GFDL, which means that you give other people permission to change or use it, but you retain the right to credit. The way the Theater Hopper article looks right now, it would seem that you wrote it from scratch. (It's always admins who delete articles; only admins have that ability at this point.) The easiest thing to do is probably to politely request that the admin restore the original article so that the authorship history is also returned. There is a chance that the admin will disagree that it is notable after all, in which case you do have the option of bringing it up for deletion review, if you think that it asserts notability per WP:WEB. Please let me know if that's unclear. I know it's a little confusing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I definitely understand what you're saying now. I also neglected to notice that you were the one who received the request. Thanks for the help, I'm sorry for blundering into the process! -Fearfulsymmetry (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's no problem. It's pretty complicated stuff. Until you're really familiar with GFDL, it doesn't make sense that you can violate copyright by copying Wikipedia content on Wikipedia. It happens all the time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

homeopathy is the future

WOULD YOU LIK TO CONTRIBUTE TO WIKIPROJECT HOMEATPHY? GOOGLE IT PLEASE TO FIND OUT HOW YOUC AN DONATE YOUR ITME AND HELP SAVE MILLIONSOF LIFES EVERY SINGLE DAY THROUGH EDUCATION AND WIKIEDITING. Smith Jones (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

yo sign up please visit this page. Smith Jones (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Primal Therapy article and related articles

Thanks for trying to help. I really can't tell you how hard it has been for me to work on these articles. I have had to learn to overcome my own positive bias and to deal with vandalism and BLP issues with very little support from anyone (not to mention a BLP attack aided by an admin). I tried to explain on the BLP noticeboard that the only way to deal with these "people" who may be in effect offline sockpuppets of one person for all we know is to block them first from editing the articles and get page protection for the articles because they can easily use another IP. If that can be done, you won't have to waste your valuable time and energy on them and I can learn how to do editing requests of page protected articles and take the necessary time to clean up. This would be very slow work. Protection just on the main article until Jan 19th is clearly not enough as I am busy again with personal matters and the other articles are still vulnerable to revenge attacks. Maybe indefinite page protection on all of them would be a better solution. The articles are all quite long enough and seem to be a lightning rod for spam (from those trying to promote their own interests) and defamatory attacks from those with strong negative feelings towards Janov or his ideas.

What I can not see myself doing is a whole lot of clean up work only to have all the material put back in larger quantities, which is what happened when I removed that one last link on Dec 29th. That is why I have not gotten involved in editing these articles since.

Frankly, it looks to me as though Wikipedia may have entered a crisis state. Experienced editors and admins may be just walking away as the number of complex problems grows together with the number of articles. If this is what is happening it is inevitable that Wikipedia will collapse under the weight of libel suits that will come eventually. GrahameKing (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue of the appropriateness of the EL seems to have gridlocked; one editor agreed that it was inappropriate, and I removed it under that basis, but after it was restored I approached another administrator who volunteers at BLP, and he does not agree that, as an external link, it is a violation. That moves it into the realm of a content dispute, which can be very difficult to resolve, particularly when not all of the parties are willing to talk. As far as requesting longer page protection, you may wish to take that up at requests for page protection, and particularly if disruptive editing continues. Having already waded into the fray in an effort to address the external link, I am not the appropriate admin to protect the articles against content disputes, as the protection policy very clearly states that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute". Good luck with this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

my mistake

Sorry about that problem on Joy Behar's page. My computer keys were stuck. 24.154.250.242 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Technology is such fun. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Center For Youth Leadership

Hello!

How are you? I have come up with a new article idea and i wanted to get your opinion on it before I wrote it. It is a page on the Center For Youth Leadership. This not-for-profit extra-curricular program is centered at Brien McMahon High School in Norwalk, CT. It is a youth activist program that touches on many issues like Dating Violence, Child Abuse, Day Laborors and overseas activities (like darfur) It is widely known in the city of Norwalk and throught Ct. The Program has full backing from the Mayors of a few cities and has branched out to other towns Throughout connecticut. The CYL and its subsidaries have been widely covered in newspapers.

Let me know! Thanks!

PS, About the drama department article. I read the notability guidelines and i think that if i write it in a certain way, it can meet the guidelines. Should i write it in word then put it in the Sandbox to see? --Dondemio (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Writing it "off stage" first doesn't hurt, although you don't have to do it in word—Wikipedia will allow you your own private sandbox for working on articles. (Mine is at User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. You might want to create one at User:Dondemio/sandbox.) If nothing else, that lets you finish the article before you put it out there. New articles are routinely patrolled and tend to be heavily scrutinized. A good stage of completion can help avoid issues when you first launch. As far as your article on the Center for Youth Leadership, as you've read the notability guidelines, you should have a good idea if it qualifies or not. (In case you haven't seen it, the specific guideline on this is at Wikipedia:CORP#Non-commercial_organizations.) Being widely covered in newspapers is certainly a good start! As I mentioned before, demonstration of notability through reliable sources can go a long way to establishing an article. Good luck. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hello Moonriddengirl. How are you? Can you please explain me the role of Twinkle? You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page reversion

Hope you don't mind that last revert. I usually don't revert messages, even useless ones like that, on other people's talk pages...but had hit the rollback button thinking for some reason that this was the Matthew Tsirigotes page. (I had tabs up for each of his recent diffs) --Onorem♠Dil 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. I appreciate it. :) I can't have stuff on my talk page that will trigger content protection blocks for minor users. I know that happens, because I once was approached by a minor user who couldn't go to his own talk page because of vandalism left there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the reply. And, yes, I would like to get more information about Twinkle. How can I install it? And, what is 'monobook.js file'? And, please provide some more information. You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maglev windmills

I thought conspicuous nonsense was a sound basis for speedy deletion? The text claims an improvement of "hundreds of times" in efficiency - is the implication that current turbines are a fraction of one per cent efficient not absurd on its face? I can go through the rather drawn-out process of nominating the article for deletion but seems to me to be pretty obvious. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The criterion specifies that it is for "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content". Nonsensical claims (and I agree that the implication that current turbines are a fractio of one per cent efficient is absurd) can be neutralized or removed, but for the entire article to be speedied under that criterion, it really needs to be gibberish. It's always possible that the article can be salvaged if insupportable claims within it are fixed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a whack at toning down the Road Runner physics. The original was virtually cut'n'pasted from two web sites, I should have nominated it for copyright violation instead. It would have saved considerable editing time to just delete the whole thing. But I suppose the Pokemon principle applies - we didn't get to 2,000,000 + articles by being exclusionist,now, did we? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly left that article better than you found it. :D Well done. I believe the purpose behind limiting CSD is to allow editors a chance to do just that, fix something up so that it does survive. The theory seems to be that in the five day process of AfD, somebody may come along with time and energy enough to invest. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving a Wikipedia article better than you found it is a cheap and easy way to boost your self-esteem - it's not that hard to do (in about 50% of the articles I've looked at)! --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

The consensus reached on how this page should be edited just before you unprotected it no longer seems to be respected. People are making poorly sourced contentious edits without discussions on the talk page and there seems again to be some kind of revert war. I wonder if it might be an idea to reprotect the page as there seems now to be no way of adhering to the strategy agreed upon prior to your previous unprotection. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article deserves protection because there has been absolutely no progress at improving the article using their failed strategy. They seem more obsessed with preventing others from changing the article. --Jagz (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the previous term of full protection on the page. Looking at the activity for the last two days suggests this has become necessary, as does the heated nature of the discourse on the talk page. Good luck working out your differences. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that you should not have restored full protection on the page because there was no consensus to do so. You did it based on the request of one person. And yes, I feel there should be a consensus to apply protection but not necessarily so to remove it because Wikipedia articles are usually not protected. --Jagz (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I ended the protection period early on request and with permission of the administrator who protected it through February 1st with the explicit provision that it would be re-protected if problems resumed. Nevertheless, the protection of a page undergoing an edit war does not require consensus, as it may be imposed at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. I hope that when the original protection period ends on February 1st, constructive editing of the article will resume. In the meantime, this is a good opportunity for all editors involved to determine an approach to the article that will meet consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A Year in Australian Television

Hello! I'm not entirely new to Wikipedia but I do enjoy editing and keeping it clean and neat, something that makes it easier for others to read Wikipedia.

About three days ago I've noticed that someone had started creating pages for Australian television. These pages contain a template that has a list of years. The pages never have an article. It is a list, something that I think violates Wikipedia's policies? I've placed speedy deletion tags on some of them, but at times, non-page creators remove my tags contesting that they are not speedy deletion tags. I don't want to add any more since I don't want to erase articles that have potential to be notable, informative, verifiable articles. However, I decided to check with you first.

Please refer to 1996 in Australian television

Also, please respond in my use talk page. Thanks! Monkeytheboy (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Endexx Corporation

Thank you for blocking User:Endexxco. I just wondered what your thoughts are on the Endexx Corporation article itself. It has been tagged as blatant advertising several times, only for User:Piggyprobe to almost immediately remove the tag. Thanks. --ukexpat (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I think that you're dealing with a new user who doesn't quite understand what's going on. He or she does seem to have removed most of the excessive promotion from the article, so I don't think that in its current state it represents a speediable level of advertising. It does need some work in terms of establishing notability. I will address that with the editor at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance -- I think that's the best way to handle it. --ukexpat (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an eye on it. :) Many editors drop a CSD tag and move on. It's good that you stood by it to make sure that the tags weren't improperly removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Good morning,

Permit me to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken.

Hesperian 02:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good evening. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There; I believe I've gotten all the ones that qualify. Much easier, thanks to rollback, to undo than it was to do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't asking you to roll them back; just figured I'd let you know for future reference. Oh well, no harm done. Hesperian 03:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate it. :) I misunderstood the directions at Wikipedia:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators#Tidying_up, not realizing what double redirects meant. (Which I would have, had I followed Wikipedia:Double redirects. My bad!) Moving Avatar (icon) to Avatar (computing) was an extremely tedious exercise. :D Anyway, fixing the ones I muffed today was no problem; it really only took a few minutes. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Collapsing in archives

Hello MRG. Your comment over at WT:AFD got me thinking, so I went and looked at the archives of WP:COIN and WP:BLPN. BLPN started in August '06 with no collapse boxes, and acquired them in January '07. COIN began to exist as a noticeboard at the end of December '06 and had collapse boxes from the beginning. (There must have been something in the air :-). Both noticeboards were using fancy templates in the section headers which interfered with linking to individual reports (my pet peeve).

When COIN switched to bot archiving around 1 October '07 people stopped using the collapse boxes. So I guess it must be local tradition that keeps the collapse boxes at BLPN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for looking into that. :) I've felt compelled to maintain it, since it was that way when I started messing around with the archiving process, but I've often wondered if I was doing it for no particular reason, like the woman in the pot roast story. It looks like I've been doing exactly that. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Race and intelligence in the United States

I started an article titled "Race and intelligence in the United States" but it was deleted. Can you tell me the method that was used to delete it, who deleted it, and whether it was deleted using proper procedures? Here is the link: [2] --Jagz (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I can do that. :) The article was deleted on 10 December 2007 by Slrubenstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with the following rationale: "(disruptive edit, likely POV fork, see discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Race_and_intelligence_in_the_United_States)". I see that you very briefly broached the subject to the deleting admin at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Race_and_intelligence_in_the_United_States. I haven't looked to see if the two of you discussed it further. As to whether or not it was deleted through proper procedure, it was not deleted with specific reference to any of the standard deletion criteria. I don't know if the admin considered that he was doing a snowball close of the AfD or if he in fact regarded the page creation as disruptive enough to warrant deletion by WP:CSD#G3. If you believe that the page was deleted out of procedure, you can take it deletion review, though as a first step (as that page points out) you should always try to talk it through civilly with the deleting admin. Good luck. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that since Slrubenstein had been involved in editing the similar article "Race and intelligence" since 2002 that maybe he should not have deleted the new article. He called the new article a POV fork of that one. Is there a policy about administrators bowing out in cases where there may be a conflict of interest? --Jagz (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not aware of a COI policy in CSDs, although I have encountered bits and pieces, such as this at WP:PROTECT: "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute". I know that Admins taking part in an AfD are expected to refrain from judging consensus in it and to let an uninvolved admin close it (as set out at Wikipedia:Deletion process). I don't think the speedy process was conceived as one that would allow for a COI. I imagine many admins would have chosen not to personally act in this case, but not knowing the admin and not having been a participant in the article I'm not sure why this one chose as he (or she) did. The procedure for dealing with grievances against administrators, if you think he or she has acted improperly, is listed here. Again, it starts with talking to the admin, remaining civil, of course, and starting with a presumption of good faith. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hi Moonriddengirl - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. It was very heartening to receive an endorsement from an editor I hold in such high regard (I once gave you a barnstar, and I don't give out many - under ten so far, I think; you should be especially flattered given that you're at a disadvantage owing to my rabid prejudice against emoticons). Anyway, the RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Heartfelt congratulations, and thank you. :D (They're second nature to me.) You can well believe I wouldn't hesitate to contact you; I'd have full faith in your ability and your willingness to help out. Definitely one of the reasons I supported. And I will try to remember not to use emoticons if I do, but the odds are heavily stacked against me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Third-party opinion requested

I am requesting assistance on an issue that I am having with Fred Rayner (Talk) regarding the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 1934 and the use of the German flag for that championship. I have had this as the Nazi flag for historical perspective, but he has changed this to the pre-Nazi flag in the 1920s because his grandfather, Walter Motz, competed in nordic skiing, but was not a member of the Nazi Party during that time. I have made two reverts he has done on the changing of the flags and I am not in the mood to get into an edit war with him. Can you please assist? I would appreciate it. Chris (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. I'd be glad to offer an opinion, although this is not my area. :) I'm looking into it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's fixed. Chris (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Escape Question

Hi,

I thought I would ask why you decided to move the Escape Choose Your Own Adventure off the Escape (book) page? I am sorry for being tardy on inquiring after this, but wanted to know if there was a logistical reason.

For now I have not gone through changing it back and have changed the Escape (1983 book) to a more fitting Escape (CYOA book) but wanted to see if there was a good reason not to change it back with a top link to Laura Palmer's escape or see if there was a nice middle ground, perhaps a list of books under the escape (book)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chooseco (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't move that page. It was moved last September, as noted here. What I did was clear out a redirect page and put a hatnote on the new article doing the redirect job instead. That was on December 14th, well after the Choose Your Own Adventure novel had been retitled. The editor who moved the article did so with the rationale that "it is a novel". Undoubtedly, he is referring to the style guide section on titling books, found here, which states that "To disambiguate, add the type of literary work in parentheses, such as "(novel)", "(novella)", "(short story)", etc. You may use "(book)" to disambiguate a non-fiction book. If further disambiguation is needed, add the author's surname inside the parentheses: "(Orwell novel)", "(Asimov short story)", etc." That's expanded at the naming convention guidelines on books. Since (book) indicates non-fiction, it is the proper disambiguation term for Palmer's autobiography.

Reading that section, it does seem that the title he moved it to is not necessarily the best. If there is another "Escape (novel)", the CYOA book should probably be located at "Escape (authorname novel)". Closer investigation shows me that Escape (novel) is a redirect to a James Michener book. I would suspect that the proper thing to do might be to move Escape (1983 novel) to Escape (novel) with a hatnote on it directing interest parties to Whirlwind (novel).

As a final note, there is already a disambiguation page for Escape, which links to both of these books and one other. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

BRC

You've been invited. GlassCobra 08:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

- TRANSMISSION ENDS -

Haha! I, too, have railed against the sinebot! If I can find a way to meet entrance requirements without risking my sooper secret identity, I'll gladly. :D (My husband eyes Wikipedia with anxiety and suspicion, particularly after a certain hate group took after me a few months ago.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

History Merge

Hi, thanks for the history merge I requested of Technics/Technics (brand). I noticed that you did not restore the disambiguation page to Technics - was this intentional? CIreland (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Oops. No, I'm sorry. I'll fix it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I guess I won't. It's already in the process of being fixed. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I saw it on WP:SPLICE and just waited a few minutes to make sure you were done. Cool Hand Luke 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dates in your vacation notice

Um -- you'll be travelling by time machine?  :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for pointing that out. I was duplicating the template from my last trip and didn't notice that I had put the date range into the substitution section. Fixed. Off to fix on user page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bon voyage! --Coppertwig (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Content Area Reading

I'm always impressed by people such as yourself who are largely self-educated in a topic such as Literacy and Learning. However, I think that your lack of schema (knowledge and experience)for this particular piece on an attempt to introduce Content Area Reading may be costly to those who might profit from it. There are multiple books on the subject, courses in it are arequired for teacher certification, and CAR contains valuable pedgaogic content for teachers, 4th grade to college level. I had hoped to add some examples of the latter since I tend to agree with your sense that the introductory words can appear almost vapid. Should it be of some help I am adding below a specific example from one of our books, based on an journal article. It covers one aspect of Content Area Literacy that might bring us closer to understanding what it is and why it deserves a full heading. BTW, I confess to not having mastered Wiki's grammar and protocols. But, with 40 years of my work - all in the public domain - I'll accept a tutorial should you be able to provide one.

The Listen-Read-Discuss (L-R-D) method was created as a “starter” method for bridging from traditional instruction to a more interactive approach. Traditional reading-based instruction typically begins by having students read the assignment, listen to a brief lecture or overview by the teacher, and then discuss their responses to questions. The L-R-D simply inverts the first two steps. Listen-Read-Discuss: A Self-Initializing Method Effective learning, including learning how to be an effective teacher, needs something to get it started, something to keep it going, and something to keep it from becoming random or misguided (Bruner, 1971). The L-R-D method (Manzo & Casale, 1985) tends to meet these requirements for both teachers and students. It is a simple lesson design that can be tried almost immediately and that offers several variations that can be phased in as a personal program of professional development. The L-R-D is a heuristic, or hands-on, activity designed to induce self-discovery about effective teaching by teachers and about effective learning by students.

Steps in the L-R-D 1. Review the reading selection, and prepare a brief, organized overview that points out the basic structure of the material, relevant background information, important information to look for, and generates interest in the topic.. 2. Present the summary orally to students. (See Figure 1.1.) 3. Have students read the textbook version of the same material. Students will then be empowered to read material with which they have some familiarity. 4. Discuss the material students have heard and read. Begin the discussion with the information and ideas students were directed to look for. __________________________________________________________ Figure 1.1 Example of an L-R-D Prereading Script

The sample prereading script below is based on the article “Dance and Sport: the Elusive Connection,” which follows in this Figure.

Did you know that football coaches sometimes have their players take ballet lessons? Can you see Frank over there in a tutu? (Frank is one of the school’s star football players.) Well, this article tells about where this idea came from, and why it seems to work. Look for seven things dancers learn, and think about why these would be useful for football players. Write these down when you come to them -- there’re listed in one of the first paragraphs. Then the author tells how some sports are more like dance than others. and sport are different. In dance, it is the mastery over one’s movement that is important. In sport, it is the result of mastery over one’s movement that is important. Look for the difference between “open skill” sports and “closed skill” sport, and how one type is more like dance than the other. The title of the article is “Dance and Sport: The Elusive Connection.” Elusive means something that seems to keep slipping away. Read to see why the connection between dance and sport might keep slipping away.

---

Dance and Sport – The Elusive Connection Techniques and principles effectively used in teaching dance can be applied to teaching sport

Sandra Minton Bradford Beckwith

JOPERD May/June (?) (1) What are the functional connections between dance and sport and the benefits that are derived from participation in both pursuits? This article presents ideas which are applied to both dance and sport in order to enhance performance and reduce injury. (2) Many well-known people have recognized a connection between dance and sport skills. It may have been this kinship that convinced Knute Rockne, famed football coach at Notre Dame, to require his players to enroll in dance classes. Maybe it was the similarity between dance and sport that caused Woody Hayes, former Ohio state head coach, to expect his players to take dance as part of their practice procedures (Lance, 1981). Lynn Swan, three-time Pro Bowl wide receiver while playing with the four-time World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers, studied dance for 14 years and attributed his graceful athletic abilities to dance. (3) It is possible that each of these individuals witnessed movement competencies shared by dance and sports. Some of these shared abilities include centering, balance, focus, breathing, transfer of weight, relaxation and the ability to use space, time, and energy with mastery. Such abilities are taught specifically in dance classes, while in athletics they are only alluded to as a part of skill instruction. (4) The basic difference between dance and sport is that sport takes place within the conditions of a game, while dance is performed in other contexts. A game is a contest in which opposing interests are given specific information and are then allowed a choice of moves with the object of maximizing wins and minimizing losses. A game entails dominance over an opponent and the acquisition of some mutually coveted symbol. The athlete, by improving his or her movement abilities, will then improve sport skills. (5) Dancers, on the other hand, are process-oriented rather than product-oriented. The goal in dance is the improvement of movement quality. (6) Similarities between dance and sport outweigh their differences. Paqr4ticipants in both areas train to go faster and farther, while moving with increased control. The dancer and the sport participant both work to expand their movement vocabulary so they can use a particular action when the situation demands. Biomechanical analysis has been used for many years by physical educators to help their students learn. In recent years, dancers have also begun to use biomechanics to analyze movement with the goals of sharpening perception of movement, decreasing learning time, and enhancing performance (Laws, 1984). Dance and sport and similar in another respect. While some would say a dance was choreographed but a sport contest was not planned, further examination indicates that all the X’s and O’s used in game strategy simply represent another form of choreography. (7) Some sport activities are more similar to dance training than others. The concept of open and closed skills helps explain this point. In a closed skill, one strives to master an effective and efficient motor program with the goal of being able to duplicate this program with each repetition. Environmental conditions remain relatively constant, and the performer attempts to be consistent in the execution of the skill. Sports such as the shot put, diving, and gymnastics are closed skills. Open skills exist in a changing environment, and the selection of appropriate movement responses is as variable as the environment itself. Baseball, football, soccer, and basketball are open skill activities (Sage, 1977). Both open and closed skill athletes can benefit from dance training. The abilities which are taught in dance classes used by both kinds of athletes are different, but are not less applicable to their sports’ requirements. (8) The principle of relaxation can be used as an example. Dancers frequently talk about using the right amount of tension in one part of the body while allowing other body areas to remain relaxed. The main idea is to use energy efficiently and only where needed to perform a movement. Efficient movement is characterized by using the appropriate muscle groups in proper sequence. The use of the wrong muscle group at the wrong time can be deleterious to the skill and possibly to the performer. Another common word heard in dance class is “centering.” Centering is finding the body’s center of weight and manipulating it effectively in relation to gravity. It also brings the mind and body together to produce better concentration. Achieving a heightened perception of and facility with space, time, and energy is another principle used in teaching dance. Dancers are asked to look at the direction or level of a movement, its speed in relation to an underlying pulse, or the quality of energy used to propel actions through space. Such movement descriptions are provided in dance classes to help students see movement more clearly and to enhance understanding of the expressive aspects of each action (Minton, 1984). (9) The point is that these principles are used in teaching dance, but generally not in teaching sport. In dance, these ideas are singled out in the classroom and used as learning tools. The examples given here are several of the techniques used in teaching dance that could be applied profitably to the teaching of sport.

References

Lance, J. (1981). Practicing for touchdowns. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 5, 38. Laws, K. (1984). The physics of dance. New York: Macmillan, Inc. Minton, S.C. (1984). Modern dance: Body and mind. Englewood, CO: Morton. Sage, G.H. (1977). Introduction to motor behavior: A neurophychological approach. (2nd edition). Reading, MA: Addison-Wessley.

---

Sandra Minton is coordinator of the Dance Program at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639. Bradford E. Beckwith is a doctoral candidate, psychological kinesiology, at the same school __________________________________________________________

Other Values and Benefits of Listen-Read-Discuss Use of the L-R-D tends to benefit teachers, students, and the school program in ways that are not always immediately apparent. One such value emerges almost immediately in the lesson-planning stage. When teachers select textual material for use in an L-R-D lesson, they find themselves looking at the textbook more carefully and from more points of view than they might otherwise. They begin, quite naturally, to sense where students’ comprehension is likely to falter and to better align the phrasing, facts, and organization of the lecture material they are preparing with the textbook material that students will read. With better alignment and organization, teachers automatically begin to heed a basic dictum of effective reading instruction: to stimulate active reading by preteaching key terms, pivotal questions, and new concepts before reading. Better organization and alignment also are likely to raise teachers’ levels of tolerance for reasonable digressions in the form of comments about how the new information relates to real-life events and experiences. In so doing, teachers help students to better recall and develop relevant background information and appropriate anticipation, both of which have been shown to be natural to proficient readers and of great value in effective comprehension (Crafton, 1983; Harste, 1978; Stevens, 1982). Careful preparation of L-R-D lessons actually raises students’ ability to read a particular piece beyond their typical reading and thinking levels. This can be a positive and enabling experience for students and teachers. It tends to become a new benchmark for students to strive for in learning from text and for teachers to strive for in helping students to learn from text. Following the lecture and empowered reading, the lesson design calls for discussion, providing a third repetition and elaboration of the material. This built-in redundancy factor is a most basic—and often overlooked—practice of effective teachers and principle of effective learning. Finally, a teacher who follows the L-R-D guidelines will have begun to restructure class time and expectations from the typical 90% lecture format to one containing greatly increased proportions of purposeful reading and informed discussion. This achieves yet another important practice of effective teachers and precept of effective learning: increased time on task. Some have argued that the simple lack of attention to reading in typical content classes accounts for a great part of the current higher-literacy crisis in the schools. This conclusion seems justified by the fact that several observational studies of subject teaching at the postelementary levels reveal that virtually no purposeful reading goes on during class time (Feathers & Smith, 1987; Greenewald & Wolf, 1980; Mikulecky, 1982; Ratekin, Simpson, Alvermann, & Dishner, 1985). Overall, the greatest value of the L-R-D seems to be its ability to provide a simple, hands-on way to introduce and initiate oneself to the principles and practices of content area literacy. The reapportioning of class time offers teachers with defensive teaching styles—who overuse either lecture or seatwork—an opportunity to experiment with reasonable alternatives (Manzo & Manzo, 1996). This tends to leave teachers with more energy and a greater willingness to try more sophisticated teaching methods and potentially benefit more fully from in-service workshops, consultations, and graduate coursework (Watkins, McKenna, Manzo, & Manzo, 1995). A Self-Instructional Ladder To help teachers’ self-discovery, that is, to ease their way into the actual use of more sophisticated, interactive teaching methods, and to provide rich alternatives for different learning styles, we have developed a self-instructional ladder for trying variations and elaborations on the basic L-R-D procedure (see Figures 1.2 and 1.3). You can use L-R-D variations and elaborations to develop your sophistication as an interactive teacher and to explore possible diverse student learning style needs. Try ascending this ladder as your own readiness and students’ needs suggest. It’s a good idea to keep notes of your thoughts and questions as you try different variations. Your notes and thoughts will be useful in discussions with your instructor and coursemates and in processing your own teaching experiences. __________________________________________________________ Figure 1.2 Ladder of variations and elaborations on Listen-Read-Discuss.

• Have students reread the information covered in the L-R-D format rapidly to increase their speed of reading and thought processing. Reading speed tends to rise as a result of increases in prior knowledge, although it can also be easily improved simply by systematic attention and practice. • Inform the class that you will lecture, intentionally omitting a few important details that they will need to read their texts to discover. This gives practice in recognizing what is not yet known and experience in careful reading and knowledge seeking. • Inform the class that your lecture will cover all the details of a lesson but that they will need to read to discover what questions these details answer. This is one way to teach students to actively seek an understanding of the concept base, or central question, around which an area of study is focused. • Inform the class that a quiz will follow the L-R-D sequence. Allow a short study period. This is recommended to activate a high level of focused attention, give practice in test taking, and set the stage for questions and discussion about how to study effectively. • Invert the core process occasionally by having the class R-L-D, or read (for about 15 minutes), then listen, and finally discuss. This variation tends to focus and improve listening attention and the ability to learn from an effective lecture. This effect can be further heightened when joined with the other listening training and note-taking techniques covered ahead. • Watch a videotape, educational film, or multimedia presentation on a text topic before reading about it in the text. Such visual representations are compatible with the habits of contemporary youngsters and can help build new bridges to print. (See Figure 1.3.) • Ask students which portions of the text struck them as inconsiderate, that is, poorly written, poorly organized, or presuming too much prior knowledge. This activity can help students learn when to ask for help with textual and class material. It also helps the teacher become more aware of student learning needs. Analysis of the writing in texts is also a good way to informally teach some of the basics of effective writing. • Provide the class with a definitive purpose for reading and discussing that will require critical and/or creative expression or application. State that purpose clearly on the chalkboard for easy reference, for example, “As you read this section on the steam engine, try to determine why it was bound to be replaced by the gasoline engine.” This will serve as a reminder to read actively and with reference to real-life problem solving. • Hold postreading discussions on teaching and learning strategies. Make the discussion positive by asking students what they or you may have done that resulted in solid learning. Such discussion gives credit to student intuition, develops reciprocity, and furthers metacognitive processing, or thinking about thinking. • Create research teams, and provide time for students to delve into a topic in greater depth. One group could simply see what other textbooks say on the topic. Another could check with other authoritative references—persons, books, and the InterNet. Another could write a best estimate of which real-life problems the information learned might help solve or answer. Still another group, where appropriate, could try to identify and discuss theme-related stories, poetry, music, or art. Activities such as these provide links between text topics and nonprint resources and among school learning, artistic expression, multicultural perspectives, and the rest of the real world. ________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________ Figure 1.3 Example of L-R-D elaboration 6: Viewing a videotape or film before reading in a world geography class.

Purposes for Viewing Teacher: Today we are going to continue our study of Kenya by focusing on the Maisi tribe of Southern Kenya. First, we will watch a 20-minute National Geographic tape on this most unusual tribe of people. Listen carefully as you watch for two things, which you will then read about: the diet of the Maisi and the names of three other tribes of the north whom few people know of but who figure in Kenyan life in a big way.

Brief Review Following Viewing

Teacher: OK, what were the two points we listened for? Student: The Maisi basically live off their cattle, eating meat and drinking their blood and raw milk. Teacher: And? Student: Well, there were three other tribes mentioned, but I can’t remember any of them. Teacher: OK, read pages 66 to 71 in your text now to learn more about the Maisi diet, and let’s get the names of those tribes. If you happen to finish reading early, there are a few copies of a recent magazine report on cholesterol here on my desk that might help answer the question “Why aren’t the Maisi dying of clogged arteries and heart failure from their high-fat diet?”

Postreading Discussion Teacher: What did you understand best from what you watched and read about? Student: The names of the three other tribes. Teacher: Say and spell them, and I’ll write them on the board. Student: Samburu, Turkana, and Hamitic. Teacher: What did you understand least from what you watched and read about? [When students have understood what they have viewed and read, they will take this question to mean pretty much the same thing as the next one: What questions or thoughts did this lesson raise in your mind?] Student: I pretty much understood what was said, but I don’t understand why the Maisi don’t raise things the way the other tribes do. Teacher: The land they live on is not arable. There is poor topsoil and little water. But that really doesn’t explain why they don’t move to where there is arable land. Student: I was wondering about their high-fat diet, so I read fast to get to the article you talked about. It seems that there are at least two reasons why they don’t have high blood cholesterol. The raw milk has enzymes that break down fat in the blood. Also, they lead very active lives. They burn off the fat as fast as they put it on. Teacher: If raw milk is so good for you, why do we homogenize and pasteurize ours, I wonder? Why don’t you ask Mrs. Shell in science today if she can help us out with this. _________________________________________________________

After Words Chapter 1 described the evolution of the field of Content Area Literacy, and offered practical and research-based arguments for urging all teachers to become content area literacy providers. It offered a simple method, the Listen-Read-Discuss, as an example of this dynamic instructional technology. The next chapter focuses on the theoretical bases for making reflective and effective instructional decisions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avmanzo (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I must admit that you lost me for a moment. Some research into your contribution history suggests that you may be referring to a note I left here on September 2nd of last year. If I am correct in this, how may I help you now? I'm not quite sure from all of the above what you're asking of me...beyond, of course, your request for a tutorial, which is to be found here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment on Content Area Reading

To clarify the source of avmanzo's comments, I think they may relate to the recent deletion of Content area reading, and I believe the user may have thought you were somehow involved. His comments lead me to believe this, at least. So, I hope that's helpful.

Also, I was the one who recommended content area reading for speedy deletion, and I would like to point out that avmanzo's points, as difficult as they are to follow (and seemingly a little condescending), are also inaccurate. The information he provided above and in the article (in addition to needing a little formatting help) did not reflect what is known about content area reading, was very difficult to understand, and was under copyright. Content area reading is also a subset of the topic of reading or reading comprehension and doesn't need its own page anyhow.

So, I think the user is referring to the former content area reading page, and I also wanted to point out why I think the deletion was appropriate, if you had any question. Best, Kearnsdm (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the context. :) That was a bit of a puzzle. Now I have a clearer picture of what's going on, I see that I am tangentially involved. The admin who deleted the article forgot to delete the talk page, too, it seems, and I picked it up a few days later when somebody tagged it as the talk page of a non-existent article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Images and copyright/screenshots

Hi and welcome back from vacation! I wonder if you could explain to me how I can do it right with some images/screenshots I have taken. I have uploaded photos/my own photos) earlier and never had any questions about copyrights. I don't know how to get rid of all those ugly banners or what to do to make it right. It is just some screenshots! LOL

screenshots

I looked up another screenshot and don't understand a thing.....

image what did they do that I didn't?  :-) I'm totally confused. Have been reading every where. --{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I have to admit that I have very little experience with working with images and so far have only handled album covers myself. I think that the one you're asking about has not been tagged because the requirements for images seem to have recently changed. Some images seem to be grandfathered in; others are picked up late by the bot that usually detects these problems. But I know that quite recently a couple of hundred album covers were tagged for deletion because they did not contain all of the information currently required. For a knowledgeable response to this question, you probably ought to ask at a board where they do routinely work with images. There are a couple of places that might manage this well. In your position, I would feel equally comfortable starting with Wikipedia talk:Non-free content or Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. Both seem heavily frequented, and I imagine your question there would receive attention within a day or two. If not, you can also address it at the help desk. But while the help desk gets a lot of volunteers, a great many of them will share my inexperience with images, and whether or not you will get an answer from somebody who knows what he or she is talking about may be a matter of luck. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion.

I think I first noticed you at your RfA, and since then I've noticed that you seem to be on the same wavelength as me in a couple of ways. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you questions from time to time if I need help with things; but I'd particularly like your opinion on this particular situation.

Summary: User Jonathan is apparently a recent-changes patroller. I first ran into him a couple of days ago at Gustav Horn af Björneborg when I was also doing RC patrol. One thing led to another, and I've now posted criticisms at User talk:Jonathan of his handling of three RC-patrol situations. ((1) re Gustav Horn af Björneborg; (2) re Latin kings, and (3) re Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/EiWit.) While investigating two of those, I also initially made, ironically, the same type of mistake: I jumped to conclusions and misconstrued Jonathan's intentions in the same way that I (still) allege that Jonathan is misconstruing the intentions of two of his RC-patrollees.

Questions:

• Why isn't Jonathan replying to any of the messages on his talk page, from me and from some of his RC-patrollees? Is it possible that his "you have new messages" banner isn't working? Is there some way to get his attention or confirm whether he's aware of the messages? I don't need detailed answers; I just want to know he's aware of the messages.

• I'd be interested in any comments or pointers you have about my handling of the overall situation.

• Also, I'd appreciate your advice as to what (if anything) to do next. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re touching base with me: you bet. I'm always tapping people for opinions. :) I'll take a look at the situation and get right back with you, internet connection willing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It certainly looks like reasonable doubt exists as to those RC calls, and assuming good faith means leaning in the direction of reasonable doubt. Have you considered e-mailing him to see if he's receiving talk page messages? He does have e-mail enabled, and that might be a good service to him if he doesn't know. I note many other comments have been left unaddressed as well, particularly on his complaints page. In fact, one of those complainants back in December specifically notes that he had not answered her question, and I don't see anything in her talk page to suggest he ever did. (It may simply be that it is not his custom to answer notes. I see that he has addressed one of the notes on that page.)

I'd suggest you drop him a line to let him know that you've been trying to talk to him and invite him to respond on his talk page. If he doesn't answer, then I guess all you can do is just leave him a last note letting him know that you've watchlisted his page in case he does eventually choose to reply.

It seems to me that you've handled the situation well. You've acknowledged your own errors and worked to correct them, addressing them frankly and inviting this user to discuss them with you. I like the note you left at the talk page of Chicagofacts contextualizing the template and offering practical advice for that user to avoid such situations in the future. I'm not entirely sure that editor benefited from the advice, since the edit war seems to be slowly continuing at Latin Kings. But it was a valiant effort on your part. :) Please let me know if I can offer more feedback. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't think of email. I'll give it a try. I appreciate your taking the time to look into the situation. Good to know I'm not too far off-base. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I see he just posted to his talk page, so I guess he is aware of messages on his talk page after all. He must be just choosing not to answer some of them. I think I'm going to continue posting messages on his talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a good assumption of good faith on your part, not presuming that he's simply being rude. (About seven down, "Don't ignore questions.") Continuing to address concerns at his talk page is probably the best approach, since you now have a pretty strong indication that he is aware of his talk page, but choosy in when he responds. I'd encourage you to continue politely alerting him if you notice problems with his editing--though I'd probably review carefully before alerting him to keep contact uncomplicated. :) Even if he doesn't respond, he may benefit from having policies & guidelines pointed out to him. It also makes a necessary paper trail, I think. I'm sure I'm not the only Wikipedian who is very interested in how potential admins communicate with others. A nom's talk page is the first place I go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice you've already given me about this. I'd like to get your opinion on some further aspects of the situation.

Re a paper trail: I'm concerned, because he's directing complaints to his Complaints page, which might not necessarily be noticed by users checking his talk page for an RfA, and which might even possibly be deleted at some point. I also just noticed today that he says he's in admin coaching, and has had an unsuccessful RfA in November, at which however the concerns mentioned didn't include the concerns I have now. What do you think about the idea of using a Complaints page: do you know of anyone else who does that? Is it a reason for concern in terms of complaints perhaps not being noticed by RfA voters?

Although I haven't had any replies from Jonathan, he has replied to at least one person posting a complaint to his talk page, and I've received a thanks from a user Jonathan had (apparently mistakenly) accused of vandalism, so that makes me feel, um, sort-of as if I'm communicating or something.

I'm thinking of posting a message to Jonathan that I've noticed he's in admin coaching and that I'm therefore increasing the standard I expect to see, and pointing out for example that he hasn't replied to any of my messages to him (or to messages from some others complaining about his vandalism accusations). Do you think that would be an unwise move? --Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Unwise? No. I do think it requires extreme diplomacy, though. :) Instead of saying that you are increasing the standard you expect to see, you might just want to note that you see he's an admin in training and that admins are generally expected to, if anything, go above and beyond standard with communication. To that end, you might offer a friendly suggestion that he consistently address questions on his talk page. Other than that, there's really not a whole lot you can do (so far as I know) except make note of your concerns in your head so that you can notify others of them if you see him up at RfA. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do some thinking about diplomacy. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:G12

Ah, I'll take note of that in the future. Yeah, I wouldn't have known that if you hadn't pointed it out, as the text is rather small on the G12 template. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I will keep that in mind with future edits. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity verification?

Hi, What's WP's policy on verifying the identity of a celebrity or a celebrity impersonator. I ask because I just noticed User:Grantimahara whom has been contributing to Talk:Grant Imahara as well as a few other Mythbusters related articles. Just wondering if it is indeed Grant or an impersonator. --DP67 ^(talk/_contribs) 04:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this discussed in generalities, but not resolved, and I'm not aware of a specific policy on it. The conversation I watched was not about celebrities per se, but about self-proclaimed experts and an inability to verify credentials. (It seems to apply here. :)) WP:AGF would seem to suggest that we give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but by the same token his contributions to any article have no more weight than anybody else's, WP:OR says he's not a good source for information, and WP:COI means that if he makes substantial contributions to the article they are suspect. :) I guess the best thing to do is probably to keep an eye on him and his articles, which I have accordingly watchlisted. Given the jag of inactivity between his first day and his second, it may not be much of an issue. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, AGF works for me. --DP67 ^(talk/_contribs) 19:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)