User talk:Indubitably/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

I was trying to find you for last couple days on msn but it seems like you didn't go on. Apparently Giggy left the community. Check his talk page OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed. I didn't think about logging on to MSN because I don't ever use it except to talk to you. I think I saw a thing that will allow me to add my MSN contacts to Yahoo! though, so I'll try that. LARA♥LOVE 17:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for all that work fixing those reference tags, as I have absolutely no clue as to how that works. My heroine! Reason turns rancid 16:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. There are a couple with errors that I can't figure out. I tried doing one manually, but it still has the same error as it and the other does with the template. So I'm not sure if it's the url or what, but it won't take the title. Anyway, let me know if you need any help with refs in the future. LARA♥LOVE 17:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did what you asked, hopefully it passes now :) Wizardman 22:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You marked me with a "Question." What exactly does this mean? (Just curious, I hope you don't think I'm trying to accuse you anything.) I see "Not Done" and "Done," and I see "Question," but now that I'm marked with one... well, I was curious. I looked at WP:GA/R, but didn't see either of the articles you starred there. Anyway, an explanation of the meaning of the Question symbol would be much appreciated. Thanks. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 02:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must not have phrased the question clearly. I meant, how does the "Question" tag differ from "Not done?" Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I tried to fix both articles in question, although I'm less sure about the Crown Fountain article. Would you mind taking a look? Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. Also, when things are less busy, perhaps you could tell me what kinds of things you look for in a GAC review? I'd like to be able to conduct a good, quality review, and you seem to be one of the best. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not "my" GAC task force. I just wrote my name there since there was a space for participants but no one was there. I don't really see the point either. Want me to remove my name? Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not my page - you can go ahead as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to yet again bug you about this article. Are you still reviewing it, or should I request 2nd opinion? Or, have you just not got round to it? Doesn't matter if you haven't, I just wondered what the current situation was. Davnel03 16:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you have made the wrong decision in failing it. The fact that I had to bug you several times about the article showed that you didn't have any intention of reviewing it. By the way, you never brough up many issues on the re-review. Given that I had corrected all the issues first time around, why couldn't you of put it up on hold for 7 days? Davnel03 20:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I put it on hold. It's not that I had no intention of reviewing the article, I've just got a lot going on here on Wikipedia and IRL with my oldest starting Kindergarten last week. Additionally, you didn't correct all the issues the first time around. There is still an issue with in-universe, which is a big deal and clearly stated in the criteria, which should be read thoroughly before nominating an article for GA. Regardless, I've put it on hold considering you had to "bug me" (which I really regarded as more of reminders rather than bugging) to get my attention. Bug me again when it's done, otherwise, I'll check back in seven days and make the pass/fail decision. Regards, Lara♥Love 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK. Thanks, I appreciate it. Davnel03 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• ..people have been making pissy grumbling noises about MfD for GA since the dawn of time. It's nothing new. MfDs would never pass. The green button might pass, but expect a LOT of opposition. It's been proposed a gajillion times and knocked down every time.
• A key point, though, it is isn't just the FA folks! We need to stop this "FA against GA" mentality at all costs. If I have one goal, it's to calm the rhetoric. "why can't we be friends?" etc. and all that. I think FA and GA are different organs of the same body [please, no biologically-based jokes identifying which project is which organ ;-) ] I thought a dose of cold water might help but maybe I was way wrong to think so.
• KUTGW! Your influence has been very positive. -- Ling.Nut 18:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, LaraLove, I wanted to add a word of encouragement. I went to the GA talk page to add it there, and decided my message might be lost among all the misinterpretation, misunderstanding, selective reading and general "baggage" on that page. It's quite a sensitive topic, with misunderstanding on both (FA, GA) sides. The essential message (that Raul654, the FA director, doesn't even like the stars on FAs) didn't seem to be getting through. What I wanted to say to you is that I formerly held strong views that GAC was a waste of editor time and good for nothing; watching the work that you and others have done over recent months has caused me to completely turn around, and I now recommend that some articles might benefit from a GA pass before approaching FAC, and I understand that many editors cherish their earned and deserved GA status, and have no intention of pursuing FA anyway. But the turnaround in quality is still recent, and IMO not many editors have observed yet the difference between about six months ago and now; it may be premature to think that GA has overcome past perceptions and gained the stature in the community that it will come to deserve if you all keep up the good work. I hate to see you discouraged when you are moving so heartily in the right direction, and was just concerned that the timing of the proposal to add a star to GA was premature (particularly considering how many times it's already been defeated); GA needs time for others to realize the quality has improved. I hope you'll keep doing what you've been doing, because it has improved the Project. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, SandyGeorgia. I'm not discouraged. I still think certain users are ignorant asses, but I'm not discouraged. As far as Raul's feelings on the FA star, that doesn't affect my feelings on GA getting the button. I like them both. I like knowing I'm reading an FA without having to go to the talk page to see that info. I think it would be great for GA to have the same, whether everyone likes the button or not. I mean, it's a tiny icon in the top corner. It's actually amusing when you step back and look at the discussion from an unconnected perspective. Regardless, it would be immensely helpful to be able to tag articles that have been through sweeps with that button. Considering the list changes daily, it would be an instant identifier that an article had passed and was officially, so to speak, Good. But, as my ignorant ass step-dad always said, "People in Hell want a drink of water; You can't always get what you want." Lara♥Love 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Give it some time, Lara, and keep doing what you're doing; you're headed in the right direction. There will always be more ignorant asses on Wiki than otherwise (seems to go with the territory :-) but we've all got to at least hope that the good work will eventually prevail, even if the route is slow and torturous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost and confused by many of your comments on Joe Nathan. I have no doubt that you made the edits and the comments in good faith and based on your understanding of wiki documentation. At this time, because of your involvement, I am stepping down. In the future, other article reviewers might appreciate it if you would approach them directly and comment on the changes rather than going and making them and then inserting a checklist on the article. I had a methodology that would have allowed for many of the same things to be addressed and your involvement did not help that aspect of the review. In any event, why don't you take it over and happy editing. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went to the article from a post you'd made on the project talk page about it being your first review and not being sure how you'd done or whatever. No need to step down. Just keep those things in mind for future reviews. There's actually a new template that's been made in the past couple of days for reviewers such as yourself—or experienced ones at that (I'm sure I'll use it at some point in the future myself because we can always use another set of eyes on these things)—that requests a second opinion. The template name escapes me at the moment, but it's been added to WP:GAC. The article has been improved to a passing quality at this point. Wizardman is great about appreciating reviewer comments and addressing them. Considering it was your first review, you should go through the passing steps and get familiar with it. There's a few and I forget some of them sometimes, even after all the reviews I've done. Sorry if I stepped on your toes, but this review is yours to take credit for. Lara♥Love 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am stepping down as I'm not in agreement with the way things have progressed. I wasn't outright unsure of anything - i just wanted to invite people to provide me with some tips. I take baby steps with editors and handle a few issues at once. I'll leave it be and i have removed it from my watch list. Be well. If you see me advising on a GA review in the future, please feel free to drop me a note. Be well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a new style, I suppose. In regards to the comment you removed (I had an edit conflict and already had this typed out before you removed it), I'm not sure what you mean by "point 3 up at the top here"; if you mean my notice that I'm not currently taking GAC requests, I don't see why you're put off by that. I've got a ton of work in the GA project and don't have time for all the requests I get here for reviews. I usually don't turn down requests, but then find I don't have the time and/or I forget. It's a downward spiral, really. So it's easier to just avoid the requests all together until I have more time. Anyway, it doesn't seem anything I say is going to lighten up this situation for you, but I do apologize for putting you off. Between GAC, GA/R and the backlog quality reviews, I reviewed roughly 500 GAs, so I suppose it's just sort of second nature at this point and not the big deal it once was as when I was a new reviewer, as you are. My style is more to bang out the whole review in a day or two, depending, fix what I can and drop off for a few days until someone drops a line here to let me know it's ready. Then I review it again. It's a matter of time management for me. I just don't have time to spend days on one review. Regards, Lara♥Love 05:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, another user delisted the article and I responded on the talkpage with a few questions. Perspicacite 06:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but uh... which image cant be used here? Perspicacite 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the senator needs a fair use rationale. The one that can't be used was the movie poster, but it's already deleted, I see. Lara♥Love 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to comment on my stance over here? --Joopercoopers 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Commented. :) Oh, and I forgot to mention, don't close out GA/Rs. That's just going to cause issues. Lara♥Love 16:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Which issues did you have in mind? --Joopercoopers 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing out GA/R's outside of the listed instructions will just be reverted and considered disruptive. It isn't necessary to do so. It won't accomplish anything productive. Lara♥Love 03:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's not out of line, but I'd like to ask - did you code your userpage yourself, or tweak pre-existing code? Th 2005 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I took the code for the background and border from a GA project page. Credit for the header is at the bottom of the page. I tweaked it from those. Lara♥Love 03:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Say thankya! I'm interested in learning what wikipedians usually do in that case. Th 2005 04:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea, and the references box is actually a welcome template. I changed the colors and swapped out and added some links. Lara♥Love 04:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you enormously for your comments regarding the University of Saskatchewan. Although I contributed a great deal of editing to the article, it was originally started, and I was unaware of the fair use images...Thank you for giving instruction about how to handle these. I changed one to a copyright free, but no colours...and made the fair use template thingie for the other one. I think I addressed your other comments, however. The dashes still are giving me some problems. The section may need a re-write to correctly identify the conglomerated college building a different way. I am not sure what you mean by consistently formatting the references, as they all seem to be using the same cite web template for sources, but I did remove unused fields. If you could help clarify this it would help to continue to improve the article. Thanks again. SriMesh | talk 02:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Lara! Regarding the current GA review I've taken for Military history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: From a discussion on the article talk page, it looks like some editors have changed their mind about GA and decided to go straight for FA; I left a comment on September 2nd asking for their go-ahead if they still want a GA review, but haven't heard anything back. It doesn't seem worth reviewing if the review is going to be ignored, especially for such a long article, so I was considering delisting the article altogether. Your opinion...? EyeSerene^TALK 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell them to go for a peer reivew first considering it doesn't even meet GA standards at this time. It can only help. The lead is not sufficient, and should not state "This article..." It's an overview of the article. It should summarize each section. It's not an introduction. Also, ref placement needs to be corrected. All images need to be accurately tagged with the source provided, currently at least one image lacks this. Also, the MSPaint image probably won't make it in FA, but I'm not sure. I also don't think it will make FA with the proseline. I'm not completely familiar with the FA requirements, but at this point, it's not even ready for GA. Lara♥Love 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there was no way I was going to pass it as a GA without further work... which, from the comments, did not look like it was going to happen. I did detect a touch of hubris on the talk page ;) I'll go ahead with the delist and leave an explanation per your advice. Thanks (again) for the help! EyeSerene^TALK 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 03:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:DFTT: Stop feeding the trolls, dumbass. Ignore the ignorance. Lara♥ 04:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look over your editor review. And your contributions. And your GAC Work. And your edit summary usage.

And I've taken into account that you're quite opinionated and don't mince your words any.

And I'd like to nominate you in an RfA if you'd like to accept :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read my ER, you know I'm not interested at this time. Plus, I've participated in enough RfAs to know that mine would not be successful. Perhaps when I'm older and more mellow, I'll be inclined to go for it, but as it is, I have no interest in biting my tongue to get some tools. I honestly appreciate the gesture, however. Thank you. Lara♥ 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, it's best not to be mellow. The place would suck without people with some fight in them. If you do eventually decide to go for it, let me know so I can add my support. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"I have no interest in biting my tongue to get some tools" - that sums up the RfA process perfectly . If only more admins were as wise as you. Epbr123 18:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, more don't. Perhaps if they did I would run. But it's entirely too much hassle to answer all those questions and go through all that for a sure fail. Probably snowball, haha. Not to mention I have no XfD experience and am completely disinterested in gaining any. Lara♥ 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Naaaa....no snowballs in there. I told someone I would "ROK their shit" once and my RfA ran the whole period. I even brought that one up there, good times. Of course, my RfA didn't pass . . . :) IvoShandor 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tragic reality. I've brought up your RfA in other RfAs so many times. Using it as an example of where the system failed and how you can't hold one mistake over an editors head forever, particularly when they've acknowledged it and have learned from it. If you can't pass an RfA, there's no way I will. Lara♥ 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Not really worth all the headache. I can live without the tools, don't know if Wikipedia can live without me having them, but I suspect it will survive. ;) IvoShandor 19:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha. My feelings exactly. :) Lara♥ 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say, same for me - I've been asked several times, and I'm tempted, but the dog-and-pony show method of choosing holds no appeal. If I were to see some RfAs pass people of quality despite having mixed it up as editors, I might be willing to accept the offers of sponsorship (which I do appreciate) and have a go at it - but the way it is now, biting your tongue for tools is a very apt description. And there's a danger of getting cookie-cutter output. Let me know if you hear of moves for RfA reform - I'd be interested in commenting. The project could use more admins who are smart and willing to take on trouble - and that includes interpreting policy, not just mindlessly quoting it. Maybe we should form our own cabal. Tvoz |talk 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Shhh! There is no cabal. Email me. Lara♥ 03:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember that old adage, don't feed the trolls? This user's disruptive behavior is best dealt with by ignoring him I think. Besides the fact that the GA talk pages certainly isn't the proper forum to discuss user conduct. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Read two posts up. Lara♥ 19:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. Keep up the good work. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to get caught up in the things you're passionate about. That being the GA project, not the trolls, :). LaraLove♥ 19:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I, Zenlax award LaraLove, Davnel03, and Nahallac Silverwinds the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for applying the time to edit Randy Orton's article and making an effort to get it in encyclopedic form. The three of you deserve it. Enjoy. Zenlax 12:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Lara♥ 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to use the Cite citation format? Roy Welensky is a featured article and it doesnt even use ref names. If all that is required is a uniform style then I'm tempted to stick with the easier formatting. Perspicacite 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You can use whatever format you prefer. Footnotes is the most commonly used here on WP. WP:CITE isn't about one particular format. It lists all those acceptable on WP. Also, the refs in Roy Welensky are according to CITE. The formatting is a little off. Titles should not be italicized while the work should (they have it reversed), but otherwise it includes everything.

Whether you do it manually or use a template is up to you. Just be sure that all available information is included. WP:CIT is a good references for what all should be included and in what order. Again, you don't have to use the templates, but looking at what they yield will help you build them accurately when doing it manually. Does that makes sense? If not, ask me to clarify more. Lara♥ 03:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you... Well, I'll likely keep going. But I'm still going to pretty much not do anything for a day or two - I'm likely not being quite as rational as usual due to real life events. So I'm just taking a day or two to cool off and then I'll be back. I usually don't even get involved in rubbish like that, so clearly I shouldn't be worrying too much about it. :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I did what I could over at Harold Pinter. Good luck there. Awadewit | talk 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lara, I noticed your note to SV about her edits. For your information, as you can see on her user's page, she has contributed over 60,000 edits to Wikipedia. The tool that you used to check her edits has a known bug when counting a large number, and it stops at 45,000 edits for any editor with more than that number. Thanks, Crum375 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for telling me that! I thought it was weird that it was at exactly 45,000, but it didn't occur to me that it was a bug. I just thought it an impressive milestone. :) Good to know. LaraLove♥ 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem – people make that mistake all the time. You may want to fix your message to her. ;^) Crum375 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Good article candidates/Report, many are outstanding. Go to the backlog archive and see the time period where we have backlog elimination drive. The numbers stand out. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just went through and put reminders on reviewer talk pages in case they've forgotten about their reviews/holds. I also corrected the errors and did forgotten updates. LaraLove♥ 14:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Lara. The person who nominated the Rhee article had some more work they wanted to do, but I'm sure it's done now. I just forgot. By the way, are you considering an RFA? If you are, I would be happy to co-nominate. Just read the comments above, and I feel exactly the same way. Keep up the good work, VanTucky ^Talk 19:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ha. I tell you.... I think I have enough nominators/co-nominators to have a successful RFA, lol. I get that offer about once a week now. Alas, I don't want to go through the hassle and waste my time answering all those questions because I'm certain it would be unsuccessful. I have my sarcasm, quips and a joy for spanking people (on Wikipedia, let's keep my person life out of this ;) that often, apparently, puts some people off. Also, I have practically no experience in XfD and have ZERO interest in gaining any. I'm sure there would be plenty of other reasons found by others... But, I do appreciate the offer. Makes me smile every time. :) LaraLove♥ 19:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you'll take another look at the article before the GAR closes. I think I've addressed your concerns. Otto4711 21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll check back tomorrow. LaraLove♥ 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't really unstable ... it's more of they're considering a minor change - It'll definitely be re-reviewed by tomorrow - more likely today.--danielfolsom 21:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Well, thank you. LaraLove♥ 03:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your having worked hard to help me get Parapsychology to FA status. Congratulations. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :) LaraLove♥ 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Zenlax 1:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you and user Geometry guy (talk · contribs) were having mutually satisfying discussions concerning the relationship between GA judging and our mathematics community. Since he has been called away by the dreaded Real World, I thought I would do you the courtesy of bringing to your attention some recent events. Specificially, see Talk:Hilbert space#GA on hold and WT:WPM#Another ultimatum from our friends in GA (and the comments immediately above that). As I read the mood of the mathematics community (though I confess to bias), we are close to boycotting GA. I assume you would not wish to see that happen, nor to see that decision spread. So I invite you to say a word, either to us or to user OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) or to both. (If I were to guess, I would suspect this user lacks familiarity with the scientific citation guidelines.) --KSmrq^T 03:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this is somewhat related, I thought you should know that it might not of been such a great idea to archive the Derivative GA/R less than a day since its start, (I think it started late last afternoon) if it had been left up for at least 3 days, I think that it would of better served as an example to the mathematics people that most GA reviewers won't expect silly things of mathematical pages. As it stands, I think at least two people in that GA/R were from the mathematics Wikiproject, so I think someone easily could open that GA/R again if they were determined enough based both on conflict of interest and on the almost immediete archive. Homestarmy 16:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked Ling.Nut to do it. He told me that might upset you. I told him I'd rather have you pissed at me than the entire math project. My view is that they shouldn't have been reviewed by someone inexperienced in that field. They shouldn't have been delisted and they shouldn't have been nominated at GA/R. I should have clarified this on the task force page, but it didn't occur to me that Ohana had missed that whole ordeal. If you want to restore it, that's fine. But I just want to be done with this. That project ran me off from GA once, I've got too much shit going on to take another break from it now... and it's Sunday, so my mood is going to be shot to hell for the next two days and I won't be handling conflict well. So the quicker I deal with this, the better. LaraLove♥ 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well played. I think your swift intervention and your comments to the mathematics community will be viewed favorably. People do not study mathematics because of their writing and social talent, nor study English literature because of their mathematical talent. That can foster either mutual hostility or mutual admiration; let us hope for the best. --KSmrq^T 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a short note to say how touched I was by your words at WT:WPM. I also think that you and others such as Ling and KSmrq have done a fantastic job to address the concerns that members of the math project have about GA etc. Nice work! I share KSmrq's optimism for future interaction.

I see you changing your heart colours regularly. The latest green is a particularly bad clash!!! ;) If you are hoping that I will take you up on your promise to return to the dark purple heart if I come back, your plan may be working :)

Seriously, all the best: GA/R is going from strength to strength. Geometry guy 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, it's bad (the green heart), but it's to represent GA. I'm particularly disappointed with my sig and would really like to have a few people fight for a barnstar to create on I like, alas, the reward board is lacking activity. Anyway, I miss you and really hope you come back. The sooner, the better. Nothing pressing going on really, but I do wish you were back. Anyway, thank you for dropping a message on my talk page. It has brightened my day. :) LaraLove♥ 03:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize it has been 10 days. I still have my notes on the article, and will try post a reply tonite. Thanks. / edg ☺ ★ 14:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. :) LaraLove♥ 14:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I didn't have enough time to finish the review (I'm partially done), and I'll try get my conclusion soon. Anyways, thanks! --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. LaraLove♥ 16:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to nominate the Anabolic steroid article for Featured article once again. It's gone a long way even since it's last FA nomination and is very stable and looks great. I thought I'd get your opinion prior to nominating it again just to ensure that it succeeds. What do you think? Would you support it? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick copy-edit. There wasn't much to fix. I did see a couple of places that are in need of citation, in my opinion, and I fact tagged those. Good luck at FAC! I would support it, but I think I've got too many edits on it. LaraLove 19:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I just cited those things. Generally as far as I know, Even the main editors of articles can support FAC nominations. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, you have my support. LaraLove 19:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Lara, this seemed to imply that reviews from the last drive would be reviewed etc. Is this still the case? Not a big deal but one of the biggest problems with drives is that they're not followed up as advertised. Once I get clear of pushing my own agenda (i.e. Ipswich Town F.C. forks to FA, FL etc) I'll be coming back as a GA champ and would love to help out in future drives. The Rambling Man 19:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to my quality reviews for the drive, for which three reviewers (including you) remain? If so, I'll be getting to them. I didn't realize that no one else was going to help much, and I got burned out on the reviews. I'll look over yours today if that's what you're asking. The three of you left weren't of much concern... meaning I trust your reviews. LaraLove 19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries, I trust my reviews too! Anyway, didn't want to stress you out! Not surprised about the burn-out, perhaps the drive was too successful?! Take care The Rambling Man 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Or maybe it was just the overwhelmingly unhelpful coordinators, for which I wasn't one. Anyway, I do question your judgment on promoting the now deleted article. *raises eyebrow* LaraLove 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, what have I gone and done now............?? And ordinarily judgment would be spelt judgement...!! The Rambling Man 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what, that's what I thought, but I believe that's the British spelling. As spelt I believe is a British spelling as well. LaraLove 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the perfect pan-Atlantic discussion is grammar based and you know that you'll never win, don't you?! The Rambling Man 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus I'll take the bait, which article did I promote that achieved glorification via deletion?! The Rambling Man 20:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd lose a grammar based discussion. Regardless, Zig Zag (character) was passed by you and subsequently deleted. LaraLove 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's fair enough. I had doubts but then again when you're confronted with a bisexual rabbit it's probably best to be cautious. Perhaps that makes me a GA loser... Anyway, bring on the (British) grammar test any day! The Rambling Man 21:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Also, especially British, judgement."Dictionary.com

"Main Entry: judg·ment / Variant(s): or judge·ment"Merriam-Webster.com

"Judgement [is] sometimes written with US spellings: judgment." Wiktionary.com

I win, you lose... twice when you factor in the deleted GA. :p LaraLove 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bad Rambling Man. Still, we're none of us perfect.... The Rambling Man 09:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, would you mind taking a took here and making a comment? I had a minor dispute with someone over how I handled placing Warburton, Greater Manchester on hold. They don't appear want a GA/R, but just want to argue the point. I'm pretty sure I handled this correctly however. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that response :) You can have a cookie if you like. :D Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears as though my response was not exactly what you were hoping for, so thank you for not flipping your shit on my talk page like so many others have before. Regards, LaraLove 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would I? I'm frequently wrong - it's wonderful, I get to keep learning new stuff. :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 23:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If I get time over the weekend I will check out the math GAs and let you and the sweeps know which ones are clear GAs and which ones need a bit more work. I know already they are all good pieces of work, but they may not all dot the required I's and T's. Geometry guy 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC) PS. Good to see your wikimood is positive, though I think the stress of controlling the dial may outweigh its benefits :-)

Haha! I don't get the edit tab at all. It leads to a subpage, but I don't see that it works. Whatever, I guess I'll just edit my talk page for it. Anyway, I'm glad to see you're back... if only sporadically. :) LaraLove 23:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Smiling is contagious, you catch it like the flu, When someone smiled at me today, I started smiling too. I passed around the corner and someone saw my grin When he smiled I realized I'd passed it on to him. I thought about that smile then I realized its worth, A single smile, and just like mine could travel round the earth. So, if you feel a smile begin, don't leave it undetected - Let's start an epidemic quick, and get the world infected! Have a beautiful weekend, dear Lara! Love, Phaedriel 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thank you! That's beautiful. And the kid looks like my son, but older, which is cool. :) LaraLove 12:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Woman's Barnstar
		Your work at WP:GA is deeply valued. Keep it going! The Rambling Man 18:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :) LaraLove 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. The Rambling Man 19:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You trust me? I'm not sure I should be placed into any position of responsibility besides non-anti-pseudo-admin... Sure I'll help out...! The Rambling Man 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries about the mess up. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)