User:Paulmnguyen/Archive2011ab

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 20:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Shapley–Folkman lemma: GA Review
Dear Paul,

Thanks again for your peer-review of the Shapley–Folkman lemma article. Now the article is undergoing a Good-Article review. Your comments and suggestions would again be helpful!

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

March 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi. On behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors, I am inviting you to sign up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive. Win a barnstar! It's fun. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hillary Scott
Could you expand on what you meant when you moved the Hillary Scott article and left the following edit summary: distasteful subject matter should be hidden by a disambiguation page on the first and last name? I'm mostly curious as to what policy hiding "distasteful subject matter" falls under. Dismas |(talk) 06:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure on a policy... I was just really surprised to search for the name of a music artist and hit a porn actress's page. There was a disambig link from there to the singer, but I think that because they are so unrelated there should be a branch separate from either of them; I created the appropriate disambiguation page and added a disambig link from the singer to the actress, so the loops are closed and folks searching for down-home country music won't be shocked by "anal sex" and "double penetration" on their first visit. Common courtesy exists on Wikipedia, right? WP:BOLD Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 07:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that common courtesy doesn't/shouldn't exist. Though I'd appreciate if editors spoke from a more objective viewpoint rather than letting their morals dictate their actions.  For instance, country music is more distasteful to me than pornography.  And if it were me that was performing the move/disambiguation, I think that I would have simply stated that I was disambiguating instead of "hiding distasteful subject matter", no matter what the subject.  WP:CENSORED  Dismas |(talk) 07:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I will fight for an informative resource and adequate metadata on WP. I think what I did falls within what Wikipedia is, because I removed no content, only made one page less accessible by landing it on a disambig page, and I even polluted the singer's article (from the perspective of someone motivated by his morals) with the disambig link to "the American pornographic actress". Appreciate your concern and keeping me real by presenting an opposing viewpoint. I did consider switching the redirect to point to the singer first but that, as you pointed out, would be the same bias in the other direction. As it stands now, no bias exists, except maybe the ordering of links on the disambig page; I opted for alphabetical because I think neither is really more "primary" than the other, per the guideline and MOS on Disambiguation links. Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 07:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)