User talk:Ginsengbomb/Archive 4

Response on behalf of Dr. Kenneth Kim's Article
Hi Ginsengbomb, I wanted to apologize on behalf of myself and my friend above (76.87.89.126 -- she's actually my roommate and she's been kind of going through a lot these days) for writing such a HORRIBLE, poorly sourced first article on Wikipedia (i.e., the one on Dr. Kenneth K. Kim). I also wanted to thank you for being so kind. I am really sorry that the article came off so poorly. I spent the whole day yesterday trying to find better sources for it, but I was having a very difficult time finding some of them and wasn't exactly sure what was considered appropriate or not. I wasn't trying to support biased claims, and I am TRULY sorry it came off that way.

Anyways, I was able to get some better sources/articles that were about Dr. Kim, and linked them and updated the article myself. I also included a link to a translator to help people in the Wikipedia community translate the text on the news articles I found that were online. Thus, I was hoping you could please change your vote to "keep" rather than "delete". I am really worried now that his article wont pass because of the fact that there seems to be so much bias against plastic surgery in general, but its something that is really important in the Korean community.

Thank you for everything. People bios (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Ginsengbomb, I am really sorry to bother you about this but I just posted up the articles and they were reviewed and translated (and translations were also posted) by some of the other members. I understand if you still want to wait to see their validity, but if you do get the chance, could you please go and check them and if they are okay and you feel comfortable enough with their reliability/validity, could you please change your vote? I am not sure what e/c stands for, but you put it after the delete post. However, if you want to keep it as is or if you want to change it to neutral then I will understand and I appreciate what you've done already either way (just offering to help). Thanks. People bios (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, just in case you miss it, one of the articles was posted on flickr, which you can see here [], but the information on what it says is best if it is not from me, so you can view what CaliforniaAliBaba said about it, which is on Dr. Kim's delete discussion page.People bios (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted my vote, and please don't worry about any issues, difficulties, whatever. You'll find that most people on here have almost unlimited tolerance for editors making mistakes while trying to improve the encyclopedia. Good luck! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU
Thank you thank you thank you. I really appreciate it all the help. I feel like I unknowingly entered into an advocate movement I never anticipated going into this entire endeavor. I am seriously so surprised as to how all-consuming this has become.People bios (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't thank me, thank User:Cunard and User:CaliforniaAliBaba for getting your articles translated and their quality assessed. I would have had no idea how to proceed had they not done that bit of work! It's a testament to the positive side of Wikipedia that they were able to help out in the way they were. Regardless, yeah, it's unfortunate that you're getting subjected to a hotly contested AfD so early in your Wiki career. I hope this discussion concludes in your favor, but if it doesn't I hope you don't let that dissuade you from contributing positively. Thanks! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. To be honest, I enjoy editing. Additionally, I am really getting into technology and HTML of late. Also, I have grown up a fanatic of Wikipedia. I remember the days when I would stumble across an "Abraham Lincoln" article to find a smiley face :) on the page, and this would be two hours before a midterm! I once also nearly failed a test because the information on here was so inaccurate. Lastly, I have a lot of people I know who are really reliant on the information that is on here. I am really starting to love Wikipedia though. I am really glad that this all happened the way it did, otherwise I would have taken this whole thing for granted and would have just jumped in, left two or three more contributions, and then jumped out thinking that was the end of it. Now I am really beginning to understand the community a lot better, which has really made me come to respect it a lot more. I am so surprised.People bios (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Have a nice day
People bios (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

clarification
although Carnegie classifies College as "more selective," this is not at all accurate, and should instead reflect US News (which you quote), which designates the College as "most selective." Respectfully, and with good grace, can we instead change this post to reflect this...If you need proof, refer to us news at: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/middlebury-vt/middlebury-college-3691

thanks for your good help :) Ed4u (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest -- I was going by what I'd seen in a few other articles (Amherst, in particular). I'm frankly completely unfamiliar with the Carnegie rankings! :) I'll make the change to reflect the US News ranking and classification. As far as I know, the US News rankings are the most widely known, and taking a closer look at the Carnegie rankings reveals that "more selective" applies to an extremely broad array of schools, such that it's less of a meaningful distinction. Ahem. Sorry, I tend to babble. I'll change it to "most selective," and remove the Carnegie ref. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

 * I don't want to get too gushy on here, but thank you for guiding me through my first Afd. I have been telling people about how you and Cunard have helped me figure out the ways of Wikipedia, and they think of you guys as heroes for helping me through a crazy mess. Ƥ Ɓ ❤  ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ   00:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! My pleasure. I am very glad that anything I did was helpful. Keep up the good work. I'm sure we'll continue bumping into each other :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  01:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Manfred_Mann
An article that you have been involved in editing, Manfred_Mann, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. KoshVorlon Naluboutes,Aeria Gloris 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I've never been part of a merge, much less organize one!   Thanks for the assist!

KoshVorlon Naluboutes,Aeria Gloris 18:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. They're a bit funky to set up, I know :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Buehrle's perfect game
I think your arguments on that AfD are pertinent, and relevant, but I think they miss a larger picture. I know I've been in the same position too, many times. I only leave the note to say that I think you're overwhelmingly right on these discussions, and this is a rare exception. Overwhelming right. Shadowjams (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind note. I'm actually on a bit of a Wiki-break right now, as I'm back at grad school and crushed with the high workload that often comes with the beginning of the year. Regardless, I actually agree with you regarding the Buehrle AFD. "Pertinent and relevant," sure, but I'm overly focused on the seemingly temporary nature of coverage of the event and too quick to dismiss other arguments in favor of keeping the article -- for example, the fact that perfect games are fantastically rare and very public events, giving them a kind of inherent notability...the type of thing that gets enormous coverage in, say, a book on perfect games. To be honest, my instinctive response to the existence of that article, as a very passionate baseball fan, is very positive. I should have just gone with my gut, rather than fixating on one policy objection and then getting carried away with defending my position. (Actually, a self-critique of my contributions to AfD's is that I should often try and not get carried away with defending my positions -- I tend to over-post, which is both self-defeating and occasionally poor form). Anyway, thanks for the note. Good to hear from you. I hope to get back to my normal level of Wiki-involvement once real life calms down a few notches! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers

 * Thank you :). I was very pleased with the tone of that entire discussion, and I'm equally pleased to see you were too! Have a great day. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Help requested
Hey, Gingsengbomb, long time no see. I hope 2011's been treating you well. I'm planning on nominating Have a nice day for GA soon. Would you take a look at it? (I've done a little expansion since you last looked at it.) Thanks! Cunard (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I love that this article exists in the first place (Wikipedia was born for an article like this one), and that you and others have brought it this far. I'll give it a whack. And then I'll go back into my hole that I seem to only emerge from when I'm feeling AfD-ish. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits, one of which was severe (the removal of an entire paragraph). I'll take another look tomorrow when I'm less bleary-eyed with sleep deprivation, assuming I remember to do so...which is, it must be said, an optimistic assumption. The paragraph I excised was extremely interesting trivia, but seemed to venture too far from the scope of the article, it being something of a tiny history of other, similar phrases, with little scope-relevant context. It's an article on "have a nice day," not a history of valedictions, right? Right? I hope you agree, because that was an aggressive cut. Anyway. Back at this tomorrow. I think I'll end up erring on the side of removing content with this article. The overarching flaw, to me, seems to be an excess of interesting trivia -- to a vastly, vastly jaded Wikipedian such as, say, me, it reads, at times, like an article desperately trying to demonstrate its notability at the expense of tight focus on the article's topic. Too many anecdotes. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gingsengbomb, you heartless, soulless creature. You trampled on my flesh and blood! I can foresee my article being sent to AfD and then speedily deleted because it lacked that one source which established notability. It would be all your fault. Having cooled down a bit, I recant my above statement. Have a nice day is chock-full of anecdotes and trivia which need to be heartlessly ripped out. You have my blessing to do what you need to do to tighten the article and whip it into shape. Thank you for the work you've done so far. Have a nice day is more polished already. I have, though, found a way to retain the trivia you excised. I placed the paragraph in a footnote, which should solve this problem since WP:Footnote says that Wikipedia footnotes are used "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article". This approach probably won't work with most of the other trivia you'll excise, but I'm glad it worked here to save a bit of intriguing history. Cunard (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

GA
I've nominated Have a nice day for GA. When the GA reviewer initiates the review, the page will be at Talk:Have a nice day/GA1. I'd be grateful for any assistance you can provide to polish the article. Cunard (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

unit cohesion AfD -- yours is the last remaining delete vote
It would be nice to see unanimity. Please take another look at the article and consider Delete Yakushima (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You got me thinking...
I would like you to take a look at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Jonathan Keltz. As you know, the original article about this fellow that was sent to AFD in January 2010. As I myself commented back then, I felt that while the fellow might be seen to meet WP:ENT, there was simply not enough reliable coverage at that time upon which to build a decent BLP. I agree with you that the former lack of coverage has been rendered moot. In the intervening 14 months, the fellow has been received growing coverage and recognition non-existant at the time of the AFD. And with the new coverage, I feel it benefits the project to have this new version of the article return to mainspace to further grow and be expanded. No point to a DRV, as there was no flaw in the reasoning for original deletion... but what I have built is not the same as the article that was deleted, and this due to actor's career and coverage not sitting still over the last 14 months. I seek your approval in its return AND in it not being mistakenly speedied as a G4 recreation.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just an additional note: RHaworth gave his blessing to an return to mainspace, and sent me a link to the version he speedied, which I then found in a google cache. I can well understand his deletion of that earlier version. Yikes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at your article. I of course agree that the article (perhaps I should phrase that as "article" -- it barely qualified as a stub) was beyond poor, but it was I think almost objectively not a speedy candidate by either a G4 or A7 argument when it was deleted. There was a credible (and supported) notability claim, making an A7 clearly inappropriate, and the G4 seemed way off to me because the AfD...well, as you say above. So...I don't really understand his deletion (and I'm supposed to be the deletionist, or so I've been told), but I'm very pleased to see that there's been some effort to rectify this. I am barely a part-time editor these days and basically threw in two knee-jerk bits of sourcing because the topic seemed plainly notable to me and multiple editors were jumping all over the article trying to delete a very ugly little semi-stub without doing some due diligence first. As a semi-deletionist who always tries to do due diligence, this annoyed me :). Anyway. I'll look at your work. Thank you sir. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph
Lemme take a look :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what's included so far works :) The Daily Beast article says " trying to figure out who she is has become a sort of Web parlor game." - Do you think that would be notable enough to include? If not, then I'll leave it out, and see what others think WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I say propose it on the Talk page. That's probably the kind of thing HansAdler would be less interested in, and for me that's stretching the boundaries of what's encyclopedic, but I have no particular problem with it and would be curious to know what others think. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  23:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright - Here is Talk:The_Situation_Room_(photograph)]
 * Also let me include another thing - a White House staffer said there were more people in the room, but they weren't pictured
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

B1A4
I removed my second paragraph. As we both mentioned, it wasn't necessary plus it didn't belong there.

Furthermore, I want to thank you for being a reasonable editor. You explain things and you actually try to understand what you're talking about before rushing to delete articles. That may not sound like much of a compliment, but it means a lot. Snowclrops (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, good. And thanks for the complement -- calling someone "reasonable" on Wikipedia is very high praise, given how crazy this place can get at times. I assure you I am not always reasonable :P. BTW, with regard to the "rush to delete" point, I don't think anyone in the AfD was rushing to delete. As far as I can tell -- and I could be wrong, I really don't know -- this was pretty deletable up until fairly recently. Cirt is an excellent Admin in the AfD world; you can see that in how quickly he reversed his own deletion decision once a few people disputed it. And, again, I really would have voted !delete on this AfD had I encountered it when it was first nominated for deletion. I think it's a !keep now...but hey, that's why AfD's have to stay open for a week and why clear consensus has to exist for deletion :). Anyway, thanks for the complement, and good stuff revisiting your last post to the AfD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to be helpful and  very  reasonable too,  but  I  was not  accorded the same civility from  Snowclrops and his supporters. Diffs available by  special  request. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary; I take you at your word. Thanks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  22:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Samuel J. Meisels page
Hi. I’m at my wit’s end, and I hope you can help.

I work for Samuel J. Meisels, emeritus professor at University of Michigan and current president of Erikson Institute. Dr. Meisels is an expert on the testing of young children, and his work has been published by Cambridge University Press, Harvard, and dozens of other reputable presses and journals. He has also served on the board of two important national advocacy and professional organizations for young children.

I have been trying to create an entry for Dr. Meisels, but everything I have written has been rejected. The cause is always the same: I haven’t proven that Dr. Meisels is “notable.” My first version had more than 30 references to his publications, another contained references to Dr. Meisels’s connections to various organizations. At this point, I really am at a complete loss to know how to prove he’s notable.

The final irony is that he’s going to be interviewed by 60 Minutes on June 9, and he really wants me to have the entry done by then.

Please, what am I doing wrong? What is it that you need to see, what evidence of his importance is good enough?

(Mica451 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Yikes! Well, it's definitely not my intention to push you to your wit's end, and I'd really like to help if I can. In order to establish notability, we need to see significant coverage of Dr. Meisel in a reliable, third-party publication. As an example of what would constitute significant coverage, an article written about Dr. Meisel in an online or offline publication would more than suffice. An example of what would not constitute this level of coverage would be an article that mentions Dr. Meisel only in passing, or simply quotes him, etc. I recall that the version of the article that I reviewed had source links to a number of pages that seemed to be simply reproducing the bio that is listed on the Erikson Institute's website. This does not constitute independent coverage. You should also look at the notability guidelines for academics for additional ideas, although I caution you that all of the guidelines there are superseded by the requirement "reliable, independent sources" exist for the topic. As for the good news, it's clear that Dr. Meisels is considered something of an expert in his subject area, and you have multiple sources that suggest that. If you can find any reliable, independent coverage of Dr. Meisels, it is likely that the article can be cleared for inclusion. Is 60 Minutes producing some sort of independent writeup on Dr. Meisels in advance of his appearance? Is any such writeup anticipated to be produced after the appearance? That might pass muster. So, in summary, demonstrating that Dr. Meisels is well-published and well-connected is insufficient to demonstrate notability. The notability guidelines require some form of independent coverage of Dr. Meisels in significant detail. However, given that you have demonstrated that Dr. Meisels is very well-credentialed, I suspect (notability is always subject to interpretation) that even one example of independent, significant coverage will suffice. Your case here is borderline; it is far from hopeless. Good luck, and let me know if I can answer any additional questions! Best regards, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the Encyclopedia of applied developmental science doesn't suffice? (Mica451 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC))
 * See that runny substance all over my face? That's egg. Yes, that suffices. My bad. Here's my suggestion, then. Put in some work revising the formatting of the article to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards. Check out the article on Marjan Bojadziev as an example. I cherry-picked that one from a list of articles on academics that were recently discussed for deletion and ended with the decision to include the article. Try and match the general flow of the article. Most importantly, try to distribute your source citations evenly throughout the article and at relevant locations (ie not just at the end of Dr. Meisel's name), such that it's clear what claim each citation is backing up -- even if, as you'll surely have to do, you are using one citation multiple times. Basically, I think with that source -- and I apologize vehemently for missing it in my review -- the article is valid for inclusion, but you'd be well-advised to improve the formatting or, at least, match claims and facts with their appropriate citations. Let me know if you have any questions. If you want to handle the citation element, I can try and help with formatting and copyediting. That's the least I can do after missing a very important reference that you supplied! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will continue to work on the entry. There's no way to cut and paste from a Word doc into Wikipedia, is there? Would it be best for me to start all over using a different format? (Mica451 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)) (Mica451 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC))
 * No worries, and no need to thank me (still feel bad for missing that ref you supplied)! There's no way that I know of to paste a Word doc into Wikipedia and have it retain all of its formatting. I suggest reviewing how the formatting is accomplished in the academic article I linked above (e.g. how the table of contents is populated through utilization of == tags on headlines, the flow of the copy and sections, etc.). Either way, I'm more than happy to review any updated versions you come up with and supply my own formatting and copy tweaks, where possible! Keep me posted... Oh, to your second question. That's your call. I'd probably just work on reformatting what you have rather than starting over, but that's just personal preference. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I made some very basic formatting revisions to give the article more typical Wiki structure. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have spent the last two hours fixing what I had and now I can't find it. Ugh. Help! (Mica451 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

the return of Jonathan Keltz
User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Jonathan Keltz is about to go live. Please visit if you have time and offer any coments you might wish on its talk page. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! I was actually thinking of checking in with you about that the other day. Glad to see it live, and it looks good to me. Nice work! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  22:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As his newer films get released this year, keep an eye out for additional coverage. :) Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Samuel J. Meisels page
I just resubmitted Dr. Meisels's page. I believe that you will find everything in order (at least I hope so). Thank you so much for all of your help. This is truly a tough arena to navigate. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mica451 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC) oops - forgot to sign! (````) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mica451 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately Wikipedia can be very difficult to navigate. There's a truly dizzying array of policies and guidelines, and I'm always worried that well-intentioned new contributors such as yourself might get frustrated with them and run away screaming :). To that end, I note that your re-submitted article was reviewed and declined by another editor. I've sent a note to the reviewing editor inquiring about his decision. We'll see what he says. It's entirely possible that the editor has a perfectly valid reason for deeming the sources which I think represent reliable, third-party coverage unreliable -- or that I'm missing some other concern. Don't give up! :) Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor's response can be found here: . Reasonable points, and more importantly, his concerns can be relatively easily addressed. Let me know if you need me to clarify what's needed. I should have some time free during the day tomorrow to work on this, too. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so yes, I need your help please. (Mica451 (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Sure thing. I (as may be obvious) didn't end up having any time today to work on this, but I should be able to get to it later, and I suspect it shouldn't take very long. I'll have a go at it, let you know when I've finished, and you tell me if you think it looks okay and, if so, it can be resubmitted. I'm primarily going to focus on combing through the sections on Dr. Meisel's work to make sure all of it is purely encyclopedic in tone (specifically, that it maintains a neutral point of view), and take a look at the external links in the article to make sure their usage is per policy. I may also see if I can reduce the sheer number of sources linked to Dr. Meisel's own work, because it might suggest to some that the article is imbalanced. Regardless, I'll shoot you a message later tonight when I've had a chance to work on this. Sorry for the delay! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I appreciate it. (Mica451 (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC))


 * No problem, this is something that I for some reason occasionally enjoy doing. I've fixed up the article, approved it, and moved it into mainspace, so it is officially "live." I have it on my watchlist so if any issues arise I can see about attempting to address them, and I'd urge you to do the same so that you can step in, too. It's almost entirely your good work, after all! Regardless, I hope this experience wasn't too trying for you, and I hope you continue contributing! Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SO much! I appreciate all of your help! The last thing is that he wants to add a photograph to his page and (big surprise) I'm confused by the instructions. Can you help me? (Mica451 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Happy to help where I can, although I have to admit that dealing with images and copyright is not an area of much familiarity for me on Wikipedia. That said, I am pretty certain that any photograph you take can be used on Wikipedia with relative ease. Is it possible for you to supply a photograph of Dr. Meisels that you took/created yourself? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If Dr. Meisels owns the copyright to photographs of himself, he can donate them by releasing them under CC-BY-3.0 or any of the other licenses at Donating copyrighted materials. To confirm that he has released these images, Dr. Meisels can contact the Volunteer Response Team (also known as OTRS) by following the directions at Contact OTRS and emailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Mica451 can create an account at http://commons.wikimedia.org/ and upload the images through Upload. Additional information about images can be found at the helpful guide compiled at User:Fæ/help/photo. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See above re: being the man. Thank you sir. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Cunard (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

re: The Florida Brewing Company
I have gone ahead and withdrawn my delete vote from the AfD. The article seems decently workable now. Safiel (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Declined Lemonade Mouth 2
Aite fair 'nuff. Sometimes in a rush I miscategorize pages for speedy deletion. I just thought, "I don't know what the hell this person is talking about, it's poorly written, and it could very well be a hoax. Get rid of it." --SuperEditor (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. Completely agree on all counts. I actually thought hoax as soon as I saw it myself but it has apparently been announced (no idea if that's a reliable source, not that that matters). No worries either way, I totally agree that it's inappropriate for inclusion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for not blocking me. It was my first fault, and you differed this. It won't repeat I assure you. And I apologized Aciram. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.98.18 (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Saw that you apologized to Aciram, too. Thanks for doing that. Just as a side note, take care to avoid SHOUTING in caps lock in your posts -- it tends to be aggravating to most people. Good luck, and best regards, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.98.18 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"score" analogy
While I don't think the "score" analogy works too well, this has since been dealt with and I've already said what I needed to say on AN/I  in response to Ravenswing's attempts to use parts of a past, unrelated mess to discredit and attack me. These diffs were what I meant by attempts at intimidation      and they show a clear pattern of escalation. Ravenswing had expected or hoped I would tuck tail and run when they first began in on me on their talk page, and when I didn't, Ravenswing tried making a misleading AN/I post (for example, they didn't link to their removals of another editor's comments and no edit warring had taken place). I don't put up with bullies. When I see someone such as Ravenswing bullying others in AfD (especially while trying remove others' comments and use spa templates to discredit good faith discussion by others) I will step in and say something. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clear from my post to ANI, I don't agree with any of your characterizations. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  11:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't surprise me and you certainly don't have to. Doesn't mean my observations weren't spot on though :) As far as I was concerned, the AN/I "discussion" was pretty much done with and over (and would have soon been archived until you followed up there which reset the last timestamp for the archive bot). --Tothwolf (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter bit there is a very valid point :). I looked at the posting times after I hit submit and realized that there hadn't been any activity on it all day. So... oops! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...which is why I replied to you here instead of over there and found myself disagreeing with your comment of "It is, however, perfectly clear that neither of you are currently capable of just dropping this [...]". Ah well, c'est la vie... --Tothwolf (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Owling (fad)
Yeah. Thanks, I take no offence. I figured it was best to simply move the content out of the old article, return that article to its proper format and have the discussion or decision for deletion on the new page. Since significant memes can form quickly, I'm not sure what the criteria is for inclusion. While you included the tag proposing deletion, I dropped a quick discussion post to that effect into the proper tab. To be honest, I was rather hoping someone would propose deletion. Phifty (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. Sorry about the misplaced warning (you can delete it from your talk page if you want!). Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, you did the right thing. As for this so-called fad, there are numerous criteria for inclusion that seem to preclude it; given that the Facebook page seems to make plain that this phenomenon was invented something like 24 hours ago, WP:NEOLOGISM seemed to be the most appropriate. But it's very true: significant memes can form extremely quickly, so in another 24 hours this may be a fine topic for Wikipedia, you never know :). Take care, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  22:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remove tag for Igor Presnyakov
Igor Presnyakov was my first ever article on Wikipedia and despite not knowing much about editing, I did provide as much accurate details as possible. However, you tagged my article for deletion due to no reliable references. I have just added two references, both a Youtube page and a website owned by Igor Presnyakov. So I am politely asking that you please remove the deletion tag.

Thank you, Michael Rakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockworkmike (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for letting me know, and bigger thanks for contributing the article. I hope my tagging of the article wasn't alarming, frustrating, or annoying. You should take a look at the guidelines governing what constitutes a reliable source. In this case, I think the article squeaks by given that while we don't usually accept non-third-party sources (e.g. Mr. Presnyakov's website) as being reliable, in this case the source is essentially talking about himself, so it is acceptable. But I definitely think the article can be improved with additional sourcing. I might have a go at working on it later myself, but given your own interest, and if you have time, you might want to give it a shot. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks again for writing the article! Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Middlesex (novel)
Hi Ginsengbomb. Would you take a look at Talk:Middlesex (novel) and give an opinion? There is a conflict about the use of "intersex" and "hermaphrodite" in the article. Thanks! Cunard (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings! In the midst of an unexpected Wikibreak at the moment. I just started a new job and am rather overwhelmed at the moment. Regardless, I reviewed the discussion and the outcome is entirely appropriate. I hope all is well. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Congrats on the job! Cunard (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Boat Fishing Monthly
Hi Ginsengbomb You've currently rejected the page I've tried to create about Boat Fishing Monthly magazine, but I dont really understand why. Wikipedia is incredibly difficult to use! Please can you help me? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilippaWGP (talk • contribs) 15:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings! Happy to help, if I can. I declined the article because there were no reliable, third-party sources supplied as references. We require sources that constitute some form of coverage of the magazine (or evidence that it is being widely-cited by third parties) in order to allow the article to continue. Currently, the sources represent either coverage produced specifically by Boat Fishing Monthly, or are the websites of the magazine's publisher. Another company reprinting one article does not constitute coverage of the magazine itself. Does that help in terms of offering guidance on what we'd need to see in order to continue? Please let me know if I can explain further. I definitely appreciate and sympathize that Wikipedia can be incredibly intimidating at first! Stick with it, though, and it can be very rewarding! Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ginsengbomb I've added a few more links, but have included everything available now. Perhaps you could take another look? There is a similar page set up for Canoe & Kayak UK which is owned by the same publisher and that seems to have been approved fine! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canoe_%26_Kayak_UK Hopefully we are approved this time, as so many hours have been put into this Wikipedia entry! Thank you

International Student Senate
Dear Ginsengbomb, you once worked on an article International Student Senate. Based on your comments the article was completely re-written following your comments. Now the article has been deleted by DGG, with the acussation I attempted to post it again and again. Would it be possible to look at the re-written article and shed your thoughts on this ?Peter Vonke (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings, and apologies that I didn't reply sooner. While I'd be happy to take a look at the re-written article, it has been deleted and, because I am not an administrator, I am no longer able to view the article. Being unfamiliar with the current situation, I can't comment on DGG's concerns regarding repeat postings of promotional content, although as a personal aside I know him to be pretty open-minded when it comes to including content in Wikipedia so in instances where he's determined something is inappropriate for inclusion my own bias is to agree with him. But, again, I am utterly unfamiliar with the current situation. Sincerely sorry I can't be of more help, and I hope your difficulties don't preclude you from contributing positively in the future! Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Boat Fishing Monthly
Hi Ginsengbomb I've added a few more links, but have included everything available now. Perhaps you could take another look? There is a similar page set up for Canoe & Kayak UK which is owned by the same publisher and that seems to have been approved fine! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canoe_%26_Kayak_UK Hopefully we are approved this time, as so many hours have been put into this Wikipedia entry! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilippaWGP (talk • contribs) 10:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines
You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Review "wikify" recommendation?
Hi there,

Back in February 2010 you added the "wikify" tag to my wikipedia page Sheeri Cabral. There was no specific reason given, though by now I and others have added links, an infobox, etc. I would appreciate it if you could review the page and either remove the "wikify" tag or edit it to specify what should be changed to make the article more wiki-friendly.

Thanx!

Awfief (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! And thanks for the good work. Please note, you can remove those tags yourself if you don't think they're appropriate anymore, although it's nice of you to ask for my input on this. Take care, and good work improving the article! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  13:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanx! I have no problem removing tags, the problem is that I wasn't sure if they were appropriate or not, since there were several things it *could* have been. Awfief (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

FA and Middlesex (novel)
Hi Ginsengbomb. In the next week or two, I will nominate Middlesex (novel) at Featured article candidates. Would you be able to help me with the reviewer suggestions, particularly if they have any prose concerns? I nominated the article for peer review at Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive2. If you could provide suggestions for the wordings of some sentences, I would be grateful. See 's comment: "Problem: after reading that, one might assume that Eugenides is an intersex, which is not true and possibly a BLP violation." Best, Cunard (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate
Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea

University of Alberta

jmcvea@ualberta.ca

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Middlesex (novel)/archive1
Hi Ginsengbomb. Thank you for the copyediting Middlesex (novel) in the past. I've nominated the article for featured article at Featured article candidates/Middlesex (novel)/archive1, where I hope you can review it against the FA criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings Cunard. I may be emerging from my stupor and coming back home to Wikipedia. It's been a hairy few months. Anything in particular that needs doing on the article? I read through the current state of the FAC thread and am unclear if there are any current priorities. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ginsengbomb! Welcome back from a seemingly interminable wikibreak. I missed you—and your prose skills. ;) The FA nomination for Middlesex will be archived (failed) in a few days, owing to the lack of consensus to promote and the disagreement about the article's structure. I intend to renominate it once the issues are resolved. One concern from Brianboulton regards the "Criticism" subsection of "Style". I wrote at the FAC: "I can think of five options: (i) remove the subsection header and place the content under the section 'Style'; (ii) move it to the 'Critical reception' section; (iii) leave it as is; (iv) retitle the subsection header to something like 'Criticism of writing style'; and (iv) delete it." Would you take a look at that subsection and provide about what to do with it? Would you also take a look at the "Plot summary" section? It was rewritten by Jappalang (who hasn't read the book) a few days ago. I reviewed the rewrite and found a possible inaccuracy. I've re-reviewed the section and don't see anything wrong, though would appreciate your taking a look at it too. Cunard (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm already alarmed at this three day gap between edits since my un-retirement. I fear I'm not going to be the 150 edits/day contributor I was previously! Regardless, I'll take a look at all of this. Sorry to hear that the initial FAC failed. Tough crowd. I'll see if I can help in any way. Perhaps bribery. Or blackmail. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What happened to the Ginsengbomb of erst? He used to spend hours of his unvaluable (pick a definition from unvaluable) time patrolling new pages, participating in AfDs, and copyediting articles. This noble person is now a figment of the past, a phantom who returns to haunt Wikipedia from time to time. Please frighten the FAC crowd into capitulating to my demands, my good phantom. Cunard (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try and find some time to dive into this over the weekend. It looks like the Criticism/Style section was already addressed. Is that correct? I haven't done a deep dive into the plot summary yet. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Criticism/Style section has been resolved. Jappalang moved the information into a new "Verbosity and tone" subsection. Cunard (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Interesting and good to know. I'll take a look see. Thanks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  16:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's definitely the right way to handle it. It flows very nicely now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)