User talk:LaurenMcMillan

 ''Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting  --  at the end. [ Start a new talk topic.]''

Theatre
Hi, just want to say thanks for the grammar cleanup. OMG, I make so many mistakes. I learned English for 15 years, but now my Italian starts spoiling it. :) Ъыь (post here) 10:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sig
Thanks for your comment at Talk:PlaneShift. I'd searched the forums to see if Talad or any of the GM's had okay'd it, but I somehow missed that thread. Anyway, the reason I'm posting here is that it looks like the 'Talk' link you're using in your sig is pointing to the wrong page. It's currently pointing to Talk:LaurenMcMillan, whereas it ought to point to this page: User talk:LaurenMcMillan. If you're interested, Whatlinkshere will show you the pages you've signed that point to the wrong talk page. &mdash; Jeff | (talk) | 11:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, my. How embarrassing.  Thanks so much. =) —  Indi  [ talk ] 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Meetup/Newark
This message is going out to people who have listed themselves in Category:Wikipedians in Delaware. There will be a Wikimeet in Newark (at La Tolteca in the Newark Shopping center - within easy walking distance of the UD campus) and you are invited to come. See Meetup/Newark for details. Raul654 06:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

James Earl Salisbury
I responded to your questions at James Earl Salisbury. Thanks for your concern. McKay 16:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I just wanted to see what you thought and such.  I'm glad you responded. =) —  Indi  [ talk ] 11:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I noted your edits on Mary Christmas and it seemed you might want to know about a nifty thing. When adding advertisement also add and if no one removes it in 5 days an admin can delete it. It's much simpler than AfD and is a 'soft delete' of sort in that one person against the delete can just remove it. However, it's amazing how many get deleted because anon or new editors don't come back to view their silly creations. If you add it to articles you think should be deleted but you aren't sure enough to AfD them then it could help with some cleanup efforts. Thanks. (We also go to the same schoo, apparently). gren グレン 18:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At the time I made that edit, I don't think  had gone live yet, so I left it as it was.  Speaking of contributers forgetting the articles they edit - I had completely forgotten that I added that template.  It was just one of the many uncategorized stubs I came across while perusing Category:Stubs.  I don't really enjoy putting deletion tags on articles, but I guess I'll have to suck it up eventually.  Hopefully I'll see you at the meetup.  I'm still not sure if I'll be there since I only recently made a user account. —  Indi  [ talk ] 18:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Stub revision.
Good day,

You recently updated the stub information on an article I created. In the edit summary, for 311 (DSM), you asked why the stub category was replaced with a stub tag. That is a fair question, and one I hope to address with this message.

As far as stub sorting is concerned, my proficiency is suspect at best. It seems that the one of the previous editors removed the tag unintentionally. After contacting the editor about the removal — who informed me that the deletion was unintentional — I restored the tag.

My concern was that the page may not qualify as an article, and that without the tag, readers might assume that a decision was made to confirm that it was an article. By restoring the tag, I was confident that another editor (such as yourself) would sort the stub as appropriate, or simply deep-six the tag with a valid explanation.

Please accept my apologies if my actions caused you any heartburn, as it was unintended. Please use my talk page for any follow-on responses (questions, comments, etc.)

Cheers. Folajimi 14:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, your response was so formal I was taken aback! (at the time I saw it I was placing my bets in Millionth topic pool, so I was in a fairly goofy mood). My feeling on stub-sorting is that articles should always have some sort of category applied rather than the generic stub so that users with more expertise in a particular field can review the article to either add to it or  as necessary.  I just got done fixing articles with stub tags placed in a number of awkward spots and figured no one would read my edit summary until at least a week from now so I sort of vented.  Sorry if I offended!  At times the generic Stub-sorting.  You can help! message doesn't seem to get the message across that the stub tag is deprecated and I'm just so used to users who haven't taken the time to read the basics about Wikipedia before pounding away on their keyboards. =P  Anywho, sorry! —  Indi  [ talk ] 14:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And many thanks for your concern with my digestive tract. ;-) —  Indi  [ talk ] 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your timely response; it is greatly appreciated. Also, thank you for taking the time to clarify your response. However, a Point of Information seems to be in order.


 * In your initial response, you asserted that "...the [generic ] tag is deprecated..." I found that to be rather troubling, as I consider myself to be rather painstaking when making contributions to Wikipedia. My interpretation of your assertion was that I was using a template that was deprecated or obsoleted. According to the section of the edit help article that discusses appropriate templates to use, the generic stub is still acceptable. So, there seems to be no foul play on my part.


 * With that out of the way, allow me to offer some insight into the methodologies (perhaps heuristics is a better term?) employed by me for Wikipedia contributions.


 * + First, I look for an issue, process, or activity that I find interesting, but has yet to be covered comprehensively anywhere else. Occasionally, I create stubs as a gesture of appreciation or gratitude to a fellow editor who wants them created, but never seems to have the time. (In such cases, these characters may be uninteresting to me, but that is irrelevant...)


 * + Next, I find resources on the subject that will pass muster as an encyclopaedia entry. This is usually the most challenging part, as the subject may have been abandoned by the Zeitgeist. From time to time, information that is available on the subject is published in a language that is foreign to me. However, I manage to get by with Google's "translate" feature (and my wit.) This stage may take a week or so to complete. As I write this, other words to describe this exercise which spring to mind include "arduous", "draining", and "ordeal."


 * + Last, I analyze the gathered resources for worthwhile intelligence. Try as I might, my efforts are sometimes thwarted by a deletionist who decides to deep-six the entry without discussion. Considering how much energy expended on the effort, such actions weigh heavily on me. To that end, I avoid concerning myself with "last-mile activities", such as stub sorting or hunting down apropos category tags. Besides, Emersoni (a.k.a. Old Faithful) seems to be in the habit of picking up after me in this regard.


 * Well, there it is. My hope is that this message effectively (and successfully) conveys the process by which I primarily contribute to Wikipedia.


 * Cheers. Folajimi(talk) 17:00, February 22, 2006
 * Very much so, thanks for your time! —  Indi  [ talk ] 00:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Meetup reminder
Just a reminder that there will be a meetup in Newark, DE, this saturday at 3:00 PM. (Since people have complained after previous meetups that they had forgotten about it, this message is going to everyone listed on Meetup/Newark) Raul654 15:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oompa-Loompa
Thanks for moving Oompa-Loompa. I tried in December but was unable to do so. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Iced Coffee (Australia)
Hi Indi. It seems the concensus is for it not to be a seperate article. I'll add sources in when I can but the last couple of weeks have been extremely busy (I run my own business, what more should I say :) Robert Brockway 10:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for cleanup of Japan Review
Much appreciated. --Steve 06:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I assume you mean Kanagawa Shinbun?  I really wish I could add more info to the article, but seeing as the paper barely has its own webpage I don't think it's possible.  I was mainly worried about its move from shimbun to shinbun because there don't seem to be many articles that use the shinbun.  —  Indi  [ talk ] 11:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm fairly new to the shukanshi, and have some learning to do! Your support and assistance is always welcome! --Steve 13:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stubs
It seems you've been patrolling my newfound crusade to mark every stub on wikipedia. Sadly I am new here and I was wondering, How do you make a catagorized stub? Tips would be helpful for a fellow catagorizer :D Riconoen 10:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Step one: try not to go crazy. Step two: take a look at either this list or this one and place the appropriate tags at the bottom of the article while removing the generic stub tag.  There aren't really any set guidelines to which tags go where, really.  The stub tags themselves always go at the bottom of the article, but the category is up to you so use your best judgement. =)  If you mean how do you make a new stub category, then I direct you to here .  It's a lot of red tape just for a new category, but that's how they want it done.  In the edit summary you should write something like (- , +stub cat), where "stub cat" is the actual category  you chose.  That way if there's a better category, someone looking at the article's history, or someone patrolling new edits can easily make the change.
 * The number of stubs has been out of control lately due to the number of bots patrolling them. It's kind of overwhelming, so it's good to meet other stub-sorters.  Happy editing! =D —  Indi  [ talk ] 11:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Great power - page blanking
Hello, I see you reverted my removal of the Redirect for the Great power page. I'm not sure if you are following the debate on the Power in international relations page; there is an emerging consensus that much of the material on the latter page should be moved to the Great power article and that the redirect is inappropriate. My removal of the redirect was just preparatory work. Hope this clarifies things.

Best wishes, Xdamr 13:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you left no edit summary and have blanked pages before, I had assumed it was in error. In the future please use edit summaries to inform other users about your rationale.  Also, please don't just blank a page in "preparation."  Either make substantial edits or leave the page be.  Blank pages with mere stub tags are the exact types of things stub-sorters try to clean up, either through deletion or redirects.
 * I'm glad it's sorted out now, though. —  Indi  [ talk ] 01:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please support
Hi. I'm wondering if you could lend support to a proposal for a Stub-sorting Barnstar. The page is here. Have a good day :) SynergeticMaggot 17:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, please excuse the wording. I do not mean to ask for a vote, just that you participate. SynergeticMaggot 18:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

G'day Lauren, You left a comment on my WikiPedia user page about some editing I had done that doesn't comply with the Wikipedia user guidlines?

Firstly I would like to apologise straight up.

Secondly: Can you give me an idea where I've gone wrong?

I've read the guides and looked at my editing and I can't see it....

By the way ... the only editing I've done is on the GANGgajang Wikipedia page....

I have not done "a lot of editing of album pages" .....

cheers Greg Webster gregweb@gmail.com.au

losers
why are their so many of them these days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.231.161 (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)