User talk:Trishm

NPOVing
If that could be done, I think it certainly would be the ideal way to do it! What you might want to do is start up a draft copy in userspace to see how it turns out, and if there's consensus to accept it, it certainly can be copied in. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work at marriage
Trishm, just wanted to tell you how much I appreciated your edits to the first paragraph of the marriage article. It looks like the trolls that guard that page have edited it out of existence—I wish there was a way to stop them because your work was informative and cited. Thanks for the attempt.--Riferimento 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked this version very much[], and I do not think that it was given enough time so I am going to edit back to this version starting Tuesday. If it is edited away I plan on reverting it back periodically for a couple of days until I am sure that multiple editors have had time to review it.--Riferimento 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Caretaker Gazette
I have absolutely no concerns with what you did in putting that article up for AFD. However, I do think it is salvagable. I just rewrote it at User:Garycdunn/The Caretaker Gazette. Can you let me know what you think of this version? In particular, has the spam problem been solved? GRBerry 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen any more spamming of mathematics educational articles. The article is greatly improved, but I still feel that Mr. Dunn has no interest in Wikipedia other than for promotional purposes, which makes me uncomfortable.Trishm 04:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Please discuss policy changes on the talk page of the respective policy. That way you are more likely to get a response.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I had done that here. Is this what you mean?Trishm 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 01:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Leo J. Ryan Federal Building
... for taking the time to review Leo J. Ryan Federal Building and pass it as a Good Article. Do you have any suggestions for pointers as this article makes its way towards FA status? Smee 01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Thank you...

Hi Smee, I have left a comment on the discussion page. At this stage, I would try to polish the prose, and go for a peer review. Trishm 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, that soon? Thanks so much for the vote of confidence!  Smee 12:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Thank you so much for your time and help. I touched up a couple of things, added another citation and some more info, and then put the article up for Peer Review.  We'll see how it goes.  Smee 13:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Think of a peer review as a chance to get some fresh perspectives on your article.  I like your enthusiasm.Trishm 08:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I will. Smee 08:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Leo J. Ryan Federal Building
Trishm, I didn't want to upset anyone but I couldn't in all conscience agree that the Leo J. Ryan Federal Building should be a GA - I've explained my reasons on the peer review page - perhaps you'd take a look and we can discuss it? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate your comments on this, as previously both yourself as the GA reviewer as well as another editor at the Peer Review both commented positively on the quality of the article as GA status. Smee 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Kent‎ FAC
Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a Wikiproject Grammar member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Kent‎ article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Good article candidates  will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call
Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Shifted WarningsSmall to right margin
19-April-2008: I modified this talk page to shift that top box of "WarningsSmall" to actually align at the right margin. I learned a trick last month: to force a table to truly align at the far right margin, just wrap the table in 5 symbols: {| class=infobox |}. As a result, the coding appears as follows: Note that in the MediaWiki wikitable language, the symbol for start-of-table "{|" must be placed in column 1 of a line. The class=infobox is for any box that shifts to the right side; there are numerous other classes (such as class="infobox geography vcard"), and quotation marks are optional for one-word values. The article "Help:Table" has many typical examples of wikitables, but wrapping with "class=infobox" is a rarely seen trick. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Opportunity to testify
Hi, I was wading through the mess at the Sandra Fluke Afd. I saw this:


 * she was denied the opportunity to testify to the Issa committee

Could we find a source for this? I can't figure out whether the Democrats submitted her name "too late", or whether the Republicans deliberately excluded her. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Ed: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Democrats-Hold-Hearing-on-Contraceptives-amp-Women39s-Health/10737428508/ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rep-darrell-issa-bars-minority-witness-a-woman-on-contraception-2/

And don't forget that the House refused to televise the testimony when it was given. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73132.html Trishm (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My question was about why they excluded her. Democrats seem to be saying that it was
 * because she was a a women
 * The committee (R-dominated?) seems to be saying that it was:
 * because they were only hearing from religious leaders


 * Am I reading between the lines, or is this what the sources really say? It's so hard to tell with political battles, where each side likes to demonize the other. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

True, and I think the problem is that staying neutral means not just repeating propaganda, under the umbrella of "sources say", but also ensuring that the context is clear. The initial reason this was newsworthy is that Issa had convened a panel discussing the insurance options that were to be made available to women, and framed a women's health issue as a religious freedom issue. The fact that there were no women on the panel itself was a political decision designed to impress that women are not the decision makers on this issue. A second hearing was convened, where two women testified, one a doctor, but not Fluke. This shows that the idea that Fluke was not a timely nomination was not the reason she did not testify. The sources say that she was excluded because she was a Democratic nomination to speak, and that this was tit-for-tat and par for the course. (Issa in the abcnews source) That she was "blocked" is verifiable: Issa denied that she was on topic for the first hearing, I don't know about the second, and the Republican's blocked her testimony from being televised. When it was made public, Limbaugh did his best to discredit her.

Look, Ed, I'm not in the US, and maybe this political dance seems a little more obvious from far away. I don't get to see the US TV, or hear the US radio. But I do read a lot. I know you will want sources. Try this: http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/how-contraception-became-a-train-wreck-for-republicans-20120304?

For sure this is a political battle, and this is why in order to be neutral, the statements cannot be taken at face value, but must be placed in context. Limbaugh's statements need to be compared with the source material he is talking about. Issa's comments need to be taken in context with the how the meetings were convened. Trishm (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that was the most thoughtful and penetrating analysis I've read anywhere. Perhaps distance is required for perspective. "One issue framed as another", wow! As a software engineer, I'm not used to such deviousness; quality assurance is all about accountability and transparency. I'm going to refer to your remarks frequently as I write further on these issues. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you Ed. Very kind words. Trishm (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Trishm. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Paul Ryan and speech reception. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 08:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)