Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I just saw this. Apologies for not commenting earlier. This is a good idea. Not a coder myself, so can't help there, but I'll surely be one to participate otherwise. Thanks for dropping me a note about it. :) Oh, and be careful with that cabal-talk. We've already been labeled! >_> لennavecia22:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This award for services to Her Majesty and The British Empire, is hereby granted to Jennavecia for her work in supporting the BBC. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice to know the £140 ($200) the BBC thoughtfully charges for the privilege of watching their 24/7 stream of drivel isn't being wasted on trivial things like "writers". – iridescent23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Jay. ;) And hahahahahahahaaha, thank you, Casliber! XD
As I have said so many times before, I write the really hard-hitting articles of the utmost importance. Those not covered by Britannica... or, apparently, the BBC... until NOW, BABY! YEA, THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S COVERED BY THE BBC NOW! OH, YEA!لennavecia11:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lara, congrats on getting such an august award. I guess this entitles you to drink warm beer and talk about the weather. ϢereSpielChequers19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
You rule. On a similar note, I found the BBC "journalists" ripping most of Bobby Robson a year or so ago when he won a prominent award. It's nice we do their jobs on their behalf, isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, ya know, MJK is my proudest work as far as content goes on this project. I thoroughly enjoyed writing that article and taking it through FAC, and I enjoy keeping it up to date now. It is by far the best resource of information on him available anywhere on the web, and perhaps elsewhere, so I am very pleased to see it being picked up and distributed by other large websites, providing it links to WP. It's great advertisement for the project, as (toot toot) it's well-written and comprehensive article, so it's all benefits. I do, however, wish they'd include this link ;). Haha. لennavecia21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
AFD Re-opened
As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Kindly tell me what incivility I have used against you. I have no idea and I would like to know, so I wont repeat it. Dendlai (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good point. That was NOT meant to be a comment on her, merely on her editorial behaviour. I don't know much aboutnher. My comment there (good catch, but doesn't quie match 'continued civility issues" which it claims I repeatedly engaged in.) I apologise if it took it as a personal insult. It was merely intended as a reflection of it's editing. Dendlai (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the "it", which I find highly amusing, yet deliberate and continued incivility for the matter of making a WP:POINT. I stated at the discussion there that I was no longer inclined to participate. As arguments are being completely ignored, straw men constructed, and endless circling of arguments, I believe it's a waste of time and serves no purpose, thus I see no point in continuing the discussion on my talk page, which I generally disapprove of regardless, as noted in bullet point two of my edit notice on this page. لennavecia19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for how I "debated" yesterday. I should have disengaged and taken time to think and distance myself from it all long before I did. It's a problem I sometimes have with regards to debating subjects that can make me emotional. I am sorry, and quite disappointed in myself for getting carried away. If nothing else, I made the points I wanted to make extremely badly. I went into a conflict mode, when that was the least productive thing I could have done. So, again. I apologise. I wish I was beyond letting emotions get the better of me. Dendlai (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I can understand how one can let emotions cloud their judgment. I've certainly done it many times. No worries. لennavecia02:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Removal of some stuff
Hi Jennavecia. I removed this but I see you were already following the thread on WR. I've left it removed due to the less than constructive comments that on WP would be construed as "personal attacks". Apologies if this is not what you'd have wanted. Pedro : Chat 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The editor has just admitted that they cannot put the required material in Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology because they do not have it. A "Critical reception" section is required to pass for a GA on such a subject. Please revert your removal of the GAR from the article page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't believe it is appropriate. I view you opening of the GAR as a POINTy action, and I think the comments currently placed on the page are sufficient in explaining the situation quite well. A section cannot be required for an article when there is no content to fill it. There are no critical reviews of the book available in reliable sources. Therefore, the article is comprehensive. It covers everything available. Let the PR ride out, then go from there. لennavecia20:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, are you aware that the editor said at the peer review that she could not include the needed material, and she repeated that at the GAR. The only remaining issue is if GA on a literary work requires covering critical reaction as part of "covers all aspects broadly". However, you are effectively preventing a fair discussion of the issue at GA by your unilateral action. I think I am beginning to see what Malleus means about admins. You are effectively interfering in a content dispute. And this is a content dispute regarding Scientology, a subject which is currently being arbitrated. And one of the editors, User:Cirt, that you are protecting, is currently being mentioned as having a known POV against Scientology. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Alerted by my side? I'm not sure what you mean. But yes, go on with your typical behavior. For the record, last I was aware, I'm one of the few admins Malleus has respect for, but thanks your overview of my administrative standing. لennavecia01:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean I can put the GAR notice back up on the article talk page so that more editors than just you, Malleus, and whoever your crowd is including Cirt and the others who are all on the same side can comment? Do you agree that, since the one side is commenting profusely, that it is only fair to allow others to at least know about it? I alerted one editor and was accused of WP:CANVASS. Therefore, I am at a loss as to how to invite the comments of other editors besides this one group, almost none of which are very familiar with GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight here, it's quite true that I think too many administrators would have problems counting to six without having to use both hands, but Jennaveccia certainly isn't one of those. She acts honestly and with integrity, even when she has the complete and utter gall to disagree with me. I know she thinks I'm a dick, but I've been called far worse and survived. And so will you Mattisse, if you'll just chill out a little. Some things are worth fighting over, but most things aren't. And in my opinion this isn't. --MalleusFatuorum01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Malleus. And for anyone who isn't aware, although I do think Malleus is a dick, I am also quite fond of him and have a great deal of respect for his content work. So don't be confused. لennavecia01:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, then would you ask her to return the {{GAR}} to the article talk page so that more editors than just those that page watch the special few editors/admins can participate in Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1? Most commentors seem unaware that the page has been removed. I invited one editor to comment and was accused of WP:CANVASSING so I have no way of getting uninvolved editors to comment. In fact, when I suggested that we seek uninvolved editors to comment, I was accused of violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sort of like I was accused of making a unilateral admin action in an abusive manner when I have not acted as an admin? لennavecia01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
How did I get dragged into this? For what it's worth I think you're way off base Mattisse, and you need to take some time to get things into perspective. --MalleusFatuorum02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, you dragged yourself into this by commenting on this page about me and commenting on my page. You interjected yourself. But apparently, you have no power. So I will ask Jennavecia: are you willing, Jennavecia, to fix the problem you created? I am too intimidated to replace it myself, as you might block me for reverting you. An administrator enters a content dispute, but editors like me are vulnerable to your whims. It has never been understandable why admins chooses to block under certain conditions. I know they can block without warning for even joking comments on talk pages that the other editor acknowledges is a joke at the time. Therefore, I believe you could ban me or block me for whatever length of time you want. Can I risk that? No. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You really need to take a step back and discontinue commenting until you are again grounded in reality. لennavecia02:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)r
The GAR was premature. But like I said there, I'm not acting as an admin. Your comments are really over the top, and I honestly think you should take a break from the whole thing for a few hours. لennavecia02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
← Let me be perfectly clear. Mattisse has accused me of being gutless and powerless, but I'm not the one afraid of the big bad administrators. If I thought there was any point in restoring the tag that Jennaveccia removed then I would have restored it and bugger the consequences. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be living in a cave. My position is quite simply that we're here to improve articles; whether by peer review or by GAR makes no difference to me. --MalleusFatuorum02:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The crux being, what consequences? Not once have I ever had one of my administrative actions called into serious question, but suddenly I'm one to block someone I'm in an apparent content dispute with over a single revert? Absurd. لennavecia02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Words can be so clumsy. I didn't mean to imply that you would have blocked an editor restoring the tag, and I'm quite certain that you wouldn't. --MalleusFatuorum03:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no, no. I wasn't referring to your comments at all. Mattisse said she was afraid to revert me because she thinks I'll block her, which is absurd. I was merely going from your use of "consequences" to point out that there are none. لennavecia03:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) As an editor, I can never be sure that through the whimsy of an admin I will not be blocked. Never have I felt at the mercy of an admin so strongly as I do at this moment. Jennavecia still has not clarified anything. It is unknown if I would be blocked for reverting the removal of the {{GAR}} template, a clear undermining of any expertise I may have at GA. The {{GAR}} template has not been restored. I have formally withdrawn from all GA reviews, as Jennavecia has implied that her judgment is superior to mine, although she has not reviewed any articles since 2007, by her own statement. That is like saying that the FAC criteria have not changed since 2007! Jennavecia is saying she has no respect at all for my judgment by humiliating me in my attempts to keep up the standards of GA. Under these conditions, I will not review any more articles for GA. I do not want to be blocked for having good judgment that is not politically correct in the eyes of an admin who clearly thinks she is the superior in a content dispute. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you serious when you write these things? I mean, really, I honestly can't tell. It seems like a joke, or some sort of game. I don't even feel it worth clarifying further if you are apparently selectively reading my comments with the worst assumptions of bad faith possible. Completely fabricating and misrepresenting my comments. Regardless, your comment here and wherever else you make it is much less powerful than you probably intend for it to be, as you have proven time and again that you do not hold true to your word with these types of promises. لennavecia03:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that you really cannot stand in my shoes. Because you carelessly hold the power, you cannot know how it feels to be undermined in the way you did to me, when I had though I had credibility as a GA reviewer. You have no idea how much standards have changed for both GA and FAC since 2007. Whatever. You and those like you have the power, and I am not willing to fight it. You have your way and I will not review GA anymore. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Pausing the dramatics for a moment: Despite having stepped away from the GA project in mid-2007, I have kept up with the criteria and have had articles promoted since then. Me listing my GA credentials was pretty clearly to give reason for my actions as an editor in the situation, and not as an administrator, but you're apparently unable to grasp the obvious. Despite having it explained to you that no one in this situation is acting with their administrative hats on, you chose to play victim in a situation of unnecessary drama that you have perpetuated with this over-the-top behavior that you have become known for. Personally, I don't care for it. You can drop your dramatics on my page, but I neither buy it nor care one way or the other. This is about one incident. One that you should have walked away from a long time ago, because you are not able to view any aspect of it objectively. You walking away from GA or anything else is of no concern to me, but you surely need to walk away from this one. And let me add, because it's apparently required with you, that the previous sentence is not a threat of administrative action. لennavecia04:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=small}
