ThsQ,Thanks for your helpful and quick response. I have made my entry official. I am a professor working on an ongoing project with my students to edit, update, and improve biographies of figures from British history. I just discovered the peer review process this morning, which was a VERY exciting development, as I am trying to education my students about the process of having work reviewed and verified by outside evaluators. I will talk with them and have them make sure that their pages are properly documented, and then have them submit their work for peer review. Let me know how that sounds or if you have recommendations for making the work of the reviewers easier. Thanks...Cyrus Mulready Redcknight ( talk) 14:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your edits to My Story (Julie Couillard). It is undergoing a Good Article review. So, I am curious whether you plan any major changes. One of the GA requirements is stability so if any major changes are planned the review can be put off hold until you are finished. Alternatively, you are welcome to participate in the review at Talk:My Story (Julie Couillard)/GA1 -- maclean 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I found your points useful.
Points of Agreement
I see now how my original language gave rise to confusion.
.. I'm reading about 'third' and 'rfq'. Good point. I am getting a handle on the "preview page" tool.
.. I recognize that the other commenter has revised his view substantially, and I have I hope added clarity.
.. I appreciate that David Corn's text has been posted for quite a while, and that it was added to avoid speculation (a good thing).
Points of Concern
.. The stand by the word "emotional". Please take another look at the comment on mytalk page. My word emotional is understated.
.. One of the grounds of rejecting my view was strange in this way: it seem to be saying that Corn is "really" saying "nothing is conclusive" and yet quote (given from Corn) is in clear contrast to that claim. Can you give me a third party view on that?
Mountain and Molehill
Now I understand the point here. I add this thought to ponder: The benefit or value added of the Corn quote is small while also seeming to shift the prior clear tone of balance; the sentences prior to Corn do summarize very fairly the two points of view.
Backdrop: Why it is important to get it right
a) Media mistakes mimicking standard government claims Jessica_Lynch and the book So Wrong for Song Long (among others) http://www.amazon.com/So-Wrong-Long-Pundits-President-Failed/dp/1402756577
b) The use of government agencies to support government agency propaganda Operation Mockingbird or, if you prefer, to represent the official government position William F. Buckley, Jr.
Thanks, Theo. I appreciate your assistance. I was getting a little confused on the Archiving. But now that I've seen how your suggestions work, I think that I can continue. Much appreciated. — Dixie Brown ( talk) 15:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi ThsQ. I think the article on Fred Crisman needs to stay. He is notable for reasons stated on the talk page there. Tell me what you think. Hypatea ( talk) 10:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
ThsQ,Thanks for your helpful and quick response. I have made my entry official. I am a professor working on an ongoing project with my students to edit, update, and improve biographies of figures from British history. I just discovered the peer review process this morning, which was a VERY exciting development, as I am trying to education my students about the process of having work reviewed and verified by outside evaluators. I will talk with them and have them make sure that their pages are properly documented, and then have them submit their work for peer review. Let me know how that sounds or if you have recommendations for making the work of the reviewers easier. Thanks...Cyrus Mulready Redcknight ( talk) 14:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your edits to My Story (Julie Couillard). It is undergoing a Good Article review. So, I am curious whether you plan any major changes. One of the GA requirements is stability so if any major changes are planned the review can be put off hold until you are finished. Alternatively, you are welcome to participate in the review at Talk:My Story (Julie Couillard)/GA1 -- maclean 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I found your points useful.
Points of Agreement
I see now how my original language gave rise to confusion.
.. I'm reading about 'third' and 'rfq'. Good point. I am getting a handle on the "preview page" tool.
.. I recognize that the other commenter has revised his view substantially, and I have I hope added clarity.
.. I appreciate that David Corn's text has been posted for quite a while, and that it was added to avoid speculation (a good thing).
Points of Concern
.. The stand by the word "emotional". Please take another look at the comment on mytalk page. My word emotional is understated.
.. One of the grounds of rejecting my view was strange in this way: it seem to be saying that Corn is "really" saying "nothing is conclusive" and yet quote (given from Corn) is in clear contrast to that claim. Can you give me a third party view on that?
Mountain and Molehill
Now I understand the point here. I add this thought to ponder: The benefit or value added of the Corn quote is small while also seeming to shift the prior clear tone of balance; the sentences prior to Corn do summarize very fairly the two points of view.
Backdrop: Why it is important to get it right
a) Media mistakes mimicking standard government claims Jessica_Lynch and the book So Wrong for Song Long (among others) http://www.amazon.com/So-Wrong-Long-Pundits-President-Failed/dp/1402756577
b) The use of government agencies to support government agency propaganda Operation Mockingbird or, if you prefer, to represent the official government position William F. Buckley, Jr.
Thanks, Theo. I appreciate your assistance. I was getting a little confused on the Archiving. But now that I've seen how your suggestions work, I think that I can continue. Much appreciated. — Dixie Brown ( talk) 15:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi ThsQ. I think the article on Fred Crisman needs to stay. He is notable for reasons stated on the talk page there. Tell me what you think. Hypatea ( talk) 10:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)