User talk:Sarah crane
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'd love to hear from you! Just leave me a message. Sarah crane 17:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Stubs
Hello,
Thanks for your contributions. You may wish to know that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using {{stub}} if you can.
Thanks, and I look forward to seeing more submissions for you in the future. --Scott 13:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nice editing
It is nice to see how you are diligently working on articles. So many get into the community aspects of wikipedia, leaving each other messages and so forth, that some seem to forget about building the encyclopedia, But you have done the opposite, and I for one appreciate your efforts. NoSeptember 03:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] juan cole
i've been gone from that article for a little while and on my return saw a little balance. it must be due to your presence or maybe CSloat's not getting deleted as much or I caught the article on a non-delete day. thanx anyway. I gave up on the discussions after a while. It got to be an endless revert war. And I was outnumbered. So i just put in my changes, they got reverted and i watched the 3R rule. When i figure out how to do footnotes, i'm going to come back and add a Juan Cole's view on the new anti-semitesim ("NAS"). That's what the whole argument is about anyway. He has written a short article on that. Take Care! --Will 17:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dropping by to say hi
Hi Sarah. I thought I'd drop by and see how you are doing. And, thanks again for your great contributions to wikipedia.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Archive talk page
Hi there, I'm dropping by your talk page because it's nearly your turn on the list for admin coaching, and just wanted to check that you were available for it. I noticed that with this edit you removed content from your talk page without archiving it. Whilst it isn't official policy I strongly recommend that you archive old messages rather than removing them (for several reasons, I'd be happy to explain if you want me to). Therefore, I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Feel free to ask me any further questions. Cheers, Petros471 20:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. You said you thought I should "archive" old talk. Doesn't Wikipedia do this automatically? Thanks, Sarah crane 13:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well sort of. All pages have a history (see the history tab at the top of each page). This is kept automatically, and in the case of your talk page it is quite easy to find where you removed old message (you used an edit summary, and the history is quite short). However, as your history gets longer it becomes very difficult for people to find old messages. An archive makes it much easier. Removing messages can also give the impression (often correctly) that the user is trying to hide things; in my experience the controversial users who get into trouble are often those who remove messages off talk pages. I'm not saying you are doing it for that reason, but it's best to set a good example :) Petros471 13:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Narcotics Anonymous article
No, no, no... thank *you* for your great work on it! I think you have improved it immensly, and am personally very grateful for the time you've put in to it. It reads much more like a fair, objective and factual encyclopedic entry thanks to your efforts. Cheers =) fonetikli 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.
As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.
Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Admin coaching
The coaching program works best when the people involved are fairly active. As your contributions suggest you are more semi-active (not a bad thing!) then maybe it would be better if you just ask an experienced user for advice about anything in particular you might be wanting to know on a ad-hoc basis. You're very welcome to leave me questions on my talk page, and you mentioned some others- I'm sure they'd be happy to continue helping you. Cheers, Petros471 13:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anatomical Terms
Sarah, many thanks for looking at these articles. You suggest that some of the three articles Anatomical terms of location, Anatomical terms of motion and Human anatomical terms should perhaps be merged. I have been actively involved with the first (which indeed was itself merged recently), and aware of the second, but did not know about the third until you suggested the merge.
In fact, User:Beth ohara's article (Human anatomical terms) is extremely recent. You suggest that it might be the "better written and more scholarly", but I am not certain this is the case. Beth's article as it stands contains several inaccurate points, and several more which are slightly incorrect. It (currently) bears the hallmarks of "single author syndrome". That said, most of what she writes is valuable and valid. The other articles may be less readable, but they are factually excellent.
My problem with anatomy is that my undergraduate soul is that of an anatomist (and comparative vertebrate anatomist), yet my current job is that of a clinician. Unfortunately, clinical terms of anatomy (used routinely by doctors in hospitals and clinics) often differ quite markedly from those of the strict anatomical text.
I am certain that Beth's article adds much to the (human/clinical) detail which I had attempted to put into the Anatomical terms of location article (with little success). I would have preferred that Beth had added her information to the two existing articles rather than starting from scratch.
Any merging of articles would need to take into account the requirement of an article to be useful for human anatomy, as well as comparative anatomy (see skull, especially its recent evolution, for a good example of how an article which was previously all human-oriented, has been (rightly) changed to include other species). Further, incorporation of clinical terms as well as dry anatomical terms would be helpful.
I think leaving the two earlier articles as they are and splitting Beth's article between them would be my preferred solution. (As of now, Beth's article is linked from fewer pages than the others). Perhaps better still would be to merge them all into one super "Anatomical terms" article.
I have cross-posted this to the talk page on Anatomical terms of location, and onto Beth's talk pages. I think there is plenty of good material here, and the potential for making things a lot better.
Best wishes, Preacherdoc 20:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] August Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
