User talk:Joe Quick: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>D. Matt Innis
(→‎Approval Manager: Welcome back Joe!)
imported>Joe Quick
Line 26: Line 26:


And, may I say - Welcome back.  There is hope after all. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make your job easier. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 22:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
And, may I say - Welcome back.  There is hope after all. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make your job easier. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 22:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks.  I guess the best thing you could do is to call for review whenever you come across an article that ought to be approved.  I think I'm going to archive the "Ready for Approval" page and start fresh with a subpage of the Approval Manager account but I'm not sure just yet.  I'll make sure you all know how to get my attention once I've studied the new approval mechanisms and the templates are ready to go.
:What do you think about a push to reapprove currently approved articles under the new procedure?  I think it might be good in order to try to get a standard across all approved articles.  It might also be an easier way to build momentum... -[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 00:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:21, 12 August 2011


Thanks!

Thanks so much for fixing my major boo-boos. Perhaps some day someone could show me how to do this rather than depending on the kindness of others.Mary Ash 20:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. What you did was almost right, but then it looks like you tried to fix a mistake and wound up with a whole string of redirects. To make an archive, first move your talk page to the archive at Talk:Your_Name/Archive_X where X is the number of the archive. Then go back to your talk page (make sure it is actually the talk page, since it will be set to redirect to the new archive) and replace the redirect with {{archive box|auto=long}}. Does that make sense? -Joe Quick 21:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It sort of makes sense. I'll have my kids take a look at what you wrote. I'm sure they can help me, if not I'll ask for once again. Many thanks. BTW just made some yummy red pepper jelly that I plan to freeze in my new freezer. Life is yummy!!Mary Ash 23:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Scary synchronicity

About an hour ago, I finished indexing a book that contained a reference to Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, the same book you cited in a footnote to your Vernacular article. Cue the Twilight Zone music! Bruce M. Tindall 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually reading Anderson right now. Or I should be. I think this is now the third time I've read it for one course or another, so it's hard to stay focused... -Joe Quick 15:29, 24 January 2011 (CST)
Suppose that *I* were reading The Roots of Coincidence by Arthur Koestler right now -- what would *that* signify? Hayford Peirce 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Just another branch of coincidence, I suppose. ;) --Joe Quick 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Approval Manager

Hi, Joe. I have asked Matt to rename the account (no "s"). As for the approval process: I have not yet installed the templates for advertising and managing the process, but should have them ready soon. --Peter Schmitt 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The account is renamed. You'll need to sign in through the new account name from now on. If you need me to do something with the old account page, let me know. D. Matt Innis 01:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. I'm studying the new approval procedures so I can get things rolling soon. -Joe Quick 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And, may I say - Welcome back. There is hope after all. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make your job easier. D. Matt Innis 22:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess the best thing you could do is to call for review whenever you come across an article that ought to be approved. I think I'm going to archive the "Ready for Approval" page and start fresh with a subpage of the Approval Manager account but I'm not sure just yet. I'll make sure you all know how to get my attention once I've studied the new approval mechanisms and the templates are ready to go.
What do you think about a push to reapprove currently approved articles under the new procedure? I think it might be good in order to try to get a standard across all approved articles. It might also be an easier way to build momentum... -Joe Quick 00:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)