User talk:Wassupwestcoast/Archive Dec 2008 to April 2009

Phagocyte made GA

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I am extremely grateful for your help. Without you checking behind (to see if it was submitted properly) it may have been a long time before it made GA. Eulemur2008 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A Flurry of Activity

The sudden listing of GA attempts. As you may have guessed the semester is coming to a close. Although all of these editors will be staying on for the second session and have the option of carrying the GA attempt over. They still are hoping for a positive grade and the glory. Now that some have demonstrated success is possible; others are willing to invest the effort and throw the dice. I'm not entirely confident that all of them are ready for the GA attempt - but it is a way to recruit advice and assistance even if the final outcome is a fail. I'm actually more interested in the before and after state of the article and their personal efforts in improvement. If you look at Banker Horse in the beginning and what it is now you see a dramatic improvement. Such is the case for several other articles. If they had just heeded my advice and started the process several months ago - I need a process that forces weekly edits and perhaps avoid the last minute scramble.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Our course ends tomorrow - exam day. Does the fourth GA still count?! Banker horse at least in spirit!--JimmyButler (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I say all GAs count! The second term should be interesting....an FA or two? Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the congratulatory message. This has been a fun and exciting project, and I'll definitely look in to getting this article to FA. Your assistance during the project has been very valuable.

Cheers, --Wikitrevor (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

USA

I saw Bishop Gene Robinson's inagurual prayer in person in my nation's capitol city on our national mall. I am going to see if I have any pictures that are of use to wiki when I get home. I have been away from wiki for a few days and the events I have been privy to have been amazing. History. -- Secisek (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

A year ago, you contributed to the lead of Introduction to evolution. I wonder if you would like to review the recent changes to your text. The discussion starts in False statement and NPOV, but the discussion is not really important (there is no drama). I'm hoping more people will consider the current trends. --Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikisloth! Tread carefully here.--JimmyButler (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

River Otter

I have paired up two students for a last big push on the otter. I really would like to see that one make FA. Wikitrevor and Bandofbeavers. Hopefully, they will attack this thing with a vengeance during the next week. They have a lot riding on it; thus, success is a make or break for them. If you care to keep an eye on that one... it should prove interesting. Not a bad outcome for the project overall.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I will. It would be cool if it could make it to FA. And, yes, the project overall has done very well! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you create this as a template for insertion on our completed articles. I've gotten lost in the help - template and seem to be completely befuddled! I was thinking one for the Fa and another for Ga--JimmyButler (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wassupwestcoast/Archive Dec 2008 to April 2009

Yes, I will but I can't look at the template until the weekend. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Authorised Version

I really appreciate your contributions to this great resource, you are truly a giant among men!

I say the following with all due respect for your work: Evidently you changed the article on the KJV back to "published by the Church of England" but only cited what appears to be a vague remark that could still be taken to put the church as the intended audience. According to the external link on the robert barker (printer) page I added, Robert Barker PAID 3500 pounds for the manuscript which was sold to him by a council of experts, then he paid for the printing costs, then proceeded to produce the work. Further to that, it appears he was responsible for its distribution. For all intents and purposes, that makes him the publisher, at least in my understanding of the concept of publishing and having brought a few books to press myself. Barker took on all the financial burden of the project and thus is by definition the publisher. The Church of England is the intended audience, as pointed out on the frontis itself "Appointed to be read in Churches" so Id ask that you reconsider your edit or provide an actual cite describing how exactly the Church was in fact the publisher.Mrrealtime (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The world of 1611 commerce in England is very different than today. The transaction was more akin to today's vanity publisher where Barker paid for the patronage of the king to hold the right to print. In a world where there were no boundaries between church, state and commerce, Barker sought the patronage of the king to print the new bible to gain favor with both king and church, so that he could gain both socially and financially: part kick back and part influence peddling. The Church of England conceived the project, brought it to fruition and bought the resulting texts. Commercial publishers as we know them today didn't appear until the late 18th C. You are correct. The word 'published' is an anachronism. I will change it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That works, thanks!Mrrealtime (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)