Hello, Laser brain, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
Cirt (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THanks for your review of the article. I have either taken care of or addressed all of your concerns, so could you please take another look at the page? -- Scorpion0422 18:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Randall Flagg
I hope you didn't think I was being rude in the FA discussion, and I have taken your criticisms to heart and I will try solving them when I can. Anyway, thanks for your support.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully the closing admin will take into consideration what everyone is saying, though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can get that essay, that'd be great. Anyway, I managed to add two more sources to the literary analysis section.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Isis
Thank you for your kind words! Yea, I love both writing and hurricanes, so Wikipedia has been a natural outlet for the last few years. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odyssey
It wasn't your Oppose, Laser; even without your oppose, it had failed to garner Support in spite of an extended stay at FAC, so was on schedule to be closed anyway. Your review will be very helpful to the nominator when s/he is ready to re-nominate. Thanks for the good review work you've been doing; giving the nominator something to work with is much better than the alternative, which would have been to close it today with no feedback for the nominator. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid you were feeling responsible :-) FACs can't run indefinitely, so if they don't garner Support, they eventually have to close, and 11 days is more than enough. The other reviews that are that old have all garnered some Support. Please keep the good reviews coming !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you transclude {{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} to the top of your talk page, you'll know which ones I'm begging for input on or for which there isn't enough input for consensus to promote or archive. I keep that list updated; if I get no input, I eventually have to close them with nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Link's Awakening FAC
I believe I've addressed your concerns. David Fuchs (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laser, if you're interested, help is really needed at WP:FAR. It's a whole different game there, where we let reviews run a long time (at least a month) if there are editors working to address issues and save featured status. We also need review and input on those that aren't receiving attention. There are about ten stalled at the bottom of the list that could use addditional eyes and input. I wouldn't want FAR to take you away from FAC, because FAR operates at a more leisurely pace, but if you're bored sometime, maybe you can have a look at FAR, beginning from the bottom where several are running overtime and have no input. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. When there are no involved editors, there's not much we can do except "vote" to Remove, but when editors are willing to improve, we often dig and help with the work ourselves, with the goal of saving as many as possible. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, pls don't let PMAnderson's comments about his unique interpretation of WP:WIAFA bother you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this one looks like it only needs some text massage to be a Keep without moving to FARC. Would that be something you'd want to work on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great ! There seems to be another editor hard at work on it, so you might drop him/her a note, so s/he knows you didn't just fall from the sky :-) Saturn V is after Apollo 8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see Marskell is taking a bit of a break. FAR has been frustrating lately, as not enough people are weighing in there with Removes or Keeps. If you have some free time, you might pick up a few reviews from the bottom (the oldest) and see if you think they are keepers or removes (some of them are on hold per editor request). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all - I welcome the assistance! To date, I've completely rewritten the Saturn V section, much of the Crew section, The film section, and maybe half of the Planning section - but the rest could use some attention. You're certainly welcome to have a whack at whichever section(s) you choose. I'll turn it around on you, if there are any sections you don't get to, let me know and I'll take a swing at them. Apart from work items today, my main agenda is to get a good start on Saturn V, which is also up for FAR and has been sitting for a long time. Thanks again for the help. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 14:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're keeping a list of your major contributions on your user page, I thought you'd like to add a Template:FA-icon for your work on Apollo 8. Thanks again for pitching in! UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now replied to your comments on the FAC. Thankyou very much for your help here and I hope that the article has improved to the standard required for you to support. If there are any outstanding issues, new problems or further comments then please don't hesitate to contact me. All the best--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for your comments and support for the Glorious First of June article which has just passed FAC. Your input was much appreciated. --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the old FAC of History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) you indicated that it needed a copyedit from a non-soccer person and that you would still oppose it. It has had a copyedit by GrahamColm now and I was wondering if you are still opposed before I re-nom it. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments at the FAC (particularly the first one :) ). I'll try to find another source for the fact that some sources misspell the title of the episode. I also responded to your other points at the FAC discussion page, in the order that you brought them up. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: -- I added more sources for the mistaken episode name thing, and noted it at the FAC discussion page. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, and thanks for your comments and quick responses! Cirt (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I couldn't have gotten those "stars" without the help of many different editors. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't understand this image thing at all. I found it by going to WP:IMAGE and then looking under sites listed there. This one was from stock.xchng or SXC which is free, subject to the license conditions which are shown. I don't understand why it can't be used. What do I have to do? Fainitesbarley 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How weird. How could this ever be commercial? Also - why is this company included in the lists of sites to go to if putting their free images on Wiki counts as commercial use? I'm even more befuddled now. Fainitesbarley 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there...I finally got around to satisfying myself that everything you said at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Odyssey Number Five/archive1 has been dealt with. Could you please take a look at it and leave any more comments you have on the talk page? I would like to have another shot at FAC at some stage. :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've replied on the talk page (incase you don't have it watchlisted), and I'll probably go for FAC again soon (if you have any other commentary, gimme a yell!). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Bone Sharps
Not sure why mine was archived while older ones are still hanging around, but whatever... thanks for the comments, and I will be sure to address them! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you commented at the the recently closed FAC for The Last Temptation of Krust. It was closed with 2 comments and one "Support" after 2 weeks, and I'd like to start another FAC for it soon. During the FAC I had left a note on your talkpage that I had done my best to address the points you brought up in your comment at the FAC - you then were the only 1 of the 3 commenters that came back to the FAC, responded to my responses, and then changed your "comment" to "Support". The article is the same as when you last "Supported" it in the FAC. Do you feel you could "Support" the article in its current status, if I started another FAC for it? Cirt (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
many thanks for all your help. Fainitesbarley 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super Smash Bros. Melee FAC
I think that I've addressed your concerns adequately now. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to your new comments now. Thanks for taking the time. AshnardTalkContribs 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If only... I was old enough to drink! : ) Regardless, I'm glad you've taken the time because you've raised valid issues that had gone unnoticed. All the best. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've replied to your comments here. If you could take another look it'd be great. Thanks for the review, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I just noticed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee, and your comments...for what it's worth, I can attest that IGN is probably the most reliable internet VG resource, if not one of the most (including offlines). Most of WT:VG could attest to that too, for what it's worth. Regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fully neutral but I'd be happy to copyedit, if you could wait a bit (and if that would be OK). Otherwise, AndonicO (talk·contribs) is someone I've worked with on VG in the past who's neutral here, but who would probably be happy too. Casliber (talk·contribs) is awesome in general, if you want to get him. Tell him I said hi. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Reviewers Award
To Laser brain, for high quality reviewing at FAC [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 10:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Trafford
I'm glad that Trafford got promoted to FA, but the discussion was closed before you said whether you thought the new explanations or rural and urban districts was sufficient. Sorry to bug you, but I want to improve the article, it's not just about the little star. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Nev1 (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
Please link me the FAC that you don't understand;
Are you saying that I can't vote or that I can vote only leave comments? I leave comments such "if it's possible, please add the bibliography, so the article is complete". I know that the bibliography isn't a criteria, but with that the article's complete.
I finally got around to going through the article you sent me. I tried copying all of the notable information that discussed Flagg and not just recapped his character, and pasted it at my sandbox. If you could offer any suggestions as to what should be used and/or how it could be integrated into the article I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was 16 pages, but I trimmed down anything that wasn't either a recap or discussion of the genre. I may have missed something, so if you don't have a copy I could send you mine.
I was thinking about integrating it into the analysis section.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laser, keep your eye on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Robert Lawson (architect), because Marskell is trying to cite it so it can be a save. Thanks for offering to help Zscout on Belarus; he does a lot of good work. Usually I'm the one giving feedback on FARs, but I just don't have time anymore to do as much as I used to do there. He may need a lot of MoS guidance, and ce help as well. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser,
Thanks for your FAC comments, which I've incorporated into the article (including the rewording of the Lead and the footer reference in the Wikitable). JGHowestalk - 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, LB, best of luck with the FAC. I love guitars and your article was a joy to read. I hope you will forgive my nitt-picking.--GrahamColmTalk 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I believe I have addressed your comments on this FAC, please state if you have any more, thanks! Hello32020 (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA thanks
Thanks for the support
Thanks for your support on my request for adminship. It passed 92/2/2, and I look forward to proving myself to the trust of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I just gave it a look-through. In the second paragraph of the lede, it says how it underwent major expansion, and then it says into mail order. Was its major expansion through mail order? If so, the wording should be revised a bit. Is there an estimate on how much money it makes per year? If so, that'd be a good addition to the second lede paragraph. Is there any reason "folk music" in the first paragraph of history is in quotes? I removed some facts that were fairly unimportant to the article, such as who they leased their first store from. Also, the history doesn't really delve too much into how they become so popular. It says that they did mail order, but I'd imagine that several other companies did the same. Was there anything they did unique? I recommend merging the "business model" section with the history section, as they sort of go hand in hand. "...one of the larger vintage instruments dealers" - is there an actual number for that stat? That'd be good. Also, in the history section, is it needed to include the type of building that the company bought? It'd be nice to see what percentage of its sales were from a particular model, but I realize that info might not be available. Also, I notice that the company is merely called "Elderly" many, many times in the article. Is that another official name for the company, or is it more of a nickname, so you don't have to write out the title every time? "Many notable guitarists..." - such as? Is there anything on the Old Fogey Distributing between 1988 and 1997? All in all, it looks pretty good. Good luck with the FAC. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Song Thrush
Thanks for your kind words. What I find particularly galling is being made to jump through hoops by reviewers who don't then change their votes, or worse, don't vote at all. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL
Being a little nosy here: I don't think User:Laser brain/Belarus is compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. --maclean 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're correct - my bad. --Laser brain (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment here... I sort of regret having voiced my opinion since the conversation quickly became non-productive, but figured I owed you some sort of response. I've actually never encountered submission guidelines to anything that were as detailed and went into as much minutiae as our Manual of Style. I've also never heard of journals rejecting good work for small lapses. I mean, formatting references in Chicago instead of MLA and having to resubmit is one thing. Rejecting a paper because of a non-breaking space? Maybe that sort of thing happens in your experience, but in mine I've honestly never encountered that sort of thing. I'm certainly not opposed to the whole Manual of Style, the way some editors are, but I do feel that it goes so far and is sometimes presented with so much hostility, that it becomes counterproductive. --JayHenry (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with what you've said. I have not had papers rejected for anything as small as a non-breaking space, but most journals have some criteria that would be considered minutiae in most realms, especially relating to images, tables of data, and works cited pages. I wish we could find a happy medium, and I wish our MoS was such that contributors didn't feel intimidated or frustrated by it. The overall message I was trying to convey is that ultimately we should be serving our audience. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with this too and I see now that we are in the same camp. I'm not opposed to the Manual of Style, and think many types of consistency are helpful for our readers and essential for our credibility, but I just wish it didn't have to be the locus of so much vitriol and contention. Should have gone with my usual instincts to ignore an MOS dispute. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the article, and I appreciate your support. I also linked the two terms you mentioned. I was able to replicate in Firefox (not my usual browser) the formatting glitch in the Infobox you mentioned. In order to try and track this down, what OS were you using when you looked at the article? Thanks — Bellhalla (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Voynich Manuscript
I did look into some books at my university library, but perhaps it was the daunting task of referencing the entire article that stopped me from bringing the books back home. I can get some referencing done, but it might take a while. I'd appreciate any help I can get. Nishkid64(Make articles, not love) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also willing to submit this as an FLC in a few days. Tell me what you think of the page, and I'll address concerns soon. --Slgrandson (How's myegg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laser, do you have time to review Ima Hogg at FAC? Most of the active FAC reviewers worked on it, so it needs an independent review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, I will provide a review today. --Laser brain (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double Seven Day
Thanks for the feedback. I've made some tweaks and replied. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 1988 PHS FAC Comment
Do you have any locations online that would allow me to do research from archives of these sources. I couldn't find anything helpful other then what I posted on the article from the hurricane archive (which has an archive of some newspapers that have information about tropical cyclones in it). I looked up Lexis Nexis and it doesn't seem there is anyway to register, maybe I just can't find the registration page. If there's no way I could do it, would you please assist me with this by adding some of the information from these sources. By the way, I'm going to sleep now so I will be out of contact for the rest of the night. Thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Lexis Nexis is generally only available through libraries that subscribe to it. You should be able to access it either through your school library or local public library. A librarian can help you learn how to search it effectively, but it is pretty intuitive. I'm really sorry, but I can't take on any additional projects right now as I am working on finishing my Master's thesis. --Laser brain(talk) 03:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To all of the excellent editors who were part of the Karanacs-led collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status, it was a pleasure working with you on such a fine article about a great lady. Thank you so much for your contribution to this fun collaboration.
Wondered if you'd like to take a look at the Gilberto Gil peer review, as you listed yourself on the volunteers page as willing to review "Any arts-related topics." Thanks, --Kakofonous (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, how far do you think the article is from FAC, since you do so many reviews there? If it is (or could be soon) I don't see any reason to keep waiting for the GA. Best, Kakofonous (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would do two things before bringing it to FAC. First, I would check with a subject matter expert to make sure the article is comprehensive and you have not missed any major sources. Perhaps you can find someone who knows a lot about Brazilian music or Latin American music in general. Second, I would try to get one more substantive peer review from someone who is a "prose" expert just to get that last degree of fit and finish. I would recommend User:Tony1 but I'm not sure if he does reviews on request. Hope this helps! --Laser brain(talk) 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked Seegoon for a copy edit (s/he said "I am willing to be exceptionally anal if need be" on the volunteers list, which I thought would be appropriate)—Tony hasn't listed himself and I don't really want to bug him. I'll review my references for possible missing content, as it seems like it would take less time than searching for a Brazilian/Latin American music expert. Thanks for the advice, Kakofonous (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anarky
After having worked on the article for nearly two years, I am interested in shifting my attentions to other articles. To that end, I'd thought to cut all ties to the Anarky article. However, you are right to remind me that articles must be maintained. I will continue to watch the article in the future, though I will not likely make edits until new information surfaces. That isn't very likely, given the character's absence.--Cast (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your constructive comments on the FA project page, I'm dyslexic so some of my poor english may have slipped in! Unfortunately due to some allegations published in the UK this article has been given protected status. I think I will have to withdraw my nomination, however I am sure that your time wasn’t wasted as I will try and get someone to help me with making the corrections to the grammar at a later date. Once again many thanks Tommy turrell (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, what luck. Tabloid allegations right in the middle of your FAC. Well, talk to User:SandyGeorgia; she can probably advise the best course of action since you can't work on the article currently. --Laser brain(talk) 18:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The timing could have been better. I've been working with Tommy on the article. Since the FAC is now closed, I've copied your comments to the talk page and responded there. It'd be great if you could comment on my comments. The article won't be locked for ever, and I'm told that we can get an admin to do uncontroversial changes (like those you suggest) in the meantime. If you have time to go through the rest of the article it would also be much appreciated - it's not that long, although it may feel like it. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e, I will look at your comments today; I'm also confident that we can get this cleaned up quickly once the hubbub blows over. --Laser brain(talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FAC
Sorry about that. Guess I just needed to vent a little. It's been a while since I went through the torture test of an FAC, and getting that same comment every time is just a little overwhelming. Hope you don't take it personally. There are some very good copy editors at WP:Louisville; hopefully one of them will stop by shortly. Unfortunately, I'm about it for active editors in WP:KY that aren't also in WP:Louisville, and WP:Bluegrass Region is all but defunct.
And yes, the goal is to make the article better, and yes, most of the FAC comments usually do. It's not even the volume of the comments, but getting that same one over and over. As much as you know it's for the greater good, it still makes you go "OK, I get this every time. I must suck as a writer." I'd probably have been over it by tomorrow anyway. Thanks for your comments, and I hope after a good copyedit or two, you'll be able to support the article's nomination. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count) 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page
That is an old comment, from the height of the Date Wars, and is intended to be taken strictly. I oppose all efforts to impose exactly the same style on all articles (for example, declaring that the year of publication must go first, [or second, or last,] in a citation; a stupidity not beyond some proposals at MOS).
Could a style guide be useful? Yes, of course. (You will find some thoughts on this at WT:WPMoS#Five layers of MOS, which is more current on this matter than my userpage.)
Should a style guide be "clear, concise, simple-to-reference"? Yes. Do we have one such? No.
Should it reflect the range of English suitable to encyclopedias, which will therefore very with the editor and the subject? I think so; some do not. The alternative is to have FA comments of the form "Gotcha; you spaced your emdashes, or used periods after long sentence fragments." Let's not. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad, I suppose, to be considered an interesting case. I have several objections to the present system.
We are not a corporation. I presume your employer, likewise, has decided whether it speaks British or American; WP has a longstanding and consensus guideline, which you doubtless know, against making any such decision. We will have a range of editors, from a range of disciplines, backgrounds, and nationalities; we should not attempt to suppress the resulting diversity, if only because it will not work.
We should not give any MOS the position which some editors claim for it, of being the Rules with which featured articles must comply. Doing so leaves us two choices:
either we must write out exact top-down rules which precisely capture some given aspect of English (consider, for example, the rules on whether to spell out numbers or not; there was an edit war over them in the last month, and yet they are obviously incomplete from that point of view.)
or we will be, in any case which the Rules do not contemplate, demanding and rewarding bad writing.
In brief, guidelines should guide, not prescribe. Even the best MoS needs "common sense and the occasional exception."
I should add that even the best MOS will probably be irrelevant to most actual reviewers. It was only the other day that I had to persuade an FA reviewer not to oppose because the article omitted serial commas; Commonwealth reviewers are equally provincial. The only hope here to make MOS so concise that it will actually be read.
We should not give this MOS, that haphazard collection of prejudices, any special authority whatsoever. It is not clear, not concise, not well-written; in many places it does not describe the whole of the English language; in some places it does not describe any English language.
Emphasis on MOS encourages trivial reviews. Counting periods on captions is much easier than actually evaluating English prose (and, as we both have seen, the latter is tricky). Evaluating prose is much easier than evaluating content. FA gets a lot of the first, a little of the second, and much too little of the third.
FA is a device by which one editor can impose his prejudices on many, whether those prejudices are the spacing of exponential notation (see Template talk:E, or the True Point of View. (Note I say can; it is possible to overrule such blackmail, but it works too often.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 04:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that will do to begin your analysis, Doctor.
Making MoS a set of non-binding recommendations ("many editors avoid spaced emdashes") would help; making a list of advantages and disadvantages (r"spaced emdashes may be seen as too long a mark") would help more.
Actually, my chief take on audience is that there is a minority for whom our established decisions to be inconsistent on color/colour or Harvard/footnotes are already damning; and a vast majority which doesn't care whether we are consistent across Wikipedia in dealing with emdashes. I belong to the majority; my proposed language above was an effort to express the views of others without being damaging to the encyclopedia.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a secondary matter, much of MOS in determined by a handful of editors who appear to have no conception of the diversity of our audience. Chinese characters in text are normal in discussing Chinese; but one editor is in a snit because they don't communicate anything to him. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 05:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point; but I disagree. If we were consistent between articles on much more visible things, this might be a concern (I'm not sure how much of one); but we are not. In viewing any dozen articles, the reader is likely to see at least three different citation styles; if they are ancient history, he will see both BC and BCE; he may well see varying usage on Anglo-American spelling, serial commas, and other things on which we agree to disagree. He will see both unspaced emdashes and spaced endashes. Spaced emdashes are going to instill a crisis of faith?
Looking through a dozen printed books will provide the same range of variation. Does this induce unconscious skepticism too? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 14:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nine Inch Nails live performances FAC
Thanks so much for your thorough review of the NIN live performances page. For some reason the FAC was closed just after I addressed a bunch of your concerns. Oh well. I haven't had a chance to address all of them yet, however, but am hoping to soon. I plan on renominating the article eventually (sooner rather than later hopefully), and by that time I'll do my best to address all of your concerns. I'll drop you a line when that eventually happens. Thanks again. Drewcifer (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments at the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix FAC. I have responded and changed some portions of the article per your comments. If you feel any of your comments are resolved and need no further adjustments, could you please strike it out, so I know what bits still need work on. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll inform you when the next FAC for that article begins. :)) D.M.N. (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've renominated it. The discussion is located here should you wish to participate. Thanks! D.M.N. (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History versus route description first
I don't necessarily agree that history should come before the route description in road articles, as you advocated in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 174. I've posted why I feel that way on that page. Please either reply there or we could move discussion to WT:USRD so that the relevant WikiProject is more aware of the debate. Thanks! —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FAC query
I know you're busy, but can you possibly carve out time to thoroughly review Michael Jackson? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did what I could, but I am under the gun (actually, several guns) right now so I can't do more. Sorry! --Laser brain(talk) 05:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to return to the FA review, some of your suggestions are simply not possible, i would like to discuss them further. Cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the article has had a MAJOR overhaul per your request. It nearly killed me but i think ive managed it. I changed the FOX news sources per your request, i completely overhauled the financial section, its very detailed now, i created a large themes and genre section, i added some "negative" info on his dancing noting that its rather sexual and has caused controversy etc. I would like your views on this, also im a little nervous about tackling the physical appearance section without crossing pov. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will have a look today and strike/respond as necessary. --Laser brain(talk) 14:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx, i have taken note of your advise and have acted accordingly, certain things that remain, i just need i little more clarification on what direction to take. I think you will agree its improved though. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, i have a rather good picture that shows jacksons physical change over 20 years. Can you do fair use rationals? If so we can has a really neat picture that shows him change. Whats really good is the pictures are all taken at the same angle so comparisons are really fair. Let me know. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Realist2, I have stricken some of my comments and replied to some others. Your dedication to this article is amazing, and I thank you for your efforts thus far. On the question of the fair use photo - it really depends on the use. A fair use photo that shows Jackson's change, accompanied by critical commentary, would definitely be a benefit to the article if done correctly. --Laser brain(talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ill will get it all done as long as people dont rush to close the FA, i work hard, even though i still have a majority support at the FA, i take all critism seriously. Ive replied to your comments. Shall i show you the picture, it doesnt come with commentry but i spoke to an admin who believe it would be of use to the article and was well worth a fair use rational. Additionally since youve been away a few hours i managed to get those three sections copy edited by a third party. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken some more comments and asked a couple more follow-up questions. I don't need to see the picture; I'll check it out if you decide to add it. I won't have time to work with you on it at the moment, unfortunately. What I meant by "critical commentary" is to make sure the article discusses the picture. --Laser brain(talk) 04:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah on second reading i realised thats what you ment, ok, i will try to find something on his music videos damaging the quality of music, ive heard it once or twice, ill look for it and see what the source is. For the surgery, the book i have talks about why jackson wanted surgery, the events of the first 2 on the nose, the chin cleft and why he wanted it, the amount of surgery he had a different points and there are some statements made my the media proffession. As for his skin alteration the book has tones of medical stuff on that. Im discussing it here with you because the FA page is really messy now, i cant find my way around it at all. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the update, i cant find anything on the negative effect on industry, your more than welcome to look for a reliable source yourself, otherwise i think youl just have to call that resolved. Second, ive added tones to the physical appearnce section, it just needs a copy edit. Take a look at that and see if you are happy with the content itself, Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken my other two itemized concerns - for now, I am still opposing based on 1a, professional prose. Have you had any luck in locating an experienced copyeditor to go through the whole text? I think if you do that, Tony and Karanacs would review their opposes. --Laser brain(talk) 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One person has, he's only done certain sections tho, i can ask him and others to do it all, then you will support? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations !!!
Well there, congrats; how does it feel ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feels like my university can now pad their stats for non-traditional (read: too old) students. But, what a huge relief to be done! Thanks! --Laser brain(talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments at the FAC. I have responded to your points, at the FAC discussion page. Cirt (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I looked through lots of various database archives when searching for sources for this article - I did not come across any sort of reaction from Erhard or his business associates to the book's publication. Cirt (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any help/suggestions on how to work on comprehensiveness? Like I said, I have gone through lots of databases searching for additional sources, but the list in the References section is pretty comprehensive as far as sources go. The material in the article then pretty much reflects those sources and coverage given, especially as far as analysis of the book in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind my asking, what was your strategy for researching this? Did you do different types of scholarly searches (like Academic Search Premier or Lexis Nexis) that are normally good sources of critical review? --Laser brain(talk) 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I searched in an index of book reviews. I searched at a university library, in the databases you have mentioned. I searched online in google. I searched in an index of mentions in other books. I searched in archived news sources/mentions in three different databases. Cirt (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just triple-checked Lexis Nexis again, no new sources turned up that are not already used in the article. I will go back again and look through the other databases again. But honestly I have been checking and re-checking for additional sources all along. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did another few searches through Academic Search Premier, again, did not find any additional sources that aren't already cited and utilized in the article. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search too and didn't come up with anything new. I've changed to support since I'm convinced you've researched it thoroughly. --Laser brain(talk) 16:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. FWIW, I've done some additional searching and still haven't come up with anything further on the book itself, though I did add a brief bit more biographical info about the author. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Davison, and can tell you 100% for fact Moore was born here.
I went down to the county hall of records to check, he was born here. So please do not threaten me.
Lemonhead414 (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that not reliable??? You're citing online sources less reliable. This is ridiculous.
Lemonhead414 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for the feedback. I have personally fixed quite a few of those errors. I have requested help from several copy-editors, and in addition I have submitted a request for copy-editing at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Please strike through or move the resolved issues into an "issues resolved" comments box like the other editors have done. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please review again - it has been copy-edited by User:Gusworld. A lot of context has changed - and a lot has been reorganized into the proper chronological order. — Wackymacs (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last of your issues have been resolved. Thanks for all your help! — Wackymacs (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've finally taken the plunge at FAC for our old friend Mr. Gil and wondered if you had any comments to make, as the ones you gave at PR were so helpful. --Kakofonous (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I was wondering if you could help with an article I'm working on? I've taken Dirty Dancing through two peer reviews, GA status, a rejected FA nom, and literally scores of hours of work, but no matter how much time I put into it or who I've asked to look at it, the FA reviewers keep saying "not good enough". I'd still really like to get it to FA, especially before Patrick Swayze dies. :/ If you have time, could you take a look at it and see what magic you could do, to make it more "wiki"? Thanks, --Elonka 14:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, I will take a look at it this week. --Laser brain(talk) 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - a photo (or scan) of a copyrighted work is a derivative work and thus subject to the same copyright issues as the original. They should be tagged with the {{Non-free 3d art}} or {{Non-free product cover}} copyright tags. Best, Black Kite 06:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5/7 DYK
On 7 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sarcos, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
See if your FAC requests (but the passive) were fulfilled. igordebraga≠ 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ocarina of Time FAC
I've expanded the Development section at The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, per your comment at the Ocarina of Time FAC. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and let me know what you think. I apologize for pinging you so quickly—I normally wait at least 24 hours—but I'm leaving town in a day and most likely won't have Internet access for a few days. Thanks, Pagrashtak 06:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I have addressed most of your issues. Please strike as necessary. — Wackymacs (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was lucky and came by a bunch of academic journals/news sources on Infotrac. As a result, a lot more information has been added to the article (see the History and Reception sections). You'll also be happy to know you were right -- there was an education price - it was $800. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zinta
Thank you so much. I only had one observation -- the fact that Kal Ho Naa Ho was a tearjerker is very important because the movie was mostly recognised for this kind of content as well as Zinta's role itself. I hope you don't mind. I'll now add a source for The Hero. Thanks for the great comments and great help. I must say I wanted to turn to you yesterday, but did not know if you are willing to go through the text, as your history indicated that you were busy. Thanks again and best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again! Blofeld and I have worked on The Hero bit. What do you say? Shahid • Talk2me 17:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you work with me to de-game-guide-ify The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess? I'm going to remove some information from the Gameplay section that is not very important, so that it doesn't feel too in-universe. Gary King (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up a bit. Thoughts? I have cut down the gameplay to the first three paragraphs of the Gameplay section; the rest talks about differences with previous games, and the technology behind the game. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do another read-through and I'll let you know. Oh, and Elderly Instruments did have a peer review page.. the editor just happened to write his comments on the article Talk page. I copied them over there for posterity's sake at the time. --Laser brain(talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on the article? I feel like it's improved, but is it enough? Gary King (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary, we're still missing criterion 1a by a fair margin. It's just not there, I'm afraid. --Laser brain(talk) 05:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was lucky and came by a bunch of academic journals/news sources on Infotrac. As a result, a lot more information has been added to the article (see the History and Reception sections). You'll also be happy to know you were right -- there was an education price - it was $800. — Wackymacs (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a suspicion. Well thanks for digging that up. The prose is looking great. I wonder if a Mac expert might be able to point out any other things you might be missing. --Laser brain(talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might add a thing or two to the Features section, but I am very happy at how its turned out. It's up at GA nominations at the moment. I think it's now broad enough to be featured as well. Again, thanks for your help.— Wackymacs (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you have the time, of course. Thanks for your help with the NeXT and Macintosh Classic articles! — Wackymacs (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, sir. You're a Mac-writin' maniac! --Laser brain(talk) 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Thank you for the comments. All sorted, unless I missed something. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Can you check another of the paragraphs? The lead was the only part that I had forgotten to copyedit last week and I have done so now, as well as expanding it, Thanks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always read the whole article before commenting. If I spot problems easily, I tend to move to "less detailed" reading where I am looking for other major problems. I will be happy to run through it again on my next pass through the list. Thanks! --Laser brain(talk) 04:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost done. Hang around for a few minutes longer... Gary King (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be better now. Could you take another run through? Not quite done yet (you can watch my contributions to see the progress) but I think it's improving well. Gary King (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser brain. I've replied to your comments at the FAC. If the FAC has been archived/not promoted by the time you get to it, would you be kind enough to make in-depth comments on the talkpage for me? Thanks! :)) D.M.N. (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say hai
Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, Laser brian. If you get the chance, could you drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Master Juba and revisit your comments? The article has now gone through three copy edits (by Jmabel, Tuf-Kat, and myself), and the prose and clarity problems you mentioned have all hopefully been addressed. Thanks again for your feedback, — Dulcem (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping your objections detailed and actionable, laser brain. I appreciate the effort you have put into your edits to the article so far as well as your comments. I believe I have remedied most of them, but a few of them I disagreed with. Please check back at the fac page at your convenience. Savidan 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply to the issues. It speaks well of your dedication to the article. I will revisit within a few hours. --Laser brain(talk) 21:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. The size is certainly a concern, however, a lot of early feedback we got from less experienced editors at the VG Project was the guide was not in-depth enough, and that it didn't really prepare them to write an Featured or Good article. But I do agree something needs to be done about the size. One idea I've been considering is to break it up into subpages like chapters. The main page would be more generic and the subpages could give the in-depth information some editors are looking for. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25talk 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Please take your time, the whole VG Project wants this to be a useful and practical guide. Regarding your question, if I had to pick one, I would say it is meant to be read as a whole. But, certain parts are designed to be read casually; like the bulleted lists and various tip sections. When writing it, we figured people wouldn't read through the whole thing. (Guyinblack25talk 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'm slightly concerned about your comments regarding the article on The Orange Box and it's FAC, particularly the following:
...but substantive work has not been done to bring this up to FA standard before being posted here and it shows.
The previous FAC can be found here. Following on from that, I contacted SandyGeorgia on how to proceed. She reccomended that I arrange for a peer review and contact the original opposers for further advice, which I then organised. The peer review that we held can be found here. In that, a number of issues were brought to our attention that we worked hard to rectify, before bringing the article back to FAC. Based on this, I would appreciate an understanding of what would qualify as substansive work to bring this up to FA standard, as I would prefer to avoid repeating missing the same steps in the process in future. I can understand that videogame FAC nominations are suffering from a lack of preparedness and clogging up the system and this is something I would like to avoid if possible. I can appreciate that you give your time voluntarily to the project and would value your thoughts, in order for me to avoid a repeat of this in the future. Many thanks, GazimoffWriteRead 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if this comment seemed unfair or harsh. I actually didn't see the video game peer review - I looked at the general peer review which is empty. I need to learn to look in the WikiProject banners, clearly. To answer your question (and I'll answer at the FAC as well) about what qualifies as substantive work to bring an article up to FA standard: Usually it means going through the article with a fine-tooth comb several times, with a copy of the featured article criteria for reference. In the case of video game articles, it almost always means involving a non-video game editor. If I see an article written, reviewed, and GA-passed all within a single WikiProject, it is almost always badly in need of an outside review/copyedit. Again, sorry if my tone offended. I'm more than a little run ragged from dealing with other unprepared video game articles. --Laser brain(talk) 23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I can really appreciate that you're being stretched thin at the moment and want to do my best to minimise my pull on your time. One of the mistakes I made myself was not performing a final copyedit before nominating it, which I should have done. I also wasn't aware of the distinction between a wikiproject peer review and a general one - something I'll bear in mind for the future. I'll try to give the article a deep clean over the next few days, once I've completed my review of Grand Theft Auto 4. As a side note, Dihydrogen monoxide (talk·contribs) has agreed to help mentor me through GAN reviewing, as I'm hoping to be able to catch potentially troublesome articles before they even hit the FAC pages. If you can offer any help or direction in this area yourself, please let me know. Once again, many thanks for your time, GazimoffWriteRead 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well now I feel orphaned because I don't have a mentor like everyone else. Hey Laser, adopt me!! In any case, I just finished a full sweep of the article and hopefully preemptively cleaned up issues, not giving you the chance to raise them. I also attempted to address the concerns you raised at the FAC, so please do have a look at your earliest convenience. clicketyclickyaketyyak 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want me to adopt you.. I'm even a bad influence on my cat. :) I'm massively busy for the next couple days but I will head back to The Orange Box when I get back. I almost bought it today but I decided I didn't have time to play that many different games and just bought Half Life 2. --Laser brain(talk) 02:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, some cultures assigned ritual functions to their musical instruments. Those cultures developed more complex percussion instruments and other instruments such as ribbon reeds, flutes, and trumpets. These labels carry far different connotations from those used in modern day.
Hi there! I will add that information as I work. Do you have a pressing research need to know right away? --Laser brain(talk) 01:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thanks!
RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Passage to Freedom
hi there Laser brain. I was able to fix your requests this time! Thanks again! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd let you know...You recently helped peer review Macintosh Classic. Its now up at FAC. P.S. NeXT is now a featured article. Thanks for all your help! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
M-35 FAC
I replied to your comments at the FAC a few days ago. I was wondering if you had seen them or had any more comments? Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed your concerns and left comments in regards to your opposition. I have also copyedited the plot section, so please give that a look and leave some comments as well. And if you're completely satisfied, a Support would be greatly appreciated! (Just a suggestion.) Limetolimetalk to me•look what I did! 03:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I withdrew the nomination. But you know, I've worked VERY hard, and mostly by myself, to bring the article to a respected class, and now it looks like that'll never happen. What do I do? Should I give up? Start on another article? Limetolimetalk to me•look what I did! 13:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt you worked very hard - it definitely shows! I don't think you should give up. You should take the comments you got seriously and probably work with an experienced copyeditor to bring the article up to FA standard. Bringing an article to that standard by yourself is nearly impossible - I have rarely seen it done. --Laser brain(talk) 14:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed your great work on the article and wondered if some info about percussion that I have the (somewhat obscure) resources for would be useful to you. If so, drop me a line, if not, I'd be glad to help in any other way. --Kakofonous (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please- this article is a shocking and overt example of advertising. Discussion page consensus clearly corroborates this view. Furthermore- what proof can you possibly offer as not being a vested interest of this company? Starstylers (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get rough now dude. What this article needs is some improvement, not personal criticism. Cheers, Face 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elderly Instruments
Thanks for your comment. I'm happy to help improve the article in any way I can. Let me also say that I think your contributions to the article are mostly very good. I'm not one of these people who thinks this store isn't notable or that businesses can't be FAs. I just think this article's promotion to FA status seems to be premature. I'm sure it can be turned into a great article in short order. --D. Monack | talk 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your oppose at the FAC for Civil Air Patrol has been addressed. Please evaluate the article to see if it now meets your standards. — scetoaux(T|C) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elderly talk page
I thought the issue of procedure was relevant to the case, but if you insist, fine. What do you suggest would be a better venue? LampmanTalk to me! 16:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it's a good article, I'd just like to point out that my criticism wasn't directed at you. I’ve just made a comment on possible reform of the TFA system on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article, I’d appreciate if you had a look and perhaps weighed in. Cheers! LampmanTalk to me! 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came to say the same thing...makes me not look forward so much to when I finally get onto the Main Page. Hope you're dealing with it OK, mate. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have gone on a wikibreak. I hope you don't feel discouraged to contribute after this. Love, Face 07:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just giving my support. Elderly Instruments is a fine article. I've dealt with at least one of those individuals on a similar issue and after 2 days of reading their vile insults I almost walked from the project, but then refused to give them the satisfaction. Don't let them get you down. Not a single one of them would ever say that to your face.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another drive-by comment: I think the article was solid as well, and it's unfortunate that the reaction went the way it did. Keep up the great work when you come back. Tony Fox(arf!) 16:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did a great job on Elderly Instruments; I hope that after the naysayers and trolls turn to the next victim that you will return your talents to Wikipedia. Best of luck! Aylad['ɑɪlæd] 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate main-page day with a passion, because it invariably turns into something like that. Kudos to you for doing a great job of remaining calm and civil, even in light of the not-so-nice (and some nasty) things that were posted on the article's talk page. Enjoy your break, and we'll be happy to see you when you get back :) Karanacs (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another drive by show of support. It seems like every single day an article comes to the main page that isn't a city or history or an A-list celebrity, there are pages of "WHY IS THIS ON THE FRONT PAGE" discussion. This time they got wayyyy too personal. And that's pretty BS. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I don't understand is why, if people cared that much, they don't get involved in the TFA nominations. It's like crying wolf after the horse has bolted, or similar. GazimoffWriteRead 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to express my support too. The article definitely meets our Featured Article criteria, and I'm sure that the concerns around the sources will be short-lived. It's sad that some complaints around the nomination of this FA became personal, but your work will have been viewed and appreciated by a lot of people around the world, this is I think an exceptional honor that shouldn't be saddened by other considerations. Cenarium(talk) 03:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to echo my support. Where are these people beforehand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopularOutcast (talk • contribs) 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In blissful ignorance that some people were being malicious. I'd have jumped in with both feet if I'd known about the controversy. Sorry... Aylad['ɑɪlæd] 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if anyone will come back to this section to read it, but I wanted to posted my sincere thanks for the supportive words. I can tell this is an outstanding community just from your actions. Now let's get out there and write some more FAs! --Laser brain(talk) 03:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No rest for the weary: you have an assignment here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elderly Instruments
I assume that there is a discussion somewhere of the debacle that is Elderly Instruments, though I haven't been able to find it. In any case, I wanted to write to you personally to express my shock and profound anger at your action in creating and promoting this article. I have been an occasional contributor to Wikipedia over the years, and made my contributions on the understanding that I was working on a collaborative, non-commercial project. I am very angry that Wikipedia has been subverted in the way that the Elderly Instruments article does, particularly in its promotion to "featured article" status. The work that I did on a specifically non-commercial basis has now contributed to a blatant advertisement that has been visible to millions of people around the world. My work has been stolen and used for a purpose that I did not authorise. I would encourage you to at the very least make a public apology to your co-editors.
RomanSpa (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are out of line. If you had tried to find the discussion, you would have found it in the most obvious place as well as here, and at the time of your post that last one (with subsequent replies) was still on Talk:Main_Page, which makes it even easier to find. And you've been around long enough (since 2006, apparently) to know how to find those discussions. Furthermore, at no time did you submit content to Wikipedia with the understanding that it would not be used for commercial purposes (the GFDL summary beneath any page's Edit box says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."). Your implication that Wikimedia/pedia/whomever is profiting from this article is invalid, since the article was not paid for by any interested party. The only way that WP "profits" from the Elderly Instruments article is that the free encyclopedia is one article closer to being the most complete encyclopedia in the world. Finally, flaming the editor of an article that may need work – especially after so many editors have already indulged in such flaming – is counterproductive; a far more mature and, dare I say it, civil response would have been to attempt improvement or continue discussion of the article in question. ...If I have in some way misconstrued your words or intentions, or if I have wrongly assumed that you could easily find the policies and talk pages which support my statements, I apologize. Aylad['ɑɪlæd] 03:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'd like to reply in order to avoid misconceptions or misunderstandings from both sides. We have articles on numerous businesses, for example google, the only condition for inclusion on Wikipedia is that it meets our specific notability requirements (and is not in violation with one of our policies like WP:V or WP:BLP). The featured article status is only a sign of quality. The today's featured articles are selected among our featured articles, this selection process is regularly debated. Laser brain has edited a lot of articles, his contribution to this article is one among countless others on various subjects. Laser brain has not proposed that the article be put on the Main Page, nor attempted to promote the article in any way, but tried to improve its quality. Your frustration is understandable, but please consider that the intentions of Laser was to achieve a quality article, not to get it promoted on the Main Page. This may appear to be advertising, but some of us also think that any quality (i.e. "featured") article should have a chance to be featured on the Main Page, regardless of other considerations. The issue is debated (see the links by Aylad above, also here, here, here, here and many other places), don't hold your grudges on Laser, but rather on the process if you think that it's against the spirit of Wikipedia. Cenarium(talk) 03:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent:) Indeed, there is no reason at all why Laser brain should make an apology, public or otherwise. He has been extraordinarily civil and composed throughout this affair, where others (and I include myself here) have not always managed to be so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second JB's comment on Laser brain's position in this matter. TONY(talk) 05:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I third it and suggest we archive this sort of thing faster. It does no good and plenty of harm. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reason for Laser brain to make an apology?! Codswallop! He should apologise straight away for possessing the unmitigated nerve to improve Wikipedia articles and for his single-minded, obstinate pursuance of quality and the ever-elusive criterion 1a with callous disregard for the conscientious objectors who point out that improving certain articles instantly makes everything one adds fail neutrality guidelines and automatically imparts a conflict of interest. Numerous users have demanded such an apology and Laser brain ought to respect this consensus among the community or else—mark my words!—this issue will never be settled. In fact, I am not sure if just an apology will do any more. Laser brain may have to vandalise FA pages like Elderly Instruments, Macintosh, Microsoft, Bank of China (Hong Kong), Firefox, Maraba Coffee, and other wikinfomercials to atone for his willful and scandalous promotion of special interest groups as evidenced by his unrepentant improvement of their articles. clicketyclickyaketyyak 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, sir. Additionally, I wish RomanSpa had gotten the memo that direct personal attacks were supposed to go to my e-mail (well, with minor exceptions). The nerve! --Laser brain(talk) 20:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you have the time, please take another look at Macintosh Classic which has now been copy-edited by four editors in total. See changes since your last comment at the FAC. Your support at the FAC would be most appreciated. Thanks. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
collaboration
I'm down for it.
If you want to start it, I can add to it...--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a bot added something to the article's talk page, when mine made it to the Main Page. I honestly did not even realize there was a main page until that happened. Same with DYK...well at least until the second one I received. Looks like you got a good start! I'll add some about dealing with trolls/vandals/etc. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Peer Review help
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.
1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...
2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.
3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.
Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will do my best to make the 13th of each month a lucky day (for some backlogged peer review). Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know I've been working on this article for the past few weeks and hope to get it back to FA status. Just wondering what you think? Buc (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of a good copy editor. Buc (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although not my FAC, I'd just like to let you know that you should probably check this again. Lots of changes were made while you were away, and I changed my oppose to a support. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey
Good to see you (just as I'm getting ready to travel :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll be playing catchup for a while. Happy traveling to you! --Laser brain(talk) 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
good to see you back too! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good to be back! I haven't looked at FAC yet.. I hope I'm not desperately behind... --Laser brain(talk) 03:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it was very disappointing to see you lambasted and trolled like this, and very heartening to see that you've stuck it out. Seems worthwhile to add my voice to those saying your work is valued, and I hope you don't listen too much to the negative nellies. WilyD 14:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you've been back for almost a week now... how're you taking it over all? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RCC
All protocol was followed before bringing this article to FAC including posting a request on the League of Copy Editor's page. Several editors have visited the page doing exactly what you have asked here - their comments were addressed as well as yours. If you don't have specific examples to give to support continued oppose, that makes your oppose invalid. I really think you are being unfair to not even look at the rest of the article to point out any other problems. NancyHeise (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per WP:CONS, which is a Wikipedia policy, not an essay someone wrote: "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted." WP:Silence and consensus is the wikilink within this official policy. I think it is more than just an essay, if not, it should be removed as a wikilink from the official policy page. NancyHeise (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RCC Nom
Now I've got back up off the floor - I have to congratulate you for integrity in this matter. Xandar (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making me laugh. I saw your comment as I was leaving a different message on Xandar's talk page. Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to give us some guidance on the FAC page regarding capitalization issues - specifically: Do we cap the sacraments? NancyHeise (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You commented on this at the peer review, it's now at FAC. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-edit
Hi, I noticed that you said you were listed at WP:PRV and willing to copy-edit any any arts-related topics. I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out ? I have put the Doggystyle article up for FAC and it has been requested that it receives a copy-edit before it can pass as a FA. A partial list of what has to be changed is at the FAC page, but I think the article would need a complete copy-edit to ensure it has good grammer and that the prose flows well. I personally don't know what to look for, so I would really appreciate your help. Can you help me out ? Please get back to me soon :) - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of everything that's been brought up, I think it just needs a copy-edit to bring it to FA status. Do you know any other editors who could help me out ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left some comments and I have also added a list of good sources which are freely available on Google Books. Hope it helps - how is the rewrite going so far? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to help with the writing, but I'm trying to fix Synthesizer at the moment (along with a load of other stuff listed here). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually hate writing these types of 'generic' topics, because there is so much to write. Another one I'm doing is a rewrite of Tourism in the United States, which is currently in my user space here. But anyway...when I came to Synthesizer a few months ago, it looked like this, so I naturally started to improve it. It is looking decent, though it still needs a lot of work doing. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
responding to your comment
He basically called all the support votes on the page idiots. I am not upset with his critique of my work, I am upset that he disparaged all of those people who came to the page, spent time reviewing it and decided to support. I know one of them is an editor for an journal and is a Yale graduate student. I think Tony's manner is abusive and discouraging to other editors, he should not be reviewing Wikipedia if he can't act like a gentleman. I think this is one of Wikipedia's own policies that no one seems to be enforcing. NancyHeise (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because when a reviewer comes to the page to review the page, he states his own comment and reasons, he does not tell everyone on the page that their votes are stupid. NancyHeise (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Admin?
That's very nice of you to offer. The previous experience did discourage me and for a while I had one of those "I'm not an admin and don't want to be one!" infoboxes on my user page. I'm more open to the idea now though. Thing is... would I really use the extra privileges? I think I would prefer it if you nominated after I have completed the stuff on my to-do list, as I am in the process of rewriting several articles and cleaning up a few existing ones of mine. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe...I do come across a lot of vandalism and so it would be useful if I ever need to block an IP or, as you said, to sub-protect pages. I also think you are fit to be an admin, although you are quite new to Wikipedia - Do you think you'll consider it in a few months time maybe? You've learnt everything a lot faster than I did. It took me ages until I consistently used edit summaries. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do have that option selected (only discovered it within the past month when I also altered my signature's appearance). Thanks for letting me know anyway. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the MTV News links, and they appear to be working again. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Hi. I expanded the lead as you requested. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Down a few pegs
Sorry if my sarcasm came across like pouting. It gets the best of me sometimes. Although I admit I did feel a little silly doing an "exercise", and I do think the sentence is worse because of the changes, it's really not that big of a deal. I do appreciate your comments, and would of course like to see much more where that came from. Most of your other comments were spot-on, so I know the article on the whole has already been improved so far because of your comments, and will continue to be improved if you choose to participate in the FAC further. And of course I want to get that ugly "Oppose" out of there too! But seriously, I'm a big boy and can handle whatever you throw at me, even if I get a little sarcastic from time to time. Thanks so far for the help. Drewcifer (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to look it over tonight, but I will do so tomorrow. --Laser brain(talk) 02:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the comments that were left at the article talk page, and they're starting to get me annoyed. All of your comments were good, but I don't understand the reference comments. Why are Pantagraph and About.com bad sources? They're fine in my opinion. Also, I've added a "Chocolate in popular culture" section to the article. Can you give your thoughts on that? Also, more comments would be appreciated.
P.S. JimDunning is started to get on my nerves. He's reverting my edits just because I don't a give a super long edit summary. Why does it bother him so much? Limetolimetalk to me•look what I did! 18:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my point was that for a topic as broad as chocolate, you should be able to find much better sources. We need to use the best sources available. Hope that makes sense. I don't really have time to provide another review at this time. Regarding JimDunning, he appears to be acting in good faith and with the article's best interests in mind. I hope you can work with him. Edit summaries are not required but they are certainly a common courtesy to your fellow editors. --Laser brain(talk) 02:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the scanning Laser brain. I've done some updating for you. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about musical instruments
It is surprising that nobody has created that page yet. It makes perfect sense to have a separate history page. Good luck with it! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: FAC "votes"
I just wanted to comment that there's nothing illogical about my rationale for opposing the Seth MacFarlane FAC nomination. I don't know if you read my comments carefully, but I noticed that when the subject is a public figure whose career has only recently begun, the article is likely to be edited heavily as he continues to work on different projects. The nominator realized that I was right when he withdrew the nomination. In any case, I really feel that you should take it easy. Sometimes, I might not feel the same way about the article as others. That doesn't mean that my opinion is any less valid. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Thank your for your comments in this article's first (unsuccessful) nomination. I have recently renominated it. As the article has been somewhat expanded since you last saw it, would you mind re-reading it and commenting again? Savidan 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've responded to your comments at the FAC for the Calgary Hitmen. I appreciate your comments, and hope that I have addressed your concerns. Thank you for the constructive feedback, and please let me know if there is anything more that requires addressing or clarification. Regards, Resolute 00:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks your your detailed review of the article. It is appreciated. Resolute 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your excellent FAC reviews. I was most surprised when I found you had less that 2000 edits; well done! Maxim(talk) 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So... when's the RfA? ;-) giggy(:O) 01:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have started a Featured Article review for this article (located here). The primary contributor disagrees with all of my concerns about the article, so I was hoping you could look it over and give some feedback. If you don't have time, could you please recommend another editor that might be able to comment? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Comment
What about if it said "Therefore, Hogan and Savage were paired together to end their feuds with their respective on-screen rivals." There is no denying that they were. Nikki311 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did do a search of industry magazines at the University of Georgia library, but they did not have a single magazine. They had several books, though, which I already used in the article. There are several types of magazines. In general, they contain photos, a few interviews, editorials, and that sort of thing. The other type gives spoilers, rumors, and speculation, but in my opinion, those can't always be trusted. The last kind gives awards, like match or feud of the year. Nikki311 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May FAC reviewer award
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
To Laser brain, For your superior reviews of at least 46 Featured article candidates during May, thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your careful work and thorough reviews to help promote Wiki's finest work. You are always willing to dive in to the difficult reviews and roll up your sleeves to help bring candidates to status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Special thanks to Ling.Nut—a retired editor who had a strong commitment to excellence in content review—for designing this award, and to Maralia for running the stats for May.
I just wanted to drop you a note saying that I have addressed one of your comments and will address the second (the position of "master") as soon as I am positive I have the right answer. JRP (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found information which at least allowed me to make a small stub: Master (naval) and I have wikilinked in the BFT article. JRP (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've completed the items you specifically mentioned, and have worked on the grammar (I'm sure there's more) but was wondering about your complaint about jargon. Basically, I don't see how we could pass 1a of WP:FA? if we wrote the article from a non-gamer's idiots guide perspective. ex. "Halo is a console video game; that is, a game featuring computer generated animated objects moving in a virtual world on a box which plays said items..." That's why we have links! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm sure there's some jargon we can cut, but some of it is kinda necessary, I think :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record
If you have anything to say as regards me, ie. "Additionally, the way you and LuciferMorgan have treated me in this FAC makes the prospect of working with you pretty unpleasant", actually have the courtesy to say it on my page. Furthermore, I haven't "treated" you in any way. I have merely stated that I don't believe your concerns hold any weight, and I have the right to assert that opinion. When I mentioned "diatribe", I was actually referring to the FAC as a whole, and not one specific reviewer, just so you know. Such diatribe includes questioning Blabbermouth.net as a source, when articles which extensively use that site have already been passed. That also includes questioning the reliability of interviews, given the fact that journalist's get their 99% information from interviews. When they use information from a press release, that press release was written using group interviews. I'm sorry if you've taken what I've said to heart, but when FACs get to the point of questioning group interviews as a source for factual information, then those FACs are becoming absolutely ridiculous. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your statement as regards consensus, I can understand if this happens on one occasion. When it happens every time a metal article is nominated for FAC though, it does get pathetic. Also, I reserve the right to use that word if I feel it is warranted.
The process is not perfect, and isn't above criticism.
However, irrelevant of your opinions as regards consensus, I still feel questioning the reliability of interviews is ridiculous. If you had actually taken the time to read music FAs, then you'll know that virtually all of them use interviews amongst their sources. In light of those FAs, I personally think this has already established consensus on using music interviews as a souce. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Just letting you know that I got the nominator to ask some people to copyedit this (Since I noticed you, among other editors, had highlighted the prose poor at the FAC). Finetooth has now copyedited it. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Limetolime
Thank you. I was trying to figure out where to go with the next step. This is what I'm dealing with at Burger King legal issues. I feel badly because I get the impression that this is a young person with the right purpose, but the damage is increasing. Limetolime was recently appointed a project coordinator for Film and I've been hoping one or two of the more experienced coordinators would step in. Let's hope things end well. Jim Dunning | talk 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know (and someone should MfD that stupid awards page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At some article Limetoline was pushing to GA a month or so ago another editor had actually asked her/him if she/he was involved in some assignment or contest. Jim Dunning | talk 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it had to be something like that. I also feel badly because he is a young person who is clearly susceptible to getting carried away with things like the award center (which I see has been twice nominated for deletion already). Well, I will be keeping an eye out. --Laser brain(talk) 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Limetolime
I am going to try and be calm. I am very annoyed that you, Laser brain, are saying that I'm being a disruptive editor to the users here. I am not. I'm trying to do well on the Chocolate article. The awards mishap was due to me having a bad day, not to annoy anyone. And YES, I will keep my coordinator position. Just because I hit a speed bump in my editing doesn't meen you get to take away one of my most prized positions. If I see more negative comments about me or any of my work, I'm going to have to report to an admin. LimetolimeI want an award!•look what I did! 15:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I am just going to say this once and for all: I AM NOT SUBMITTING ARTICLES FOR A CONTEST, I'M ONLY SUBMITTING THEM TO RECEIVE COMMENTS AND/OR USEFUL INFORMATION ON THE ARTICLE. I've tried Peer-review, but no ACTUAL user ever responds; I only get a generated script. Please stop the rumors, I am only trying to help. If you want me to review WP policies, I'll do that. :) Maybe I need a wikibreak. Summer vacaction is on right now, maybe now is a good time. LimetolimeI want an award!•look what I did! 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On more thing: I would like for someone to submit an AfD on that award page. I was extremely hurt when iMatthew took away my reward. Please try and understand. LimetolimeI want an award!•look what I did! 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have "I want an award" in your sig, don't you? As far as I can tell, iMatthew was acting with the integrity of the awards page in mind. Further reply on your Talk page. --Laser brain(talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean
I really do. Maybe Wikipedia is just too much for me. Do you think I should leave? Ask for some help when making changes? (I did try and do this; on the Chocolate talk page, I asked if a reference that I added was okay.) You saw this, didn't you? Please lend me some help, and I would like for you to monitor my edits to make sure I'm doing the right thing. Is that too much to ask?
Hey Laser brain. Thanks again for your insightful comments at Ghosts I–IV's FAC. Unfortunately the FAC was closed pretty much right after your comments, but I suppose it could use a bit more work anyways. So, I was hoping I could ask you for a little guidance in that department. You seem to be a pretty unforgiving judge as far as prose goes, and I think that's exactly what the article needs before I renominate it. Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated, whether it be a copy edit or even a list of problem sentences you've found. Anything at all, really. And I'm a firm believer in reciprocity, so I'd be happy to return the favor in some way. Prose isn't my strongest point, but I'm decent at research and very good with technical stuff like tables, timelines, etc. Either way, thanks again for the help earlier, and keep it up! Drewcifer (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush at all. I'm going to wait about a month or so until I bring it back to FAC, so take your time. Thanks so much! Drewcifer (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, once again... I've reworded or reworked the specific examples you gave, and Andonic also went through and gave the article a copy-edit, so I'd be much obliged if you could take another look. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Could you give me a list of articles about SYL from the International Index to Music Periodicals, if you have access to it/search in it? I want to see if there are more of them online, and whether I can use some more of them or not. Thanks in advance. Gocsa (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I could only find the first and the last one online, I couldn't find the ones from Modern Drummer, Billboard, and Goldmine. I'd appreaciate if you could send these (the text) in e-mail here. Although I'm not seeing much here, many of them are just news articles. But please send them, if you could. Thank you! Gocsa (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the sources, but none of them is useful. The Billboard review of Alien is good, but I have already used 3-4 reviews of this album in the article.. Anyway, I'd like to thank you for your effort again! Gocsa (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review reminder
Hi Laser brain, this is a requested reminder to look at a peer review without a response at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog or at one of the newer articles without a response here. Thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch><>°° 12:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NY 32 FAC
Daniel Case solved most of your qualms with the FAC. Could you please give it a lookover. Thanks for the comments.Mitch32contribs 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed most of the issues on that FAC, so it'd be great if you could take another look. Thanks in advance, JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church
This is a formal notification. Ignore if you have no further objections
The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.
Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Horrocks
Would you mind very much taking another look at the Brian Horrocks FAC please to see whether your copy concerns have been addressed? Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIEStalk 06:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Hi I'm wondering if you can help. I find all the rules about images and procedures for downloading pretty impossible to understand. I want to download and use these three images from the Congress Library site. [1][2][3]
Can you help? Thanks. Fainitesbarley 09:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LB. I'll try and find them again and have a bash. Fainitesbarley 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser brain. I don't know whether you remember, but last month, when the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article was at FAC stage, you said that the article needed a good copy-edit. I was wondering whether you had the time to give comments on the article ready for another stab at FA; or to run through the article, and give it a minor copy-edit. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you still give comments on the talkpage about the article, or do you think it would be better for someone else to do it? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain, I've noticed your careful prose reviews around FAC and I was wondering if you would be willing to peer reviewMary Shelley before Qp10qp and I bring it to FAC. We would greatly appreciate it! Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trumpet
Would you mind nominating the article for me? I would review it to make sure it is the best GA it can be. ~Meldshal42 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i apologize for not being more specific. could you nominate trumpet at GAN (it will tell you what to do) so that I could review the article myself? ~~Meldshal42(talk)'(contribs) 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Funny going-ons at GAN. Would you please help confirm that I am not trying to cheat articles but to actually review them. I apologize if this is something not supposed to be done, but I nominated the article n my own anyway. So, SandyGeorgia, take away the GAs I passed. But don't expect it to do any good. ~~Meldshal42(talk) 01:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I steal your signature?
Hi Laser Brain, I first saw your signature on Mitchazenia's talk page. Can I copy it? Can you show me how? I'm a newbie and I have no idea how to reproduce your sig. Putting bold around my four tildes doesn't even come close. Picardin (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be taken to AN/ANI right now, that is a blatant personal attack and the fact that it was in a user box doesnt make it any better. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 04:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to wait a bit and see how Laser wants to handle it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure completely understand, my mouth literally hit the floor when I saw that though. Quite nasty. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 04:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite surprising, but the question is how to best get this editor back on track. Laser may prefer that someone talks to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the solution, I think the box should probably be removed ... now. Can an administrater just remove it? — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 04:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as such an emergency, but anyone can remove a personal attack: I'll go do it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed and left an NPA note for Limetolime; if Laser wants to pursue admin action, we can take it to AN/I tomorrow, but I suggested to Lime that he db-author it as a show of good faith. (Laser, in case it's gone by the time you log on, it is a user box that says "This user hates Laser brain". A few boxes under his userbox that says he's a Christian.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I thought Christians didn't "hate" people. We leave it to you now Laser. Regards — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 05:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted the userbox. It clearly fits the speedy criteria, as an attack page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dealing with this, all. I will follow-up on this shortly after I have a few minutes to review Limetolime's block log and discover his future intentions. --Laser brain(talk) 14:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a very disappointing turn of events, im seeing a lot of behaviour like this in recent days. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Noble gas is too technical for FA? I haven't worked on a technical article before so I'd like some feedback on that... Gary King (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have had no interaction with the Awards Center and don't really care either way, but just to be devil's advocate: you can prove a few editors are abusing it, but what about the good articles that were passed/et al by the program? It makes sense to look at the whole picture. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree, if I weren't busy just taking articles to FAC I definitely would be doing more GA reviewing, it's unfortunate some of this stuff gets through... I doubt that the net good outweighs the bad in this case, but always best to address the other side so as to crush them with the overwhelming grip of reason :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost thing
Sorry to butt in like that, but I had a free hour before a meeting. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your evident interest in the article. I hope the vast majority of your issues have now been addressed. If there is anything else that needs editing, please pop it onto the discussion page. Please read my reasons for not being able to maintain a healthy level of edits on the article, also on the discussion page. Cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could give this article a lookover? Its shorter than what has been passed today, New York State Route 32, but I have had past luck with FAs around this size. Anyway, the article could use a nice lookover and I'd like a good detailed review before FACing this thing.Mitch32contribs 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, is something holding this up? Its ok if you're busy, but I like getting this reviewed a lot.Mitch32contribs 19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I solved all your comments already excepting the last one, which sadly has nothing else to it. Thanks again!Mitch32contribs 23:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed out the above discussion. Please carefully read my closing rationale and bring anything questionable up on my talk page. Cheers — MaggotSyn 07:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This close was far to fast. The issue is an important one, and deserves discussion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a very alarming close, all things considered. I'm not sure I want to launch an AN/I/, but I'm also not sure this action should be allowed to go unnoticed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have left the user a request that he not close any more XfDs unless they have completely run their course and are obvious keeps. His response will determine whether I pursue an RfC. --Laser brain(talk) 19:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections, just be kind enough to toss me a link when its up and running. :) — MaggotSyn 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted
Maybe when you understand the term, you can use it and not appear like you don't. — MaggotSyn 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up
Thanks for the heads up about the MFD page for the AWC. I would totally have missed it without your helpful message. --SharkfaceT/C 00:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So ... there's little oversight of the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ping to my talk page) giggy(:O) 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mag requests: [4][5] if you can. giggy(:O) 01:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Academic Search Premier
So, I was just wondering, how do I get in on this Academic Search Premier action? Is this some sort of subscription thing? Do I gotta sign up for something? Does it cost anything? It sounds like a good resource. Also, thanks so far for your always insightful comments at the YZ FAC. Drewcifer (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Is also interested.) giggy(:O) 08:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Musical instrument
Hey Laser brain. Well, I was wondering if you would like to work with me on musical instrument. I am going to start revising the article before i would like to nominate it for GAN. Thanks, --Meldshal42(talk) 12:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Sandbox
Well, i removed the stuff i put on musical instrument and moved it to my sandbox. I know that everything needs citations, but I just wanted to know how you though it looked at the moment. Thanks, --Meldshal42(talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think the article is (almost?) ready for FAC. If you have time, I'd really appreciate some input on it; I've spent nearly a month and a few hundred edits working on it. Here is how it looked a month ago. My goal was to primarily re-learn some of the chemistry that I forgot since high school, but since then, I've taken it up as a challenge to see if I could get a very technical article to FA. Because you reviewed most, if not all, of my FACs, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this one and give some hard comments before I actually delve back in to FAC, which I haven't done in a month or two. Gary King (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
Thanks for your latest thoughts. I continue to seek support and hope I have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sandbox
I think I'm going to stray off a bit and use my own citations. Just wanted to let you7 know. Thanks anyway to you and Wackymacs. --Meldshal42(talk) 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that i can add the info at my sandbox to the article? --Meldshal42(talk) 18:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
