User talk:Matthewedwards
User:Matthewedwards/Talk header
Peer review request
Hello. I'm contacting you per the suggestions of the Peer Review page as you have listed yourself as someone interested in reviewing films. I overhauled the article on David Lynch's Mulholland Dr. within the past week, and added a lot of information in a short period of time. This is the first film article I've worked on, although I have written other extensive articles. I would appreciate any feedback you can give. You can find the Peer review page here. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've never encountered the user page response you used on the peer review page. I don't know how to respond to it, so I responded instead on the talk page of the article. Thank you for your time. --Moni3 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation?
I ran across User:Matthewedwards/Sandbox/List_of_7th_Heaven_episodes and noticed that it said that it was a copyright violation and that you were working to remove the offending material. However, I note that your only edit to the page was on 2008-03-20 even though the page has been in userspace since September 2007. This sounds like a WP:CSD#G12 deletion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I can't find the deleted page; however, please explain how the article can be in your userspace at all if it is a copyright violation? Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was going to work on it, got sidetracked, came back to it, and posted the current version that is at List of 7th Heaven episodes. This shouldn't still be here and so I've {{db-user}}ed it. Thanks for reminding me. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for adminship
Heya, I'd just like to let you know that I have been nominated for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King and would appreciate your input. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you could do a peer review for A Day in the Life, which is a song by the Beatles. I'm in the process of making it a GA, and would like some advice. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matthew, the article Bread was probably on your list. A vandal had moved it to Bread and tingzzz which would have put that on your list too. I then moved it back to its correct name and deleted the vandalized version, which is what you saw. Best, Gwernol 20:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I just realized you'd replied to my comment (about a week too late) and I replied again. Would you have another look? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
List of Cities in Israel
Thanks for the comments Matthew. Ive responded to them at the FLC page. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I finished all the suggestions from you and TRM. Thanks - Milk's favorite Cookie 18:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I finished your along with everyone else's suggestions's here. Thanks! - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I've addressed your remaining concern at the aforementioned FLC. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It lives! I withdrew it, despite pretty convincing support. Anyway, I added the list which I and Struway2 considered to be missing, it made FL this evening, so I thought I'd go for the FT again. Just wanted to let you know the topic was listed again. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
|
<font=3> Thanks for your support and comments - List of tributaries of Larrys Creek made featured list! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|---|
Prehistoric Scotland
I attended to the issues you raised as best I could and would appreciate further comment or suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of prehistoric Scotland. Regards. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 07:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I finished the WP:COLORS problem with both. Thanks, - MILK'S FAVORITE COOKIE (Talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Production history of The Devil Wears Prada
Just because it's been over a year since I put it there and haven't acted on it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The article is entirely too long as it is ... and I do mean to do it soon (the GA nomination has been a big spur to that). I can understand pulling the split tag over that, but if you have some reason why you think it shouldn't be done, I'd like to read it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would say that having a template like that would make the article quick fail GA. I also do not think that splitting it off is a "necessary action". No other GA or FA film article has done this, for one thing. Secondly, the section goes too deeply into "unnecessary details" (from GA?) The Preproduction subsection is one paragraph. This could easily be merged into another. Casting and Acting subsections could be slimmed down and merged into the Cast section. There are other things, and if I were to review it (which is the reason I came to the page in the first place), I would probably fail it, as I think the changes needed to get it to GA are too vast to be done in one week. It's a shame, too, 'cause I like the movie, so I'd like to see the article become one of greatness, too. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- The section at Talk:The Devil Wears Prada (film)#Notes to GA reviewer doesn't look good to any potential reviewer either. Most will probably think it should be done before taking to GAC. By the way, has the article been peer reviewed? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it has been peer reviewed. Someone else made the nomination, which is why I put the note in. The split was discussed and approved on WT:FILM over a year ago ... the consensus was that it was going to happen to some film article sooner or later (consider that with the new DVD, there's enough good, sourceable stuff on Blade Runner to justify a similar article there. I had intended to split it, then nominate it for GA myself when I was damn good and ready ... I was so burned out after having put so much effort into it (On the other hand, I think it's rather a compliment when someone else nominates an article you've put so much into instead of yourself. Only one of the GAs (Jacobson v. United States) I claim credit for was my own nomination. But I suppose having my hand forced isn't such a bad thing). As it is, if I were reviewing it I'd fail it on the length issue. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it is. Someone nominated an article I'd heavily re-written. It failed, but is now a GA. GAC suggests it's not a good idea to promote an article you've worked on but it doesn't say anything about failing if you wished to do that. Note that as the discussion occurred over a year ago, opinions on separating it into another article may be different now. The PR was over a year ago, too. Another one wouldn't do any harm. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd prefer to leave it up to an impartial reviewer ... having done enough GA review myself I believe that process should be kept taint-free (Despite the GA promotions of three articles I've worked on heavily from the NY roads project, I am a little troubled that they were promoted by other editors from the US roads project. I don't feel New York State Route 32 is as complete and comprehensive as I would like it to be, for instance). I thanked the nominator for the compliment, but explained the situation. He's a rather new editor and may not have perfectly understood the GA standards. Still, it would be up to him to withdraw the nomination. I went through the article with a pen yesterday and, apart from the separation (that section got as long as it did because all the filmmakers are surprisingly forthcoming, both on the DVD commentary and in interviews, about explaining why specific production and creative decisions were made, and I think that information is encyclopedic. Maybe not all of it, but most of it. I will resubmit the question to WT:FILM, but I don't think consensus will have changed. And another peer review wouldn't hurt either, you're right). Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Degrassi Summaries
I'd like to leave them, it gives fans a chance to remember what happened in which episode. Is there some reason why the summaries should be removed? Robinepowell (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- There are a couple of reasons:
- there is no point repeating the same information in two places,
- the page is extremely long, size-wise, and
- Wikipedia is not a fansite. http://www.degrassitngho.com is, and a very good one at that. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with encyclopaedic content, and should not pander to the wishes of fans, even if Wikipedia is one of the sites they come to for the information. The link to the relevent season is only one click away, anyway.
Regards, -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I have copied this conversation to talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#summaries in order to centralise the discussion. Please continue it there.
Comprehensive long lists discussion
Hello, I noticed that you took part in the recent FLRC for List of Arsenal F.C. players and thought you might be interested in participating in a new discussion. The FLRC was closed as no consensus and it is clear the the issue of incompleteness in longer FLs is not over, so a discussion page has been started here. Please feel free to comment. -- Scorpion0422 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Degrassi
{{talkback}} Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
List of East Carolina Pirates head football coaches
Greetings again. I have created the list: List of East Carolina Pirates head football coaches, and I am asking if you for look over it for WP:FL quality. I want to get your opinion/thoughts now, before I carry it to WP:FLC. Thanks, PGPirate 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would say the list talkpage, just in case people want to see the criticism. Thanks again, PGPirate 01:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You've never been hated on by Free Republic?
Believe me (and I speak from personal experience), if you ever read anything they "report" on where you know the facts behind it, you'll think you've slid into a parallel universe or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've never really used Free Republic, except for the three times I discussed with JzG. And for that they hadn't reported, simply copy/pasted articles which no longer feature on the original published website. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Peer Review Request for Slipknot album
Hello! I was wondering if you could do a peer review/copy edit on Slipknot (album), it was failed as a GA becuase it "needs a copy-edit and the reception section was too short". That was pretty much all they said, we cannot find any more reviews to add to the reception section, as many sites use the same review, copy and pasted from the All Music Guide. They didn't leave any suggestions on which sections needed concentrated on, I was disappointed with how vague they were, despite my efforts to find out what else they thought needed done. If you're too busy let me know, although I would appreciate it if you knew anyone else who might be willing to do a review. Thank You! Blackngold29 21:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, you can leave them on the talk page, that would be great. Thanks! Blackngold29 01:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey thanks! We probably should've requested a review before putting it up for GA. You gave good in depth descriptions of what needs to be done, which really helps, shouldn't take too long to get them fixed. It's not a big deal, but if you have any spare time would you mind taking a look at Slipknot (band), it is a GA, but has not been promoted to FA status as we had hoped. You don't have to do an all out review, as I don't expect too many things to be wrong, but any small suggestions would help. Thanks again! Blackngold29 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- No rush at all, whenever you can get to it. Thanks! Blackngold29 04:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that User:SkyllaLaFey has begun to work on Slipknot (band) in his sandbox. We contacted him about a month ago and thought he had forgotten, but it seems he has remembered. So I would recommend going there to see it when you go to look over it; I'll let you know if he moves it back to the regular page. I left a few more comments on Talk:Slipknot (album) about sections I think should be merged, I was wondering what you think. Thanks! Blackngold29 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thriller
Hey could you add to the peer review of the Thriller album, if/when you have time. By the way, the MJ article is on FA, its doing rather well, no1 opposes. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 03:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The album please. On a side note relating to the MJ article, ive resolved the issues of all four people who have commented and it has receieved 1 support and zero opposees. Its looking promising, if you could do anything to the article or advise any improvements to seal the deal i would be greatful. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, ill get to it soon, ive got a lot on at the mo, i have others helping me though so they might help. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, Think everything is done, you might want to look at my feedback and see if you have any other issues. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, would it be possible for you to help with a copy edit of the Michael Jackon article. Its doing very very well, in part because of you previous advise. However i am its main contributer and english is not my first language. If you could spare an hour to go over it i would be very very greatful, please if you have time. YoursRealist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Degrassi DVDs
Again I'd like to know why the DVDs are listed under the episode section and with the wrong release dates for Canada. There's already a seperate section for DVDs which can be found from the list on the main page which reflects the right release dates for the Canadian DVD releases. Robinepowell (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence, in the form of links to reliable websites which show that the release dates for the Canadian discs are incorrect.
- The dates at the main page, and on each season page reflect what is given here.
- The article is FEATURED, and follows the style of all other featured episode lists.
- It follows the style from the Television Wikiproject
- It is a parent article to each season page. It gives an over-view of what is given in more detail at those pages.
- Please don't delete content again, and please continue the discussion at the talk page for the article, where I will now copy this thread. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's supposed to be a section for episodes and yet you continually insist on adding DVDs with the WRONG DATES!!!! WHY?????? The DVDs are listed in another place more acurately, a place I think is better for them.
Why do you want the DVDs listed with the "episode overview". As for the wrong dates why not go to http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/shows/Degrassi-Generation/4977 and see for yourself. The only time that we Canadians had a different release date was Season 1. Robinepowell (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not discuss this with me here any more. Take it to the article's talk page. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've reported Robin for the 3RR violation and her continuing to remove the table for no other reason than her claim that the Canadian dates are wrong. However, I can not undo her last removal without possibly violating 3RR so can you revert when you get a chance? Collectonian (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm surprised 3RR didn't block, but at least the list is safe for awhile. Following the Dispute Resolution procedures, I've left a request for comment/help on her continuing to change the dates in the season pages and her actions with the main list in the TV project. If this fails and she continues, an RfC or ANI may be the next step. I hope all this doesn't end up causing problems with the featured topic run :( Collectonian (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have given you a source for the DVDs, it's the same as all other DVDs TVShowsOnDVD. As for the Season 7 title it's Jesse, without an "i". http://www.ctv.ca/mini/degrassi2006/Photo1.html?degrassi_708/photo_0.html#photoArea Robinepowell (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, it is with an i. See the on-screen credits. CTV only broadcasts the show. They have the typo. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Matthew Edwards,
Just a quick note asking for your consideration of Blue Heelers (season 13) (article talk) (FLC page). I noticed you had left comments, which I have carried out, and now I am asking for your consideration again, as the list still has not garnered enough support votes and is due to end shortly.
Thankyou, Daniel99091 (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
Times
What happened here? Is it something you did, or a Wikipedia-wide change? --Dweller (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)