![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Will do. Soon. Thanks for writing! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain, Sorry it took so long. I felt I had to make the more detailed points in the FAC itself before I could make their more succinct versions here. Here, in my view, are the significant problems with the article:
My recomendation: withdraw the article from FAC; rewrite it as "Late-medieval Kannada literature" or "Early-modern Kannada literature" with scope 1600 to 1800, paying especial attention to accurate paraphrasing and writing. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Per your original oppose at the FAC, I have replaced the whole "Filming" section eliminating any seeing-stars sources. Is there any chance you could revisit the article and let me know what you think. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the backlog I'm trying to review more and keep my own noms off the page for the while, but I was wondering if you had any extra time if you could run through Uru: Ages Beyond Myst and see if you still have concerns (if you do, just post them to the talk.) As I remember we were close, and since it's going to be a while before I want to copyedit the monster of an article that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is, I figured I'd get this one out of the way. :) -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public ( talk) 09:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC) PS Do you still want reminded on the 13th of each month?
It's really discouraging. Drama fest, whining, complaints everywhere, and no real article work or review anymore. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain, it's the 13th! Cheers and thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Laser Brain! I first encountered you when nominating Star Wars: Rogue Squadron at FAC where you were rightfully criticized my article's prose. I've been thinking about possibly nominating posting system at FAC now, but I wanted to get your opinion on the prose before I did. I've gotten all the help I can from PR, it seems, and now I need to branch out, which is why I'm running this past you. If you could possibly look through the article briefly and give me your impressions, I'd be very grateful. Thanks! -- Torsodog Talk 20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the composition section may need a big overhaul, I don't know a thing about composition. I see that your a member of WP:MusInst; do you know any editors that could copy-edit the section? The book I'm using for the referencing of it can be viewed here. Pyrrhus 16 09:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Laser brain, do you have time to review the Battle of Barnet, one of the battles in the Wars of the Roses? Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, was killed in the fighting, and his former protege, Edward IV of England, secured the English throne with this victory. If you doth take the plunge into reviewing this article, please leave your comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I posted ten days ago that I was getting a copyeditor, who copyedited today, and I also fixed the problems you listed. A lot of the project got a laugh of one comment. Could you check?Mitch32( Go Syracuse) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Laser, how are you doing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I read through a lot of the FACs today and noticed your name all over the place. Thank you!! I was surprised to see just how many reviews you've done lately, and I wanted you to know that it is really, really appreciated :) Karanacs ( talk) 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed your copyediting work on the recently-featured Sam & Max: Freelance Police and The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-Earth II, and I wondered if you wouldn't mind giving me a hand. I've been working extensively on Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, but it's been solo work, so it's only had one pair of eyes. I've tried to copyedit it as best I can, but I can tell it isn't 1a material. If you have the time, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 05:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
So there I am, blithely telling someone that an article I've written is "pretty much ready" for my first FAC nomination, when I notice this comment, indicating your distaste for starting sentences with an ambiguous "This" in reference to something prior. On a whim I check "my" article, supremely confident I've avoided all such issues—only to find twelve of the buggers. Just so you know... I blame you entirely. All the best, Steve T • C 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
See how I expertly broke the ice with that comment above? That gives me an "in" so I can ask you what I originally intended to. :) Your prose reviews at FAC are very thorough, and since reading them I've picked up on things I wouldn't otherwise have noticed ("This what?" etc), so I was hoping you'd be able to give me some advice. I've always peppered my prose with conjunctions such as "that" and "that was"; I come from a background in writing technical manuals, a field in which precision is preferred to elegance. In Wikipedia articles, that precision can come across as stilted, and I've noticed many writers' omitting "that" when used as a conjunction. I've gone through articles I've written to omit the same, but to my eyes it just doesn't look right. For example, I much prefer "...a kidnapping and murder case that was uncovered in 1928" to "...a kidnapping and murder case uncovered in 1928". Do you have an opinion on this? Many thanks, Steve T • C 11:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Saw your comment at Tony's talk page, he was referring to User:Eurocopter, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Cobra. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I left a message on the talk that was more or less "More specific complaints please". Wily D 14:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As per your comments about Operation Deny Flight, you seem to be a pretty good copyeditor yourself. I don't suppose there's any chance I could persuade you to undertake the copyedit yourself? Cool3 ( talk) 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure if that blasted Cinefantastique is ever going to come my way via interlibrary loan, but aside from some referencing in the music section and some more to add to the home video bit, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is more or less complete and good enough to run through. Any prose help or any comments would be welcome :) -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Long time no see. Which article is it you were referrring to on my talk page? Tony (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Ah, I see above that it's no longer an issue. Ta. Tony (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject U.S. Roads Contributor Barnstar | |
U.S. Route 50 in Nevada passed FAC, thank you for the review, copy edit and all other efforts to improve the article Dave ( talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
You are a professional writer. Fountain of Time is perhaps wikipedias finest peace memorial and it is up at FAC. It needs a copy edit and is not that long an article. In the name of peace, would you consider giving a look at it.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain. I've ce-ed it. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, I never thought that you would approve an article's prose and someone else would object, but I guess it's good to see standards improving. I do need a hand with the prose then I guess... YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You recently left comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. If you can, please revisit the page and let us know if there are any updates on your opinion. The article has been a candidate for over a month now, so I would appreciate it. I'm not trying to rush you or anything, just wanted to remind you in case you forgot. Thank you for your time. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 22:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You gotta stop ! [2] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Awadewit ( talk · contribs) recommended you as a good peer reviewer - I have nominated the article Bale Out for a peer review, and if you have time I'd most appreciate comments at the subpage, Wikipedia:Peer review/Bale Out/archive1. Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 06:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have a chance, I've addressed some of your comments and commented on some others. Thanks for taking the time to look at it. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 12:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's already been archived anyways. I don't have access to any contemporary reviews so I can't really do much more to improve the article. Gary King ( talk) 16:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I have been working on the article " United States Academic Decathlon" for a while now, with the intention of taking it from where I found it to FA status. ( This is the article as of now). Awadewit has already graciously helped with a review of the article, which can be seen at the talk page. She mentioned you as another reviewer to look over the article before I submitted it to FAC. I would very grateful if you could do so; I would rather not waste reviewers' time and try to put the article on the FAC list only when I feel the article is truly ready. If you could do this whenever you have time, I would appreciate it deeply. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Hey there. I know you are busy (especially with that upcoming RfA soon, good luck), but I just wanted to know if you finished with your copyedit (unlikely) or when you predict you will be done. I wanted to launch the FAC relatively soon, because I forsee myself being busy in around three to four weeks, so the more quickly I can get it done, the better. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 22:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Laser, I set up a page to nominate you for adminship, but I haven't yet added my statement; I'll work on it tomorrow. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just been kinda shiftless with the end of term and all. I'm not sure about the sound effects south (so basically if you can run through that and the release section, I think we're in good shape). I'm going to try a full print and copyedit off the inky pages before I submit to FAC. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 03:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You make this look really easy, Laser! Congratulations on hitting 100 support votes without a single opposition so far. Karanacs ( talk) 20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
So unless you go nuts within the next few days, looks like you'll be pushing a mop come Monday. Congrats! – Juliancolton | Talk 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's bedtime in England, but clearly your RfA will be successfully closed before I wakeup, so may I offer my sincere congratulations to you. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
…you are now an administrator.
WP:Afd is over thatway
--
Avi (
talk)
00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
Well done, well done. Another scholarly admin YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 01:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If you had actually looked at the article, you would see that effort has been put into it, and that it is ready for FA. The previous reviewer was stubborn, while you are being lazy. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
Done! YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 07:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I plan to work on improving an article that was deleted last year; would you be able to restore the contents of the article and move them to a user subpage? Prior to deletion, the article was located here. Congrats on your new role.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Restless (1998 film), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 15:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I liked what I heard in what you said here. I believe I have also felt similarly to you. I believe I am more of an inclustionist than a deletionist. I offer to assist in collaborating on articles, finding RS, expanding, etc. v. tagging for deletion. Please keep me in mind if you find articles that are at risk of deletion that you would like assistance in expanding. Peace, rkmlai ( talk) 19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've resubmitted an FAC for Yukon Quest, and since you were the only person to oppose, I'd love to have your input. If you've got the time to take a look at it again and offer your support or comments at the second review, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! JKBrooks85 ( talk) 09:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We need to know how this contest should be run, and what problems to look out for.
The Transhumanist 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Robert Hues is up for FAC again. As you reviewed it last time it was up for FAC (it failed due to a lack of reviewers - something that is happening far too often for my taste), I thought you might like to review it again. Awadewit ( talk) 15:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Replied YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources DocKino listed are the following books:
I was able to grab enough off of Google Books to start the section at Star Trek: The Motion Picture#Themes, but I'd need access to the books to make sure it's thorough. I'm not sure if you've really got the chops or access to get all of those :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 22:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
We need to divide up that additional list of sources that I got from my professor. She thinks that with that list of basic sources, we can write a good Frankenstein article. Awadewit ( talk) 14:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Can You tell me why did You removed software list from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_portal
There are not allowed any of commercial software to be listed? How can there be articles about Microsoft products? Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdzidic ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I do not promote any software and I don't have anything with it, just tried to help people to let them know about all solutions that they can use. Anyway thank You.
And can You tell me why I can't promote open source software, and there is already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SweetSpot thank You. Mdzidic ( talk) 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Laser brain. you have sent me a deletion note for my Ethnological.jpg and Greeks in Bulgaria.JPG pictures.
Both images are of a century old (Balkan wars of 1912-3) and I never thought that they could had copyright (unlike what had been said to you). Anyway you guys must know better. For me this is not an issue. The point of interest is how things came to the deletion. I believe that my case could be of interest to many fellow users, since what was happened was uncommon: an uknown to me administrator of the greek wikipedia intercepted a dialog between me and another greek user about the source of the pictures and transfered the dialog to the english wikipedia administrators (the pictures were there). Although intercepting and communicating personal dialogs is not "illegal" (since they are open to anyone), to me it's a moral issue or at least a must-know history for the user's community. I don't know if that kind of actions is an official policy or just incidental but I do know that many fellow editors would like to know this story. Which is the best way to inform them about ? Since this is a shocking incident to me (and maybe for others-to-know users) my initial idea was to make an internal-wiki dialog about that, but I don't know how. My intentions is not to attack anyone and I've sent a polite and non-aggresive msg to the administrator just to express my shock out of his action and I closed the dialog between us in a very polite manner. I only want to inform about the incident the community, nothing more. Regards -- Factuarius ( talk) 23:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your feedback and advice on the Starvin' Marvin (South Park) FAC. I've addressed your individual comments, and am willing to hear more if you are willing to give any. I know you had said you feel it's far from ready, but I'm hopeful that any issues with the article can be worked out through the FAC process. As I said in my response, I didn't put in for a peer review because I thought that GAN process would take care of any such issues. I'm hoping you're willing to keep going with the FAC process. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn ( contribs) 02:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Addressed everything you mentioned, and I actually had addressed what you'd mentioned last time as well. Too much of this article was written too early in the morning. I changed "most of" to "several" regarding Necrid's attacks being copied from other characters, the IGN article does go blow-by-blow regarding which ones. Tackled the prose bit too, and added a GameNOW issue number.
Peer review just sucks for getting these issues fixed. Thanks for the advice on fixing the article, I know it's like pulling teeth sometimes.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to reply to that.... YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
LB, you are very kind to put that bstar on my page. Much appreciated! Tony (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see the FAC at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/U.S._Route_41_in_Michigan/archive2 for followup comments on your review. Your feedback would be appreciated. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 05:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I replied to your comments there, and really appreciate the feedback. --- kilbad ( talk) 17:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed the reflist in this edit because three-column reflists break in some browsers. Hope I didn't surprise you too much. Regards, Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Good work on the article so far. It's finally getting the attention it deserves (I've been quietly watching it for a couple months now). Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser. I have renominated Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes at FAC again here. Could you take a look at it like you did the first time around? Many thanks and cheers, — Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Remember this from FAC? Well, after several weeks to a couple months, me and another have given it a complete rewrite. You think the article may stand close to FA now? I could value your opinion. Mitch/ HC32 12:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's Hunter Kahn. I've nominated Starvin' Marvin (South Park) for a peer review. If you have the time and wouldn't mind helping, out, any feedback or help you could provide would be very much appreciated! I've already addressed the specific problems brought up at the FAC as well as a few others... — Hunter Kahn ( c) 05:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Blocked him YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain, thank you very much for your comments during the FAC of Otto Becher. I would just like to note that EyeSerene has now completed a thorough and much appreciated copyedit of the article, and as your comments were primarily based on the prose, I was hoping you would be able/willing to have another look over the article to examine whether it is now of a high standard? However, I will understand if you are too busy or would rather not. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 11:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Aditya α ß 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your copyediting and review of Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes! Cheers, — Ed (Talk • Contribs) |
I was aware of the GA status. But I read the FA critera, and I felt it met it. Was there something the article missed? -- KMFDM FAN ( talk!) 22:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going through a 2nd FAC nomination for the article Mariano Rivera because it seems that most of the items from the first nomination have been fixed. I wanted to make sure the items you brought to my attention were adequately addressed. If you could review the issues you pointed out in the first FAC nomination, confirm I fixed them, and comment on the second FAC nomination, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, remember that time you said you could help copyedit Halo Wars at some point? Well could it be moderately soon? :P (No real hurry, I mean we're talking about the interwebs, but if you aren't busy and have this sudden desire to copyedit yet another video game, all I'm saying is I won't stop you.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for not getting to your comment sooner, at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Samuel Beckett/archive1. I see you struck out your question. Would you still like a response? Would it be helpful/alright to tag the problem areas of the article with {{ fact}} tags? Some editors truly appreciate this as being helpful, however sometimes others do not :( . Cirt ( talk) 12:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've done some work to address your concerns about Charles Carroll the Settler. Does your opposition still stand? Geraldk ( talk) 23:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello from the Opera Project. I'm writing to all members on the active list to let them know that we could use your input on several issues currently under discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:
Please drop by if you have the time. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 08:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've copyedited the entire article, so you might want to revisit if you get a chance. The prose still isn't "brilliant", but given that it's a science article, it's acceptable I think. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful comments. I've replied on the FAC page. Pyrrhus 16 16:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I have continued to work on the list of skin-related conditions, and recently nominated it for FL status. If available, your comments would be greatly appreciated at the nomination page. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. --- kilbad ( talk) 06:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
|
In the area? You're invited to | |
Phoenix Wikimedia Meetup | ||
Time/Date: Sunday, June 28, 3:00pm | ||
Place: CUPZ Coffee; 777 College Ave, Suite 101, Tempe ( map) |
--
EdwardsBot (
talk)
06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've fixed up Lake Burley Griffin and it could do with a prose check I think. I have added the other fixed-up FARs [to the FAR urgents list] to see if there is are problems to be dealt with YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
For your never-ceasing efforts to copyedit and improve others (and my) work, a shiny image on a screen. I wasn't going to give it to you since you had a David Lynch quote on your user page, but I figured we can't all be perfect. :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC) |
Seconded. Can you take a look at the Woody Guthrie FAR? The sole reason for the nom was prose. Thanks YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you probably remember me from way back when, when that GAN incident er, took place. Anyway, I think that was the last time I was here, so I hope you've forgiven my stupidity. 1968 Illinois earthquake was recently archived, on prose concerns primarily, could you look it over? I've given it my own eye in the last fifteen minutes and found some errors. I'm sure you can find plenty, if you are willing. Thanks either way, ceran thor 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the comments and kind words on my talk page. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hope everything's alright on your end. Let me know if you need help with anything. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel ye. The only way I could deal with trying to understand the self-absorbed one-upmanship and endless politicking--all for the benefit of the community doncha know--was to rewrite this: an extreme form of what I see here. It might help to accept that most editors really are here to create drama, despite what the professed community goals are. When that is recognized the rest of us can stfu and write. Come back soon. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for prompt intervention. Lute88 ( talk) 17:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith while dealing with other editors, which you do not to User talk:Impala2009. Thanks. WimpyKid ( talk* sandbox) 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Laser brain, I am extremely sorry for my actions. My actions were inconsiderate (although I thought adding French references WAS vandalism), then I knew that I had a lot of other policies I haven't read yet. So, my goal is to check what I'm doing before I revert (as I didn't double-check my work at school sometimes when I was in school) and to increase my policy knowledge. Again, I am extremely sorry for my obscenity. And remember that I thought that adding French references was vandalism. Chevy Impala 2009 02:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi again! I'm trying to get some fresh eyes on Yukon Quest before I submit it for another go at FAC. It's an article about sled dog racing, and I thought of you as someone who might not be familiar with the sport and could give me a good opinion on where it's unclear to an outside observer. If you can't do a full copy edit, even a quick readthrough would be appreciated if you have the time. As always, I'm more than willing to reciprocate with a review of my own for any article that needs one. :) JKBrooks85 ( talk) 11:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, would you like to comment on this article, please? Thank you in advance.-- Rubikonchik ( talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain. You opposed my RfA about a month and a half ago based on my careless work at AfD. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me an editor review if you have the time, so I can learn if I've met your expectations with regard to AfD participation. Your comments on other areas of my contributions would also be appreciated if you have time for it. Thanks. Tim meh ( review me) 03:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. All adrift in my brain. 124.170.62.108 ( talk) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) It's Tony—the site is screwing up.
Hey, it's as much a joke on me as it is on, well, everyone else who would take that seriously :) I'll strike it before the final tallies, I have a feeling Steve will pass unopposed, and I bet that would-be opposers will be put off by being in my company, thus strengthening the support :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Andy. I tried to keep a low profile today as I didn't want to make a big deal out of this (so I won't be making 115 editors sick by stuffing thankspam down their gullets.) Still, I did want to say cheers to you and Sandy for the faith you've shown; I was especially surprised at your offer to nominate, considering I didn't think we'd interacted that much outside of overlapping FAC reviews. Regardless, thanks for that trust; it won't be misused. All the best, Steve T • C 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No, no threat intended. I was just being incredibly arrogant. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 02:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
Please sign up here if you can attend the recording session! Awadewit ( talk) 16:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
All right then, if you're sure, feel free to remove the GA nom. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warm welcome. I've been a little MIA around these parts, but I'm starting to get back into things. As for when we'll see the next NIN article at FAC, howabout now? =) Drewcifer ( talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Laser Brain, you might remember me from the failed FAC review of Starvin' Marvin (South Park). At the time, most of the feedback I received was that the sourcing and content were good, but that the article was badly in need of a copy edit to address grammatical concerns. I've since addressed some of the specific problems that were pointed out (as well as some others that weren't) and made some fixes that came from a peer review I requested. I believe at the time of the review, you indiciated you'd be willing to look the article over again after the copy edits were done. Before I nominate it for FAC again, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look and letting me know if you think it's ready? Whenever you find some time. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn ( c) 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Ravenloft (module) has been nominated for FAC again. As you commented in one or both of the previous FAC discussions, I'm inviting you to have another look. Thanks! BOZ ( talk) 22:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it is better to move the discussion to AN for better visibility, meanwhile HA continues ranting on his talk page. Ruslik_ Zero 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? If you were to pay attention to the talk page, you would see that it is Grimmtrow that is refusing to discuss this. Furthermore, as I also mentioned on the talk page, extremely obvious statements do not actually need a citation. You would do well to actually pay attention to the issue next time so you don't go off on the wrong person. Farsight001 ( talk) 21:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, I'd appreciate your help on my new FAC A Weekend in the City. One user wants a third party look at prose issues and I'd be grateful for your input. Cheers. Rafablu88 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, Glass Cobra 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I am notifying you that since you were a discussant for my last successful Michigan Wolverines football/ National Football League player FAC ( Tyrone Wheatley - see FAC here), you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cato June/archive1, which currently is in need of further commentary.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Laser brain, you provided some helpful comments at the peer review for the article Bale Out. The article is now at WP:FAC, and your input would be appreciated at the FAC subpage for the article. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 09:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.
It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating. iMatthew talk at 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Laser brain! This is the last message that will go out to remind you that in order to participate in the 2010 WikiCup, you MUST remove your name from this list! Again, the reason for this reconfirmation is to ensure you've looked over the updated point values (which were different at the time you signed up) and to ensure that you are still interested in competing! If you don't have time to participate or no longer wish to, ignore this message and leave your name on the list. All names on the list will be removed from the contestants list before the Cup starts. Cheers! iMatthew talk at 14:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
What a nice Christmas present, to see you become active again :) Hope your batteries are fully recharged. We've missed you! Karanacs ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I just replied to your comments at the Noronhomys FAC; I'm sorry for not getting back earlier. Ucucha 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I took care of it. It would have been eventually reviewed before the week is over if you didn't notify me. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you are participating in the 2010 WikiCup. I have been working on the Bolognia push which is a project to make sure Wikipedia has an article (or redirect) on every know cutaneous condition. With that being said, there are still many cutaneous condition stubs to be made, and Bolognia could be a source for a lot of DYK articles, etc. Therefore, I was thinking maybe we could help one another... a competative WikiCup that also serves to improve dermatologic content on Wikipedia. I could e-mail you the Bolognia login information if you have any interest? --- kilbad ( talk) 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy! Thank you for the vote of confidence in this article. I have taken action to address your queries, so that any of your niggles can be resolved. Please take a look. Jappalang ( talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
But that's the perk of the job. (Also I don't think anyone mentioned stupid.) RB88 ( T) 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me be the first to welcome you back officially. I see you've already returned (in style) to FAC. :) ceran thor 01:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3>Thank you for your participation at Sacrifice's FAC. With your support, the article has made it as a featured article! Enjoy James's (the God of Earth) offering as he launches this cow into the earth too many times with multiple castings of Bovine Intervention! Jappalang ( talk) 03:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
---|
I have responded to your concerns; if you believe they are satisfied, I strongly urge you to rethink your opposition. The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey there; I noticed the strike of your 1a oppose at the above FAC. I hope you didn't feel any sense of ... obligation ... to do so just because I gave the prose the once-over. I know that in the past I've felt very uncomfortable opposing on prose grounds when editors I respect have either supported or struck their 1a, as if I'm indirectly criticising their review—or writing, if they've pitched in with a copy-edit. So I just wanted you to know that if there was any discomfort on your part, I would have been completely relaxed had you felt the prose still deficient. On a wider point—and sorry to digress—for me, the article itself is one I can't bring myself to either support or oppose on anything other than the technical aspects. The subject has easily received coverage enough for notability to be satisfied, but not enough IMO for us to give it a comprehensive treatment. To be clear: I'm sure the nominator has included every available source, but I just don't think those sources offer thorough enough coverage of subjects like this. See also: the recent FA nominee, The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. I helped the nominator out a couple of times pre-FAC to get the article into shape, but that's another I consciously avoided reviewing, solely because the gaps in coverage and relative weakness of some of the sources would have made it uncomfortable for me to offer support. (I know most other reviewers disagree, with the possible exception of Ling.Nut.) Anyway, I hope you're well and all that; it's good to see you back. Steve T • C 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you had previously blocked User:71.145.180.157, and warned him not to continue or an indef block would be forthcoming. So, I thought you'd be interested to know that he's back, and up to the same crap. I just reverted his edits to 12 church pages; all his edits removed "Roman", and most broke links and/or infoboxes. Block away! Wine Guy Talk 07:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see our project's talk page for a discussion of the possible changes to Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons and the implications this will have for many articles under the project's banner. This is especially important if you are looking after or have created unreferenced or minimally referenced opera-related biographies of living people. Voceditenore ( talk) 16:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Glad to have been of help. I may contact you when my next opera article is ready for review (not even started yet, though). Brianboulton ( talk) 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I'll definitely put some work in tomorrow! Staxringold talk contribs 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, if you get a chance, could you check back at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Eloise/archive1? No rush. Thanks for the review! – Juliancolton | Talk 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Like a Box of Chocolates... | |
... your contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of January 2010 are greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC) |
Can you take another look at the article please? Two other editors have copyedited the article since your comments. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 20:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so I've committed to taking notes on some sources every week. I can't promise every day (that kind of promise is for the dissertation), but I can promise every week. Awadewit ( talk) 02:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You may want to take a look here. Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Andy, thank you for taking the time to review the images for the Takalik Abaj FA nom. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 10:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Aye, sir, 'tis my goal... four down, hopefully five relatively soon, then a break for some misc. articles I've been working on, then a push for IV and V this semester (not a chance of me getting anything done this summer, methinks...) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 00:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Auntieruth55 has been kind enough to clean up the text; I ask reviewers to reread the article to see if their objections have been met.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Andy; I'm struggling to keep up, with a miserable cough left over from my cold, but appreciate your work there. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
How are you determining "primary editor" as there seems to be some disagreement on WT:FAC. Kindest regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 03:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I realize you may no longer be watchlisting the Elvis Presley FAC, but I wonder if you are around at the moment and could comment on something. The article has five supporting reviews, but a question has arisen from the delegates about article size. The delegates are requesting that reviewers give their opinion on this aspect. Your input would be appreciated. PL290 ( talk) 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Laser brain has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Andy. Thanks for your support. It looks like the article is down for the count with a TKO. I'll see what I can do to improve it, but it does appear that the article won't make it to FA status. But as far as the internet is concerned, I stand by what I said. When I say the "Internet", you know what I mean. The Internet as we know it today did not exist in 1990. It was perhaps in its slimmest origins by a ridiculously small network of computers (which were the size of watermelons) and in no way concievable as what it is now. Mike Tompsonn ( talk) 14:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
File:Alpha Capricorni.jpg | Thank You | |
For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of February 2010, you're truly a star! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC) |
Why do you keep removing the fact, that Mike Portnoy is going to record the new album with A7X?-- Arneandre ( talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You're going to break the internet; what will Al Gore say? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd value your comments on this article, now at peer review (you can listen to Penelope's lament as you read through) Brianboulton ( talk) 22:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining
WikiProject Venezuela? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the
list of participants. Please see our
list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The GNLF flag image has been moved under "Civic administration". Please have a look. thanks for the comment in the FARC. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy, go ahead and check for 1a and copy and paste any passages you have any questions about onto my talk page! Poor Yorick ( talk) 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Laser. Since you said you would be willing to look at FARs that weren't just dead unsourced articles, Flag of India and Darjeeling have been done but are waiting for a prose check. I guess Soren Kierkegaard could do with one as well. Thanks YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
You aren't obligated to copyedit all these articles....
YellowMonkey (
vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll)
05:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
So far I haven't been able to find a library that subscribes to The Commercial Appeal, and since I'm going to be pretty busy with college classes (among other things) in the coming few months, I don't think I'll be able to find the time...would you be so kind as to help me out? I've been expanding the article in the past few days and I was able to find an article from a different newspaper ( Memphis Flyer) as well as one from The New Republic, so I guess that counts for something. If the article does eventually make it to FA, I would be gladly willing to split the credit with you. Alternatively, if it wouldn't work with your schedule, are there any other editors who might be willing and/or able to work on the project? Thanks, Stonemason89 ( talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Laser. Can you give me a copyediting hand with this one? I've been self-sufficient with FAs generally for a while now, just doing a full ce myself before the FAC, except this time, something seems to have gone awry even after a second round after a complaint, and I feel a bit lost. Thanks YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Brian said you could go ahead :). YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Had to be done I suppose. I was just on my way to ... what's that place called where you go to complain about incivility? Anyway, I was just on my way there to lodge a complaint about User:QuattroBajeena using my first name without my explicit permission. It's Mr Fatuorum, only "Malleus" to my friends. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I am fairly certain I know the answer, but who did you block Talking image ( talk · contribs) as a sock of? KnightLago ( talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for having a look at the Turf Moor FAC. I have done a major overhaul of the images used, and I now believe that they all have adequate sourcing and licenses. I have also added a number of more reliable sources, including books, academic journals and local news stories. Cheers, -- Big Dom 18:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've asked a question at Mattisse's talk page with respect to your actions there I'd appreciate an answer to. Thanks!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Xampt An old one though. Fainites barley scribs 08:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, Laser Brain, but is your problems with the images on Dragon Quest's FAC resolved? GamerPro64 ( talk) 16:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello? GamerPro64 ( talk) 03:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in looking at this as there has been an important development here. – MuZemike 16:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for inserting that. I had thought it would be pronounced like "born December 25, 1927" in which case a word would not be needed, but the version now "looks right" to me too. Hekerui ( talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible for you to briefly revisit the FAC page of Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, where the fair use of File:PhaecianStoneShip.jpg has been challenged? Perhaps leave a comment if possible. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Dare we hope? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I left a profanity-laden message for you. For, you know, whatever. Glad to see you back. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all. Moni, I printed out your message and stuck it to my icebox. I relish it. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Finally, some good news this week! Welcome back :) Karanacs ( talk) 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to your PR points; there are a couple you might wish to pass further judgement on ("in addition to" and "generally"). Brianboulton ( talk) 12:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
We would like your help concluding the FAC for Roger Waters. — GabeMc ( talk) 03:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good catch! I copied some information from another article, hence the use of "Brown". Thank you for catching my error! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Andy. I would like to strongly suggest you to read Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. It will help you understand why Pedro II was deposed, his mistakes and how the republicans perceived him. Once you've read it, I am certainly sure that the subject will be far easier. It looks big, but is very interesting. I am pretty sure you won't regret it. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 01:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you check over Robert Burnell for prose and Brit spelling for me? Obviously, since I'm missing Malleus (BADLY!) I'm going to have to beg from other folks much more on prose copyediting. The poor guy's had two peer reviews, with Ruhr, Awa, and Dr PDA weighing in on the last one. I'm going to post this to Moni and Iri too, just to cover all my bases... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
im a noob and its my first nominate, :D-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
|
|}
Hi! Well, its a public monument, as can be found anywhere around the globe, such as the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius. The monument itself was made by Rodolpho Bernardelli (1852-1931), dead for quite some time (Source: [4]). The second picture was made by the request of editor... Laser brain (Yourself!) in Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Pedro Álvares Cabral routes. Well, aren't they ok, then? Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comments. I was wondering if you could take a look at the critical response and cultural impact sections to see if they're OK now.-- The Taerkasten ( talk) 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Question for you... Would a person who uses electronics like a computer be clasified as a composer or musician. This seems to not be clearly stated in any articles I searched, maybe I'm splitting hairs but I'm not conviced that a person using a computer is a musician. Your thoughts please. Deluxebros ( talk) 20:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I left some comments for you at the FAC page, I think the issue can be easily resolved. Thanks.-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You has it. Raul654 ( talk) 22:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC) ( With apologies to DirectTV)
Heya Laser brain! It has been a long time. I plan to bring an article about a Malaysian cartoon series, Kampung Boy (TV series), to FAC and would like some opinions if it reaches that level (to be judged there) yet or if some more improvements are needed. I would appreciate it if you look through the article and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kampung Boy (TV series)/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 14:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please review I have made several changes to Illinois (album) per your comments--from the cosmetic to the substantial. Please post there if you think that further improvement is needed. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Have you observed what I did at my talk page immediately after using RevDel? Moreover, I marvel that my refusal to restore the other edit summary is of greater concern to you than someone else telling me that I lack integrity, scruples, collegiality and courtesy. Nyttend ( talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you be willing to copyedit an article for me? Thistle, Utah was an FAC nomination of mine a few weeks ago. I have worked more on the article, and asked those I work with regularly to review it. AFAIK, the only thing it still needs is a good copyedit. You up for it? Either way, thanks in advance. Dave ( talk) 02:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Just in case I rolled back my edit because I had left open my tab to edit Illinois (album) for a few hours and I saved it. Then, I looked at my watchlist and saw that you had made a series of edits. I rolled back to insure that I didn't undo your additions and I was extremely tired, so I didn't try to compare and contrast to figure out what's best; I'll look at the history now and add back in my changed without taking out yours. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 14:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Just to let you know that Ronald Skirth is currently undergoing peer review. As you suggested previously that you were aware of some problems with this article, I thought you might like to have a look at it. Any suggestions would be most welcome.
Dwab3 ( talk) 12:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
See this. Raul654 ( talk) 06:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well done YellowMonkey ( new photo poll) 01:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Just dropped by to give you my immense gratitude. The article improved immensely over the course of the FAC, mostly thanks to you. Happy editing! Jujutacular talk 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- JN 466 23:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I finally set up a page for us to coordinate schedules: see the talk page at User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to be traveling Thursday, preparing tomorrow, but I've started:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, do you have any evidence that this is a sockpuppet? You don't appear to be a checkuser and I don't see anything on the relevant investigation page or the user's talk page. Thanks, AD 09:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Laser brain, please see the {{emdash}} template and study its internal workings before your go around reverting my copyedits.— Quicksilver T @ 03:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I have tried to address your concerns in the peer review. I have also rewrote the article a bit (I hope it will make for a clearer and smoother read). Could you give a quick look over of the changes? I hope to bring this to FAC if all seems good. Jappalang ( talk) 05:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I just came back to WP after a long time, and came to know that you have been promoted as a FAC delegate. Congrats!! Sandy and Karen must be saying "whew!" at the lessening of their workload. I am planning on submitting " Like a Virgin" for a FAC, mind you take a quick look and comment on what you feel? Thanks and congrats again. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Hopefully I can continue to squeeze reviewing into my free time—once I get fully back up to speed, I plan on making some pushes of my own. — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I've left a comment at the FAC about the close paraphrasing. I didn't see too much of a problem with the points you raised, but I suspect you've got more idea than I have! As I'd said the sourcing was OK, I'd just like to clarify as it's got my name on it saying "all fine!" -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you left Fasach Nua a message for the way he was acting. I appreciate it thank you!-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc ( talk) 23:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You mean running? Eh, I did it back in 2007 when I had no clue what I was doing, I figure now I would actually be useful :) Plus, I feel like I haven't got my share of abuse. Why let people like Sandy hog it all? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 05:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Andy. Since you've been helpful to me in past FAC reviews, I was wondering if you could maybe weigh in on some discussion over at my FAC for South Park (season 13). So far, I believe most specific issues have been addressed, but there has been some back and forth over whether the infobox image (which for now has been removed) meets the fair use rationale. I believed it did, but one reviewer opposed the FAC because he felt it did not. After attempts to update the fair use rationale did not satisfy his concerns, and after another reviewer opposed for the same reason, I removed the image altogether. But now, another reviewer has actually opposed the article due to the absence of that infobox image. So now I have people opposing the image, and people opposing the lack of an image, and I'm not sure what to do to resolve it. (Some have also pointed out that there seems to be a double-standard being applied here that while this kind of fair use rationale seems acceptable for movie posters, it is not acceptable for television season images.) I'm not sure what to do, so any guidance or assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 20:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy really am a bit shocked, so please bear with me. Why in the heck did you guys close the nomination? I had many supports and had fixed almost all the issues and was waiting for the editors to respond. Not one of the editors suggested withdrawal or that it was premature. And it wasn't even an older nomination. It was there not long at all. I'm really upset, I worked hard in getting it there, and you couldn't even give me a notice. Please respond.-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It's coming along nicely, IMO, but a second opinion might be good—especially since I made quite a few tweaks myself. What do you think of the prose? — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Laser brain, I just noticed this. Congratulations! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 04:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.
Truthkeeper88, with help from Ruhrfisch, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet#Post-FAC cleanup review comments on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, though I was leaning support based on some extensive edits. Maybe a re-listing soon? — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 04:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing. No hint of incentives should be given for that... as someone who's gone through art school, I've built up quite an intolerance to kitsch, I guess (and "deep" conceptual art too, but I always thought that was a load of bull). :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine, but your request almost makes it seem like he's a "handicapped" editor that others aren't allowed to make impolite remarks about. It's just frustrating having nearly all my FAC nominations for the last 3 years immediately blindsided by his vexing opposition. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 18:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I took the liberty to read your exchange with Fasach Nua. Hope you don't mind. You should notice that he erased two messages sent to him requesting him to explain why he opposed the article I wrote (Here [5] and here [6]). That is not the nicest way to act in Wikipedia. If someone like him behaves like that, he certainly should not be reviewing articles around. Even less FAC nominations. And do you know what is worse? He said that he would not anser back because the editor who sent the messages was ruse. That's wonderful, because he is "punishing" me, the FAC nominator, for something that another editor - who I do not know, by the way - did to him. That's childish and ridiculous. That kind of behavior tell much about him. He should not be roaming around FAC nominations because he is clearly not the most fitted editor to review those kind of articles. I sincerely hope you can understand my point. Kind regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Laser Brain, I'm hopeful you will let me off the two week penalty as ordained by the FAC instructions. I want to nominate Flower Drum Song, on which I have been working intensively with User:Ssilvers, one of our experts on the musical theatre. User:Brianboulton has given the article an outside review and it has benefited by his comments. The state of the musical theatre area onwiki is in a sad state and I am hopeful that a successful FAC will galvanize people by giving them a model to follow. Many thanks,-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Andy, don't forget; the FA page is the definitive record of FAs, and their number, so we have to watch it closely (the FAR people often make mistakes). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for giving Thistle, Utah a once over. I promise that when I asked you to review it, I didn't know the FAC cabal was preparing to back the dump truck and give you more work to do =-) Dave ( talk) 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I have replied to your comment. Please reply. Volcano guy 17:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The Borodino class battlecruiser article has been copyedited and I hope you can take another look to see if there are any remaining infelicities.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the assist. I didn't write that sentence but it needed some fixing. Please do copy edit where ever the article needs it. A couple subsections are incomplete but I will add to them in the next few days.-- Wpwatchdog ( talk) 03:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I am seeing issues with Fasach Nua's continuous oppose based on NFCC, but failing to explain why he is doing it or what exactly is the issue. Every editor at FAC is complaining about his comments and he is not even bothering to retract such useless comments or address them properly. In a lengthy page such as FAC, cryptic comments doesnot really help nominators or reviewers. As a delegate would you speak with him and make sure that such non-helpful comments are not added? Thanks, — Legolas (talk2me) 08:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right. It was a last-edit-of-the-night-what-on-earth-is-this-stuff-oh-for-heaven's-sake-get-rid-of-it reaction; perhaps I shouldn't have deleted it without leaving a message for the perpetrators. It's doubtful they'll know how to see the edit summary in the page history and click on the WP:TALK link, after all. I did check all the contribs and they all have just this edit in their history; I am not at all sure they'll ever see their talk pages, or do anything about it if they do. Still, if you want to leave them a message please go ahead; otherwise I'll probably leave a note for them in the morning. Mike Christie ( talk – library) 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Andy; I didn't miss your comment. I see respect for existing style as a flavour of ownership. We don't respect spelling mistakes or the unreferenced style, do we? At its core, this view is regressive; about things being locked-down, forever — trapped in amber.
See here. That was a relic from the early days of the project. That particular page only dates from 30 June 2006 (and that html was in the first rev), but I'm pretty sure that it was copy-pasted from somewhere else that prolly goes back years further. I see that you've been here most of three years; I've been here more than twice that long; I've seen a lot. We used to do all the tables that way, and I've been fixing such thingsthat *is* me for a long time. Many of the smaller projects still have such issues, as they trasnwiki'd or copy-pasted old stuff circa five years ago when most of the smaller projects got started; I fix those, too.
Wikis are about change, about being bold. We evolve new approaches to things, all the time. The whole thrust of things like citation templates is about structuring the elements of a citation in a standard form and then rendering it is a consistent manner. Plain-text refs are not readily ready by anything other than a person. By properly structuring the discrete pieces of a citation, we make them available to all manner of tools. These tools may extract the data, or check it against a database and add something from the db to the cite. Other tools may convert the templates to the next thing; i.e. (<ref last="Golding" first="William" title="Lord of the Flies" style="Oxford" />
).
A lot of the talk about cite style is about their on-screen appearance. I don't give a hoot about that. Sure some bits get italics, names may be last, first or not, dates may be in whatever format (and per user pref would be best). By hard-coding a plain-text reference with a bit of wiki-markup, editors are precluding most of the advantages of what I'm talking about. See separation of presentation and content; what we put into the edit box should be the 'content' of the citation, not the format of it. The 'format' should be centralised; in a template, or in MediaWiki, with the styling in the site CSS. This is the same thing as eschewing raw html in favour of wiki-markup for table an the like; we let MediaWiki generate the markup. I've a huge amount of experience with code; another taste; scroll slowly.
I see that some have their heels dug in about this, which is a pity, as it means that the wiki is going to have to struggle through whatever is necessary to get things moving forward. I recall reading somewhere that 1.7 million pages have citation templates. I view the rest as akin to Mercury-Atlas; long neglected and/or held back. We've too many articles in relation to the number of people moving things in the right direction. A huge amount of time is wasted bickering about things instead of doing things.
I missed commenting about inline goop being a pain in the butt; it is. The solution is to put all the references in the reference section using list defined references. See Sheila Varian for a fairly clean example of this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
hello,
please have a look at this nomination. It would be nice if you help to promote this disco into a FL. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I've greatly expanded the development section with some sources I found in Japanese. Does this address some of your concerns? Thanks, Axem Titanium ( talk) 03:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
When FAC have completed it would be handy if you were to promote and archive as two different edits. I like to benchmark my reviews against the delegates metric, and I can do this quickly with Sandy's edits who archives and promotes separately, but other than that you are doing a fine job Fasach Nua ( talk) 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Laser brain, thank you for the promotion. I think it would be better off in the category "Literature and theatre" rather than "music". After all, it is a Broadway musical, it's all about the theatre! Thanks. This does not change TFA/R points, btw.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I intended it as a follow up nomination, because in the first nom I responded to and corrected all the requests made, and since it was all fixed, why was the article not promoted? Shannon talk contribs 05:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I saw that you had archived the South Park (season 13) FAC. Although I strongly disagree with that decision, I assure you I'm not here to complain about it. :) However, I did want to ask you whether you felt it would be appropriate for me to seek an opinion at the NFCR about the fair use rationale and attempt to seek a consensus there before returning to FAC. I had proposed doing this and asking the FAC participants to abide by the decision, and one of the objectors to the image agreed, but the other felt it would be inappropriate to close an FAC with a term being the final outcome of an NFCR review. Now that the FAC is closed, however, I wanted to ask you as the delegate whether you feel it would be appropriate if I were to bring it to NFCR now, and bring the article back to FAC after that discussion takes place. Let me know what you think, because if you feel it's inappropriate, I won't do it. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 19:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Geez, Laser. I was about to comment on Cornell's FAC when you deleted it. I didn't get a chance to give an opinion on the article. Do you have something against me? :3 GamerPro64 ( talk) 00:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I've taken your advice and sent messages to everyone who has participated in the previous FAC (but not the second one yet) and asked them to comment on the full FA criteria rather than just the image. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Right back at you. Can't imagine it's easy to be sane as an FAC delegate (although I think I might be getting a taste of that come the new year...) Take care of yourself, we can still drain more energy from you 'ere long :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 20:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
Dear ANdy, Merry Christmas. Just one question, waht do you think about the article Bad Romance and its chances of survival if nominated for FAC? If you say no, then I won't nominate it, as I don't want to clog the page with underprepared nominations. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Re this edit: I thought "effecting" was what was meant -- in the sense of "causing to happen". Just a note since of course it's on my watchlist now .... Mike Christie ( talk – library) 23:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Not to be a bother, but shouldn't this one be relisted or given a bit more time rather than closed? I know it's had no support or oppose votes yet, but at the very least, Bignole seemed to be in the middle of reviewing the article... (I could always ask folks at WP:FILM to weigh in if it's just a matter of inactivity.) — Hun ter Ka hn 17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice with regard to the South Park (season 13) FAC. Much appreciate your guidance along the way! — Hun ter Ka hn 02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You seem to have "promoted" this article to FA while it was still riddled with sloppy writing and MoS problems. Any chance you could take a look at the discussion in talk (both my user talk and article talk), as the FA process has been used as justification for reverting out a copyedit I made. Either this is a one-off blip or it totally undermines my respect for the FA process. Please see what you can do. -- John ( talk) 01:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
John, I'll respond here to keep this conversation in one place. First, you can't really place any blame on Andy or FAC if the issue wasn't raised at FAC; we'd love to have more reviewers, and the delegates' job is only to judge consensus. Second, on the reverted edits: "However" is almost always problematic, but I'm not sure it was misused in that case. When I read FACs, I frequently see breaches of SEASON, but often find it hard to determine how to fix them; the edits did seem to be an improvement, but discussing it on the FAC (or at article talk, as you've done) is the best way to resolve such issues. Finally, I hope you've not lost faith in FAC over matters that should be easily resolved, and I hope you understand that raising the issues on the FAC is the best way to alert the delegates! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
John, you have somewhat of a point on the "closed shop" issue. FAC can be intimidating. It is why I make a practice of trying to introduce as many editors as possible to it as conom or reviewer. I would mix industrial metaphors and say it is not so much a closed shop but an industry with some barriers to entry that can be overcome with dedication by the new individual. None of us were born at FAC, after all.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As an example, my current nominee C. D. Howe has a sentence which says that delays in a certain project might lead to construction not starting until the spring of 1957. I left "spring" in because the season is relevant. The article is about Canada and the Canadian winter is not a good time for construction. If I said "April of 1957" (even if supported by the source), the reader might miss the point. Therefore, I overrode the guideline and used the word "spring".-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Just some more food for thought for John, and why we need reviewers to cover all sorts of issues, including MOS, which is not necessarily at the head of the "core policy" list. We have all kinds of things to watch for at FAC, including correct representations of sources, copyvios, plagiarism, socks, and now paid editing as well. Does anyone check articles that could be targetted for paid editing-- like bios, products, companies, schools, buildings, etc-- for POV? Until I see more sourcing, copyvio, and POV checks, and as long as I have to stay abreast of socks, keeping up with MOS can't occupy too much of my time, and I'd love it if others would keep all of these things, including the bigger picture related to Wiki's core policies of neutrality and verifiability, in mind! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Will do. Soon. Thanks for writing! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain, Sorry it took so long. I felt I had to make the more detailed points in the FAC itself before I could make their more succinct versions here. Here, in my view, are the significant problems with the article:
My recomendation: withdraw the article from FAC; rewrite it as "Late-medieval Kannada literature" or "Early-modern Kannada literature" with scope 1600 to 1800, paying especial attention to accurate paraphrasing and writing. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Per your original oppose at the FAC, I have replaced the whole "Filming" section eliminating any seeing-stars sources. Is there any chance you could revisit the article and let me know what you think. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the backlog I'm trying to review more and keep my own noms off the page for the while, but I was wondering if you had any extra time if you could run through Uru: Ages Beyond Myst and see if you still have concerns (if you do, just post them to the talk.) As I remember we were close, and since it's going to be a while before I want to copyedit the monster of an article that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is, I figured I'd get this one out of the way. :) -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public ( talk) 09:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC) PS Do you still want reminded on the 13th of each month?
It's really discouraging. Drama fest, whining, complaints everywhere, and no real article work or review anymore. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain, it's the 13th! Cheers and thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Laser Brain! I first encountered you when nominating Star Wars: Rogue Squadron at FAC where you were rightfully criticized my article's prose. I've been thinking about possibly nominating posting system at FAC now, but I wanted to get your opinion on the prose before I did. I've gotten all the help I can from PR, it seems, and now I need to branch out, which is why I'm running this past you. If you could possibly look through the article briefly and give me your impressions, I'd be very grateful. Thanks! -- Torsodog Talk 20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the composition section may need a big overhaul, I don't know a thing about composition. I see that your a member of WP:MusInst; do you know any editors that could copy-edit the section? The book I'm using for the referencing of it can be viewed here. Pyrrhus 16 09:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Laser brain, do you have time to review the Battle of Barnet, one of the battles in the Wars of the Roses? Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, was killed in the fighting, and his former protege, Edward IV of England, secured the English throne with this victory. If you doth take the plunge into reviewing this article, please leave your comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I posted ten days ago that I was getting a copyeditor, who copyedited today, and I also fixed the problems you listed. A lot of the project got a laugh of one comment. Could you check?Mitch32( Go Syracuse) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Laser, how are you doing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I read through a lot of the FACs today and noticed your name all over the place. Thank you!! I was surprised to see just how many reviews you've done lately, and I wanted you to know that it is really, really appreciated :) Karanacs ( talk) 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed your copyediting work on the recently-featured Sam & Max: Freelance Police and The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-Earth II, and I wondered if you wouldn't mind giving me a hand. I've been working extensively on Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, but it's been solo work, so it's only had one pair of eyes. I've tried to copyedit it as best I can, but I can tell it isn't 1a material. If you have the time, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 05:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
So there I am, blithely telling someone that an article I've written is "pretty much ready" for my first FAC nomination, when I notice this comment, indicating your distaste for starting sentences with an ambiguous "This" in reference to something prior. On a whim I check "my" article, supremely confident I've avoided all such issues—only to find twelve of the buggers. Just so you know... I blame you entirely. All the best, Steve T • C 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
See how I expertly broke the ice with that comment above? That gives me an "in" so I can ask you what I originally intended to. :) Your prose reviews at FAC are very thorough, and since reading them I've picked up on things I wouldn't otherwise have noticed ("This what?" etc), so I was hoping you'd be able to give me some advice. I've always peppered my prose with conjunctions such as "that" and "that was"; I come from a background in writing technical manuals, a field in which precision is preferred to elegance. In Wikipedia articles, that precision can come across as stilted, and I've noticed many writers' omitting "that" when used as a conjunction. I've gone through articles I've written to omit the same, but to my eyes it just doesn't look right. For example, I much prefer "...a kidnapping and murder case that was uncovered in 1928" to "...a kidnapping and murder case uncovered in 1928". Do you have an opinion on this? Many thanks, Steve T • C 11:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Saw your comment at Tony's talk page, he was referring to User:Eurocopter, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Cobra. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I left a message on the talk that was more or less "More specific complaints please". Wily D 14:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As per your comments about Operation Deny Flight, you seem to be a pretty good copyeditor yourself. I don't suppose there's any chance I could persuade you to undertake the copyedit yourself? Cool3 ( talk) 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure if that blasted Cinefantastique is ever going to come my way via interlibrary loan, but aside from some referencing in the music section and some more to add to the home video bit, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is more or less complete and good enough to run through. Any prose help or any comments would be welcome :) -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Long time no see. Which article is it you were referrring to on my talk page? Tony (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Ah, I see above that it's no longer an issue. Ta. Tony (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject U.S. Roads Contributor Barnstar | |
U.S. Route 50 in Nevada passed FAC, thank you for the review, copy edit and all other efforts to improve the article Dave ( talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
You are a professional writer. Fountain of Time is perhaps wikipedias finest peace memorial and it is up at FAC. It needs a copy edit and is not that long an article. In the name of peace, would you consider giving a look at it.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain. I've ce-ed it. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, I never thought that you would approve an article's prose and someone else would object, but I guess it's good to see standards improving. I do need a hand with the prose then I guess... YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You recently left comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. If you can, please revisit the page and let us know if there are any updates on your opinion. The article has been a candidate for over a month now, so I would appreciate it. I'm not trying to rush you or anything, just wanted to remind you in case you forgot. Thank you for your time. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 22:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You gotta stop ! [2] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Awadewit ( talk · contribs) recommended you as a good peer reviewer - I have nominated the article Bale Out for a peer review, and if you have time I'd most appreciate comments at the subpage, Wikipedia:Peer review/Bale Out/archive1. Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 06:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have a chance, I've addressed some of your comments and commented on some others. Thanks for taking the time to look at it. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 12:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's already been archived anyways. I don't have access to any contemporary reviews so I can't really do much more to improve the article. Gary King ( talk) 16:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I have been working on the article " United States Academic Decathlon" for a while now, with the intention of taking it from where I found it to FA status. ( This is the article as of now). Awadewit has already graciously helped with a review of the article, which can be seen at the talk page. She mentioned you as another reviewer to look over the article before I submitted it to FAC. I would very grateful if you could do so; I would rather not waste reviewers' time and try to put the article on the FAC list only when I feel the article is truly ready. If you could do this whenever you have time, I would appreciate it deeply. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Hey there. I know you are busy (especially with that upcoming RfA soon, good luck), but I just wanted to know if you finished with your copyedit (unlikely) or when you predict you will be done. I wanted to launch the FAC relatively soon, because I forsee myself being busy in around three to four weeks, so the more quickly I can get it done, the better. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 22:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Laser, I set up a page to nominate you for adminship, but I haven't yet added my statement; I'll work on it tomorrow. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just been kinda shiftless with the end of term and all. I'm not sure about the sound effects south (so basically if you can run through that and the release section, I think we're in good shape). I'm going to try a full print and copyedit off the inky pages before I submit to FAC. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 03:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You make this look really easy, Laser! Congratulations on hitting 100 support votes without a single opposition so far. Karanacs ( talk) 20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
So unless you go nuts within the next few days, looks like you'll be pushing a mop come Monday. Congrats! – Juliancolton | Talk 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's bedtime in England, but clearly your RfA will be successfully closed before I wakeup, so may I offer my sincere congratulations to you. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
…you are now an administrator.
WP:Afd is over thatway
--
Avi (
talk)
00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
Well done, well done. Another scholarly admin YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 01:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If you had actually looked at the article, you would see that effort has been put into it, and that it is ready for FA. The previous reviewer was stubborn, while you are being lazy. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
Done! YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 07:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I plan to work on improving an article that was deleted last year; would you be able to restore the contents of the article and move them to a user subpage? Prior to deletion, the article was located here. Congrats on your new role.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Restless (1998 film), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 15:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I liked what I heard in what you said here. I believe I have also felt similarly to you. I believe I am more of an inclustionist than a deletionist. I offer to assist in collaborating on articles, finding RS, expanding, etc. v. tagging for deletion. Please keep me in mind if you find articles that are at risk of deletion that you would like assistance in expanding. Peace, rkmlai ( talk) 19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've resubmitted an FAC for Yukon Quest, and since you were the only person to oppose, I'd love to have your input. If you've got the time to take a look at it again and offer your support or comments at the second review, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! JKBrooks85 ( talk) 09:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We need to know how this contest should be run, and what problems to look out for.
The Transhumanist 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Robert Hues is up for FAC again. As you reviewed it last time it was up for FAC (it failed due to a lack of reviewers - something that is happening far too often for my taste), I thought you might like to review it again. Awadewit ( talk) 15:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Replied YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources DocKino listed are the following books:
I was able to grab enough off of Google Books to start the section at Star Trek: The Motion Picture#Themes, but I'd need access to the books to make sure it's thorough. I'm not sure if you've really got the chops or access to get all of those :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 22:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
We need to divide up that additional list of sources that I got from my professor. She thinks that with that list of basic sources, we can write a good Frankenstein article. Awadewit ( talk) 14:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Can You tell me why did You removed software list from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_portal
There are not allowed any of commercial software to be listed? How can there be articles about Microsoft products? Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdzidic ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I do not promote any software and I don't have anything with it, just tried to help people to let them know about all solutions that they can use. Anyway thank You.
And can You tell me why I can't promote open source software, and there is already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SweetSpot thank You. Mdzidic ( talk) 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Laser brain. you have sent me a deletion note for my Ethnological.jpg and Greeks in Bulgaria.JPG pictures.
Both images are of a century old (Balkan wars of 1912-3) and I never thought that they could had copyright (unlike what had been said to you). Anyway you guys must know better. For me this is not an issue. The point of interest is how things came to the deletion. I believe that my case could be of interest to many fellow users, since what was happened was uncommon: an uknown to me administrator of the greek wikipedia intercepted a dialog between me and another greek user about the source of the pictures and transfered the dialog to the english wikipedia administrators (the pictures were there). Although intercepting and communicating personal dialogs is not "illegal" (since they are open to anyone), to me it's a moral issue or at least a must-know history for the user's community. I don't know if that kind of actions is an official policy or just incidental but I do know that many fellow editors would like to know this story. Which is the best way to inform them about ? Since this is a shocking incident to me (and maybe for others-to-know users) my initial idea was to make an internal-wiki dialog about that, but I don't know how. My intentions is not to attack anyone and I've sent a polite and non-aggresive msg to the administrator just to express my shock out of his action and I closed the dialog between us in a very polite manner. I only want to inform about the incident the community, nothing more. Regards -- Factuarius ( talk) 23:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your feedback and advice on the Starvin' Marvin (South Park) FAC. I've addressed your individual comments, and am willing to hear more if you are willing to give any. I know you had said you feel it's far from ready, but I'm hopeful that any issues with the article can be worked out through the FAC process. As I said in my response, I didn't put in for a peer review because I thought that GAN process would take care of any such issues. I'm hoping you're willing to keep going with the FAC process. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn ( contribs) 02:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Addressed everything you mentioned, and I actually had addressed what you'd mentioned last time as well. Too much of this article was written too early in the morning. I changed "most of" to "several" regarding Necrid's attacks being copied from other characters, the IGN article does go blow-by-blow regarding which ones. Tackled the prose bit too, and added a GameNOW issue number.
Peer review just sucks for getting these issues fixed. Thanks for the advice on fixing the article, I know it's like pulling teeth sometimes.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to reply to that.... YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
LB, you are very kind to put that bstar on my page. Much appreciated! Tony (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see the FAC at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/U.S._Route_41_in_Michigan/archive2 for followup comments on your review. Your feedback would be appreciated. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 05:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I replied to your comments there, and really appreciate the feedback. --- kilbad ( talk) 17:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed the reflist in this edit because three-column reflists break in some browsers. Hope I didn't surprise you too much. Regards, Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Good work on the article so far. It's finally getting the attention it deserves (I've been quietly watching it for a couple months now). Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser. I have renominated Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes at FAC again here. Could you take a look at it like you did the first time around? Many thanks and cheers, — Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Remember this from FAC? Well, after several weeks to a couple months, me and another have given it a complete rewrite. You think the article may stand close to FA now? I could value your opinion. Mitch/ HC32 12:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's Hunter Kahn. I've nominated Starvin' Marvin (South Park) for a peer review. If you have the time and wouldn't mind helping, out, any feedback or help you could provide would be very much appreciated! I've already addressed the specific problems brought up at the FAC as well as a few others... — Hunter Kahn ( c) 05:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Blocked him YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain, thank you very much for your comments during the FAC of Otto Becher. I would just like to note that EyeSerene has now completed a thorough and much appreciated copyedit of the article, and as your comments were primarily based on the prose, I was hoping you would be able/willing to have another look over the article to examine whether it is now of a high standard? However, I will understand if you are too busy or would rather not. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 11:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Aditya α ß 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your copyediting and review of Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes! Cheers, — Ed (Talk • Contribs) |
I was aware of the GA status. But I read the FA critera, and I felt it met it. Was there something the article missed? -- KMFDM FAN ( talk!) 22:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going through a 2nd FAC nomination for the article Mariano Rivera because it seems that most of the items from the first nomination have been fixed. I wanted to make sure the items you brought to my attention were adequately addressed. If you could review the issues you pointed out in the first FAC nomination, confirm I fixed them, and comment on the second FAC nomination, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, remember that time you said you could help copyedit Halo Wars at some point? Well could it be moderately soon? :P (No real hurry, I mean we're talking about the interwebs, but if you aren't busy and have this sudden desire to copyedit yet another video game, all I'm saying is I won't stop you.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for not getting to your comment sooner, at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Samuel Beckett/archive1. I see you struck out your question. Would you still like a response? Would it be helpful/alright to tag the problem areas of the article with {{ fact}} tags? Some editors truly appreciate this as being helpful, however sometimes others do not :( . Cirt ( talk) 12:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've done some work to address your concerns about Charles Carroll the Settler. Does your opposition still stand? Geraldk ( talk) 23:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello from the Opera Project. I'm writing to all members on the active list to let them know that we could use your input on several issues currently under discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:
Please drop by if you have the time. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 08:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've copyedited the entire article, so you might want to revisit if you get a chance. The prose still isn't "brilliant", but given that it's a science article, it's acceptable I think. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful comments. I've replied on the FAC page. Pyrrhus 16 16:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I have continued to work on the list of skin-related conditions, and recently nominated it for FL status. If available, your comments would be greatly appreciated at the nomination page. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. --- kilbad ( talk) 06:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
|
In the area? You're invited to | |
Phoenix Wikimedia Meetup | ||
Time/Date: Sunday, June 28, 3:00pm | ||
Place: CUPZ Coffee; 777 College Ave, Suite 101, Tempe ( map) |
--
EdwardsBot (
talk)
06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've fixed up Lake Burley Griffin and it could do with a prose check I think. I have added the other fixed-up FARs [to the FAR urgents list] to see if there is are problems to be dealt with YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
For your never-ceasing efforts to copyedit and improve others (and my) work, a shiny image on a screen. I wasn't going to give it to you since you had a David Lynch quote on your user page, but I figured we can't all be perfect. :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC) |
Seconded. Can you take a look at the Woody Guthrie FAR? The sole reason for the nom was prose. Thanks YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you probably remember me from way back when, when that GAN incident er, took place. Anyway, I think that was the last time I was here, so I hope you've forgiven my stupidity. 1968 Illinois earthquake was recently archived, on prose concerns primarily, could you look it over? I've given it my own eye in the last fifteen minutes and found some errors. I'm sure you can find plenty, if you are willing. Thanks either way, ceran thor 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the comments and kind words on my talk page. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hope everything's alright on your end. Let me know if you need help with anything. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel ye. The only way I could deal with trying to understand the self-absorbed one-upmanship and endless politicking--all for the benefit of the community doncha know--was to rewrite this: an extreme form of what I see here. It might help to accept that most editors really are here to create drama, despite what the professed community goals are. When that is recognized the rest of us can stfu and write. Come back soon. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for prompt intervention. Lute88 ( talk) 17:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith while dealing with other editors, which you do not to User talk:Impala2009. Thanks. WimpyKid ( talk* sandbox) 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Laser brain, I am extremely sorry for my actions. My actions were inconsiderate (although I thought adding French references WAS vandalism), then I knew that I had a lot of other policies I haven't read yet. So, my goal is to check what I'm doing before I revert (as I didn't double-check my work at school sometimes when I was in school) and to increase my policy knowledge. Again, I am extremely sorry for my obscenity. And remember that I thought that adding French references was vandalism. Chevy Impala 2009 02:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi again! I'm trying to get some fresh eyes on Yukon Quest before I submit it for another go at FAC. It's an article about sled dog racing, and I thought of you as someone who might not be familiar with the sport and could give me a good opinion on where it's unclear to an outside observer. If you can't do a full copy edit, even a quick readthrough would be appreciated if you have the time. As always, I'm more than willing to reciprocate with a review of my own for any article that needs one. :) JKBrooks85 ( talk) 11:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, would you like to comment on this article, please? Thank you in advance.-- Rubikonchik ( talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain. You opposed my RfA about a month and a half ago based on my careless work at AfD. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me an editor review if you have the time, so I can learn if I've met your expectations with regard to AfD participation. Your comments on other areas of my contributions would also be appreciated if you have time for it. Thanks. Tim meh ( review me) 03:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. All adrift in my brain. 124.170.62.108 ( talk) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) It's Tony—the site is screwing up.
Hey, it's as much a joke on me as it is on, well, everyone else who would take that seriously :) I'll strike it before the final tallies, I have a feeling Steve will pass unopposed, and I bet that would-be opposers will be put off by being in my company, thus strengthening the support :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Andy. I tried to keep a low profile today as I didn't want to make a big deal out of this (so I won't be making 115 editors sick by stuffing thankspam down their gullets.) Still, I did want to say cheers to you and Sandy for the faith you've shown; I was especially surprised at your offer to nominate, considering I didn't think we'd interacted that much outside of overlapping FAC reviews. Regardless, thanks for that trust; it won't be misused. All the best, Steve T • C 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No, no threat intended. I was just being incredibly arrogant. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 02:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
Please sign up here if you can attend the recording session! Awadewit ( talk) 16:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
All right then, if you're sure, feel free to remove the GA nom. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warm welcome. I've been a little MIA around these parts, but I'm starting to get back into things. As for when we'll see the next NIN article at FAC, howabout now? =) Drewcifer ( talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Laser Brain, you might remember me from the failed FAC review of Starvin' Marvin (South Park). At the time, most of the feedback I received was that the sourcing and content were good, but that the article was badly in need of a copy edit to address grammatical concerns. I've since addressed some of the specific problems that were pointed out (as well as some others that weren't) and made some fixes that came from a peer review I requested. I believe at the time of the review, you indiciated you'd be willing to look the article over again after the copy edits were done. Before I nominate it for FAC again, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look and letting me know if you think it's ready? Whenever you find some time. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn ( c) 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Ravenloft (module) has been nominated for FAC again. As you commented in one or both of the previous FAC discussions, I'm inviting you to have another look. Thanks! BOZ ( talk) 22:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it is better to move the discussion to AN for better visibility, meanwhile HA continues ranting on his talk page. Ruslik_ Zero 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? If you were to pay attention to the talk page, you would see that it is Grimmtrow that is refusing to discuss this. Furthermore, as I also mentioned on the talk page, extremely obvious statements do not actually need a citation. You would do well to actually pay attention to the issue next time so you don't go off on the wrong person. Farsight001 ( talk) 21:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, I'd appreciate your help on my new FAC A Weekend in the City. One user wants a third party look at prose issues and I'd be grateful for your input. Cheers. Rafablu88 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, Glass Cobra 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I am notifying you that since you were a discussant for my last successful Michigan Wolverines football/ National Football League player FAC ( Tyrone Wheatley - see FAC here), you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cato June/archive1, which currently is in need of further commentary.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Laser brain, you provided some helpful comments at the peer review for the article Bale Out. The article is now at WP:FAC, and your input would be appreciated at the FAC subpage for the article. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 09:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.
It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating. iMatthew talk at 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Laser brain! This is the last message that will go out to remind you that in order to participate in the 2010 WikiCup, you MUST remove your name from this list! Again, the reason for this reconfirmation is to ensure you've looked over the updated point values (which were different at the time you signed up) and to ensure that you are still interested in competing! If you don't have time to participate or no longer wish to, ignore this message and leave your name on the list. All names on the list will be removed from the contestants list before the Cup starts. Cheers! iMatthew talk at 14:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
What a nice Christmas present, to see you become active again :) Hope your batteries are fully recharged. We've missed you! Karanacs ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I just replied to your comments at the Noronhomys FAC; I'm sorry for not getting back earlier. Ucucha 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I took care of it. It would have been eventually reviewed before the week is over if you didn't notify me. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you are participating in the 2010 WikiCup. I have been working on the Bolognia push which is a project to make sure Wikipedia has an article (or redirect) on every know cutaneous condition. With that being said, there are still many cutaneous condition stubs to be made, and Bolognia could be a source for a lot of DYK articles, etc. Therefore, I was thinking maybe we could help one another... a competative WikiCup that also serves to improve dermatologic content on Wikipedia. I could e-mail you the Bolognia login information if you have any interest? --- kilbad ( talk) 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy! Thank you for the vote of confidence in this article. I have taken action to address your queries, so that any of your niggles can be resolved. Please take a look. Jappalang ( talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
But that's the perk of the job. (Also I don't think anyone mentioned stupid.) RB88 ( T) 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me be the first to welcome you back officially. I see you've already returned (in style) to FAC. :) ceran thor 01:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3>Thank you for your participation at Sacrifice's FAC. With your support, the article has made it as a featured article! Enjoy James's (the God of Earth) offering as he launches this cow into the earth too many times with multiple castings of Bovine Intervention! Jappalang ( talk) 03:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
---|
I have responded to your concerns; if you believe they are satisfied, I strongly urge you to rethink your opposition. The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey there; I noticed the strike of your 1a oppose at the above FAC. I hope you didn't feel any sense of ... obligation ... to do so just because I gave the prose the once-over. I know that in the past I've felt very uncomfortable opposing on prose grounds when editors I respect have either supported or struck their 1a, as if I'm indirectly criticising their review—or writing, if they've pitched in with a copy-edit. So I just wanted you to know that if there was any discomfort on your part, I would have been completely relaxed had you felt the prose still deficient. On a wider point—and sorry to digress—for me, the article itself is one I can't bring myself to either support or oppose on anything other than the technical aspects. The subject has easily received coverage enough for notability to be satisfied, but not enough IMO for us to give it a comprehensive treatment. To be clear: I'm sure the nominator has included every available source, but I just don't think those sources offer thorough enough coverage of subjects like this. See also: the recent FA nominee, The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. I helped the nominator out a couple of times pre-FAC to get the article into shape, but that's another I consciously avoided reviewing, solely because the gaps in coverage and relative weakness of some of the sources would have made it uncomfortable for me to offer support. (I know most other reviewers disagree, with the possible exception of Ling.Nut.) Anyway, I hope you're well and all that; it's good to see you back. Steve T • C 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you had previously blocked User:71.145.180.157, and warned him not to continue or an indef block would be forthcoming. So, I thought you'd be interested to know that he's back, and up to the same crap. I just reverted his edits to 12 church pages; all his edits removed "Roman", and most broke links and/or infoboxes. Block away! Wine Guy Talk 07:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see our project's talk page for a discussion of the possible changes to Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons and the implications this will have for many articles under the project's banner. This is especially important if you are looking after or have created unreferenced or minimally referenced opera-related biographies of living people. Voceditenore ( talk) 16:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Glad to have been of help. I may contact you when my next opera article is ready for review (not even started yet, though). Brianboulton ( talk) 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I'll definitely put some work in tomorrow! Staxringold talk contribs 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, if you get a chance, could you check back at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Eloise/archive1? No rush. Thanks for the review! – Juliancolton | Talk 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Like a Box of Chocolates... | |
... your contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of January 2010 are greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC) |
Can you take another look at the article please? Two other editors have copyedited the article since your comments. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 20:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so I've committed to taking notes on some sources every week. I can't promise every day (that kind of promise is for the dissertation), but I can promise every week. Awadewit ( talk) 02:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You may want to take a look here. Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Andy, thank you for taking the time to review the images for the Takalik Abaj FA nom. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 10:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Aye, sir, 'tis my goal... four down, hopefully five relatively soon, then a break for some misc. articles I've been working on, then a push for IV and V this semester (not a chance of me getting anything done this summer, methinks...) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 00:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Auntieruth55 has been kind enough to clean up the text; I ask reviewers to reread the article to see if their objections have been met.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Andy; I'm struggling to keep up, with a miserable cough left over from my cold, but appreciate your work there. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
How are you determining "primary editor" as there seems to be some disagreement on WT:FAC. Kindest regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 03:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I realize you may no longer be watchlisting the Elvis Presley FAC, but I wonder if you are around at the moment and could comment on something. The article has five supporting reviews, but a question has arisen from the delegates about article size. The delegates are requesting that reviewers give their opinion on this aspect. Your input would be appreciated. PL290 ( talk) 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Laser brain has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Andy. Thanks for your support. It looks like the article is down for the count with a TKO. I'll see what I can do to improve it, but it does appear that the article won't make it to FA status. But as far as the internet is concerned, I stand by what I said. When I say the "Internet", you know what I mean. The Internet as we know it today did not exist in 1990. It was perhaps in its slimmest origins by a ridiculously small network of computers (which were the size of watermelons) and in no way concievable as what it is now. Mike Tompsonn ( talk) 14:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
File:Alpha Capricorni.jpg | Thank You | |
For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of February 2010, you're truly a star! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC) |
Why do you keep removing the fact, that Mike Portnoy is going to record the new album with A7X?-- Arneandre ( talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You're going to break the internet; what will Al Gore say? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd value your comments on this article, now at peer review (you can listen to Penelope's lament as you read through) Brianboulton ( talk) 22:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining
WikiProject Venezuela? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the
list of participants. Please see our
list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The GNLF flag image has been moved under "Civic administration". Please have a look. thanks for the comment in the FARC. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy, go ahead and check for 1a and copy and paste any passages you have any questions about onto my talk page! Poor Yorick ( talk) 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Laser. Since you said you would be willing to look at FARs that weren't just dead unsourced articles, Flag of India and Darjeeling have been done but are waiting for a prose check. I guess Soren Kierkegaard could do with one as well. Thanks YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
You aren't obligated to copyedit all these articles....
YellowMonkey (
vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll)
05:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
So far I haven't been able to find a library that subscribes to The Commercial Appeal, and since I'm going to be pretty busy with college classes (among other things) in the coming few months, I don't think I'll be able to find the time...would you be so kind as to help me out? I've been expanding the article in the past few days and I was able to find an article from a different newspaper ( Memphis Flyer) as well as one from The New Republic, so I guess that counts for something. If the article does eventually make it to FA, I would be gladly willing to split the credit with you. Alternatively, if it wouldn't work with your schedule, are there any other editors who might be willing and/or able to work on the project? Thanks, Stonemason89 ( talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Laser. Can you give me a copyediting hand with this one? I've been self-sufficient with FAs generally for a while now, just doing a full ce myself before the FAC, except this time, something seems to have gone awry even after a second round after a complaint, and I feel a bit lost. Thanks YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Brian said you could go ahead :). YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Had to be done I suppose. I was just on my way to ... what's that place called where you go to complain about incivility? Anyway, I was just on my way there to lodge a complaint about User:QuattroBajeena using my first name without my explicit permission. It's Mr Fatuorum, only "Malleus" to my friends. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I am fairly certain I know the answer, but who did you block Talking image ( talk · contribs) as a sock of? KnightLago ( talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for having a look at the Turf Moor FAC. I have done a major overhaul of the images used, and I now believe that they all have adequate sourcing and licenses. I have also added a number of more reliable sources, including books, academic journals and local news stories. Cheers, -- Big Dom 18:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've asked a question at Mattisse's talk page with respect to your actions there I'd appreciate an answer to. Thanks!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Xampt An old one though. Fainites barley scribs 08:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, Laser Brain, but is your problems with the images on Dragon Quest's FAC resolved? GamerPro64 ( talk) 16:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello? GamerPro64 ( talk) 03:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in looking at this as there has been an important development here. – MuZemike 16:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for inserting that. I had thought it would be pronounced like "born December 25, 1927" in which case a word would not be needed, but the version now "looks right" to me too. Hekerui ( talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible for you to briefly revisit the FAC page of Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, where the fair use of File:PhaecianStoneShip.jpg has been challenged? Perhaps leave a comment if possible. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Dare we hope? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I left a profanity-laden message for you. For, you know, whatever. Glad to see you back. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all. Moni, I printed out your message and stuck it to my icebox. I relish it. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Finally, some good news this week! Welcome back :) Karanacs ( talk) 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to your PR points; there are a couple you might wish to pass further judgement on ("in addition to" and "generally"). Brianboulton ( talk) 12:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
We would like your help concluding the FAC for Roger Waters. — GabeMc ( talk) 03:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good catch! I copied some information from another article, hence the use of "Brown". Thank you for catching my error! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Andy. I would like to strongly suggest you to read Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. It will help you understand why Pedro II was deposed, his mistakes and how the republicans perceived him. Once you've read it, I am certainly sure that the subject will be far easier. It looks big, but is very interesting. I am pretty sure you won't regret it. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 01:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you check over Robert Burnell for prose and Brit spelling for me? Obviously, since I'm missing Malleus (BADLY!) I'm going to have to beg from other folks much more on prose copyediting. The poor guy's had two peer reviews, with Ruhr, Awa, and Dr PDA weighing in on the last one. I'm going to post this to Moni and Iri too, just to cover all my bases... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
im a noob and its my first nominate, :D-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
|
|}
Hi! Well, its a public monument, as can be found anywhere around the globe, such as the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius. The monument itself was made by Rodolpho Bernardelli (1852-1931), dead for quite some time (Source: [4]). The second picture was made by the request of editor... Laser brain (Yourself!) in Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Pedro Álvares Cabral routes. Well, aren't they ok, then? Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comments. I was wondering if you could take a look at the critical response and cultural impact sections to see if they're OK now.-- The Taerkasten ( talk) 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Question for you... Would a person who uses electronics like a computer be clasified as a composer or musician. This seems to not be clearly stated in any articles I searched, maybe I'm splitting hairs but I'm not conviced that a person using a computer is a musician. Your thoughts please. Deluxebros ( talk) 20:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I left some comments for you at the FAC page, I think the issue can be easily resolved. Thanks.-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You has it. Raul654 ( talk) 22:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC) ( With apologies to DirectTV)
Heya Laser brain! It has been a long time. I plan to bring an article about a Malaysian cartoon series, Kampung Boy (TV series), to FAC and would like some opinions if it reaches that level (to be judged there) yet or if some more improvements are needed. I would appreciate it if you look through the article and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kampung Boy (TV series)/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 14:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please review I have made several changes to Illinois (album) per your comments--from the cosmetic to the substantial. Please post there if you think that further improvement is needed. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Have you observed what I did at my talk page immediately after using RevDel? Moreover, I marvel that my refusal to restore the other edit summary is of greater concern to you than someone else telling me that I lack integrity, scruples, collegiality and courtesy. Nyttend ( talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you be willing to copyedit an article for me? Thistle, Utah was an FAC nomination of mine a few weeks ago. I have worked more on the article, and asked those I work with regularly to review it. AFAIK, the only thing it still needs is a good copyedit. You up for it? Either way, thanks in advance. Dave ( talk) 02:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Just in case I rolled back my edit because I had left open my tab to edit Illinois (album) for a few hours and I saved it. Then, I looked at my watchlist and saw that you had made a series of edits. I rolled back to insure that I didn't undo your additions and I was extremely tired, so I didn't try to compare and contrast to figure out what's best; I'll look at the history now and add back in my changed without taking out yours. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 14:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Just to let you know that Ronald Skirth is currently undergoing peer review. As you suggested previously that you were aware of some problems with this article, I thought you might like to have a look at it. Any suggestions would be most welcome.
Dwab3 ( talk) 12:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
See this. Raul654 ( talk) 06:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well done YellowMonkey ( new photo poll) 01:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Just dropped by to give you my immense gratitude. The article improved immensely over the course of the FAC, mostly thanks to you. Happy editing! Jujutacular talk 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- JN 466 23:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I finally set up a page for us to coordinate schedules: see the talk page at User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to be traveling Thursday, preparing tomorrow, but I've started:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, do you have any evidence that this is a sockpuppet? You don't appear to be a checkuser and I don't see anything on the relevant investigation page or the user's talk page. Thanks, AD 09:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Laser brain, please see the {{emdash}} template and study its internal workings before your go around reverting my copyedits.— Quicksilver T @ 03:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I have tried to address your concerns in the peer review. I have also rewrote the article a bit (I hope it will make for a clearer and smoother read). Could you give a quick look over of the changes? I hope to bring this to FAC if all seems good. Jappalang ( talk) 05:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I just came back to WP after a long time, and came to know that you have been promoted as a FAC delegate. Congrats!! Sandy and Karen must be saying "whew!" at the lessening of their workload. I am planning on submitting " Like a Virgin" for a FAC, mind you take a quick look and comment on what you feel? Thanks and congrats again. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Hopefully I can continue to squeeze reviewing into my free time—once I get fully back up to speed, I plan on making some pushes of my own. — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I've left a comment at the FAC about the close paraphrasing. I didn't see too much of a problem with the points you raised, but I suspect you've got more idea than I have! As I'd said the sourcing was OK, I'd just like to clarify as it's got my name on it saying "all fine!" -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you left Fasach Nua a message for the way he was acting. I appreciate it thank you!-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc ( talk) 23:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You mean running? Eh, I did it back in 2007 when I had no clue what I was doing, I figure now I would actually be useful :) Plus, I feel like I haven't got my share of abuse. Why let people like Sandy hog it all? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 05:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Andy. Since you've been helpful to me in past FAC reviews, I was wondering if you could maybe weigh in on some discussion over at my FAC for South Park (season 13). So far, I believe most specific issues have been addressed, but there has been some back and forth over whether the infobox image (which for now has been removed) meets the fair use rationale. I believed it did, but one reviewer opposed the FAC because he felt it did not. After attempts to update the fair use rationale did not satisfy his concerns, and after another reviewer opposed for the same reason, I removed the image altogether. But now, another reviewer has actually opposed the article due to the absence of that infobox image. So now I have people opposing the image, and people opposing the lack of an image, and I'm not sure what to do to resolve it. (Some have also pointed out that there seems to be a double-standard being applied here that while this kind of fair use rationale seems acceptable for movie posters, it is not acceptable for television season images.) I'm not sure what to do, so any guidance or assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 20:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy really am a bit shocked, so please bear with me. Why in the heck did you guys close the nomination? I had many supports and had fixed almost all the issues and was waiting for the editors to respond. Not one of the editors suggested withdrawal or that it was premature. And it wasn't even an older nomination. It was there not long at all. I'm really upset, I worked hard in getting it there, and you couldn't even give me a notice. Please respond.-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It's coming along nicely, IMO, but a second opinion might be good—especially since I made quite a few tweaks myself. What do you think of the prose? — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Laser brain, I just noticed this. Congratulations! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 04:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.
Truthkeeper88, with help from Ruhrfisch, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet#Post-FAC cleanup review comments on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, though I was leaning support based on some extensive edits. Maybe a re-listing soon? — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 04:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing. No hint of incentives should be given for that... as someone who's gone through art school, I've built up quite an intolerance to kitsch, I guess (and "deep" conceptual art too, but I always thought that was a load of bull). :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine, but your request almost makes it seem like he's a "handicapped" editor that others aren't allowed to make impolite remarks about. It's just frustrating having nearly all my FAC nominations for the last 3 years immediately blindsided by his vexing opposition. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 18:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I took the liberty to read your exchange with Fasach Nua. Hope you don't mind. You should notice that he erased two messages sent to him requesting him to explain why he opposed the article I wrote (Here [5] and here [6]). That is not the nicest way to act in Wikipedia. If someone like him behaves like that, he certainly should not be reviewing articles around. Even less FAC nominations. And do you know what is worse? He said that he would not anser back because the editor who sent the messages was ruse. That's wonderful, because he is "punishing" me, the FAC nominator, for something that another editor - who I do not know, by the way - did to him. That's childish and ridiculous. That kind of behavior tell much about him. He should not be roaming around FAC nominations because he is clearly not the most fitted editor to review those kind of articles. I sincerely hope you can understand my point. Kind regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Laser Brain, I'm hopeful you will let me off the two week penalty as ordained by the FAC instructions. I want to nominate Flower Drum Song, on which I have been working intensively with User:Ssilvers, one of our experts on the musical theatre. User:Brianboulton has given the article an outside review and it has benefited by his comments. The state of the musical theatre area onwiki is in a sad state and I am hopeful that a successful FAC will galvanize people by giving them a model to follow. Many thanks,-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Andy, don't forget; the FA page is the definitive record of FAs, and their number, so we have to watch it closely (the FAR people often make mistakes). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for giving Thistle, Utah a once over. I promise that when I asked you to review it, I didn't know the FAC cabal was preparing to back the dump truck and give you more work to do =-) Dave ( talk) 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I have replied to your comment. Please reply. Volcano guy 17:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The Borodino class battlecruiser article has been copyedited and I hope you can take another look to see if there are any remaining infelicities.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the assist. I didn't write that sentence but it needed some fixing. Please do copy edit where ever the article needs it. A couple subsections are incomplete but I will add to them in the next few days.-- Wpwatchdog ( talk) 03:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I am seeing issues with Fasach Nua's continuous oppose based on NFCC, but failing to explain why he is doing it or what exactly is the issue. Every editor at FAC is complaining about his comments and he is not even bothering to retract such useless comments or address them properly. In a lengthy page such as FAC, cryptic comments doesnot really help nominators or reviewers. As a delegate would you speak with him and make sure that such non-helpful comments are not added? Thanks, — Legolas (talk2me) 08:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right. It was a last-edit-of-the-night-what-on-earth-is-this-stuff-oh-for-heaven's-sake-get-rid-of-it reaction; perhaps I shouldn't have deleted it without leaving a message for the perpetrators. It's doubtful they'll know how to see the edit summary in the page history and click on the WP:TALK link, after all. I did check all the contribs and they all have just this edit in their history; I am not at all sure they'll ever see their talk pages, or do anything about it if they do. Still, if you want to leave them a message please go ahead; otherwise I'll probably leave a note for them in the morning. Mike Christie ( talk – library) 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Andy; I didn't miss your comment. I see respect for existing style as a flavour of ownership. We don't respect spelling mistakes or the unreferenced style, do we? At its core, this view is regressive; about things being locked-down, forever — trapped in amber.
See here. That was a relic from the early days of the project. That particular page only dates from 30 June 2006 (and that html was in the first rev), but I'm pretty sure that it was copy-pasted from somewhere else that prolly goes back years further. I see that you've been here most of three years; I've been here more than twice that long; I've seen a lot. We used to do all the tables that way, and I've been fixing such thingsthat *is* me for a long time. Many of the smaller projects still have such issues, as they trasnwiki'd or copy-pasted old stuff circa five years ago when most of the smaller projects got started; I fix those, too.
Wikis are about change, about being bold. We evolve new approaches to things, all the time. The whole thrust of things like citation templates is about structuring the elements of a citation in a standard form and then rendering it is a consistent manner. Plain-text refs are not readily ready by anything other than a person. By properly structuring the discrete pieces of a citation, we make them available to all manner of tools. These tools may extract the data, or check it against a database and add something from the db to the cite. Other tools may convert the templates to the next thing; i.e. (<ref last="Golding" first="William" title="Lord of the Flies" style="Oxford" />
).
A lot of the talk about cite style is about their on-screen appearance. I don't give a hoot about that. Sure some bits get italics, names may be last, first or not, dates may be in whatever format (and per user pref would be best). By hard-coding a plain-text reference with a bit of wiki-markup, editors are precluding most of the advantages of what I'm talking about. See separation of presentation and content; what we put into the edit box should be the 'content' of the citation, not the format of it. The 'format' should be centralised; in a template, or in MediaWiki, with the styling in the site CSS. This is the same thing as eschewing raw html in favour of wiki-markup for table an the like; we let MediaWiki generate the markup. I've a huge amount of experience with code; another taste; scroll slowly.
I see that some have their heels dug in about this, which is a pity, as it means that the wiki is going to have to struggle through whatever is necessary to get things moving forward. I recall reading somewhere that 1.7 million pages have citation templates. I view the rest as akin to Mercury-Atlas; long neglected and/or held back. We've too many articles in relation to the number of people moving things in the right direction. A huge amount of time is wasted bickering about things instead of doing things.
I missed commenting about inline goop being a pain in the butt; it is. The solution is to put all the references in the reference section using list defined references. See Sheila Varian for a fairly clean example of this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
hello,
please have a look at this nomination. It would be nice if you help to promote this disco into a FL. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I've greatly expanded the development section with some sources I found in Japanese. Does this address some of your concerns? Thanks, Axem Titanium ( talk) 03:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
When FAC have completed it would be handy if you were to promote and archive as two different edits. I like to benchmark my reviews against the delegates metric, and I can do this quickly with Sandy's edits who archives and promotes separately, but other than that you are doing a fine job Fasach Nua ( talk) 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Laser brain, thank you for the promotion. I think it would be better off in the category "Literature and theatre" rather than "music". After all, it is a Broadway musical, it's all about the theatre! Thanks. This does not change TFA/R points, btw.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I intended it as a follow up nomination, because in the first nom I responded to and corrected all the requests made, and since it was all fixed, why was the article not promoted? Shannon talk contribs 05:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I saw that you had archived the South Park (season 13) FAC. Although I strongly disagree with that decision, I assure you I'm not here to complain about it. :) However, I did want to ask you whether you felt it would be appropriate for me to seek an opinion at the NFCR about the fair use rationale and attempt to seek a consensus there before returning to FAC. I had proposed doing this and asking the FAC participants to abide by the decision, and one of the objectors to the image agreed, but the other felt it would be inappropriate to close an FAC with a term being the final outcome of an NFCR review. Now that the FAC is closed, however, I wanted to ask you as the delegate whether you feel it would be appropriate if I were to bring it to NFCR now, and bring the article back to FAC after that discussion takes place. Let me know what you think, because if you feel it's inappropriate, I won't do it. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 19:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Geez, Laser. I was about to comment on Cornell's FAC when you deleted it. I didn't get a chance to give an opinion on the article. Do you have something against me? :3 GamerPro64 ( talk) 00:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I've taken your advice and sent messages to everyone who has participated in the previous FAC (but not the second one yet) and asked them to comment on the full FA criteria rather than just the image. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Right back at you. Can't imagine it's easy to be sane as an FAC delegate (although I think I might be getting a taste of that come the new year...) Take care of yourself, we can still drain more energy from you 'ere long :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 20:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
Dear ANdy, Merry Christmas. Just one question, waht do you think about the article Bad Romance and its chances of survival if nominated for FAC? If you say no, then I won't nominate it, as I don't want to clog the page with underprepared nominations. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Re this edit: I thought "effecting" was what was meant -- in the sense of "causing to happen". Just a note since of course it's on my watchlist now .... Mike Christie ( talk – library) 23:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Not to be a bother, but shouldn't this one be relisted or given a bit more time rather than closed? I know it's had no support or oppose votes yet, but at the very least, Bignole seemed to be in the middle of reviewing the article... (I could always ask folks at WP:FILM to weigh in if it's just a matter of inactivity.) — Hun ter Ka hn 17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice with regard to the South Park (season 13) FAC. Much appreciate your guidance along the way! — Hun ter Ka hn 02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You seem to have "promoted" this article to FA while it was still riddled with sloppy writing and MoS problems. Any chance you could take a look at the discussion in talk (both my user talk and article talk), as the FA process has been used as justification for reverting out a copyedit I made. Either this is a one-off blip or it totally undermines my respect for the FA process. Please see what you can do. -- John ( talk) 01:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
John, I'll respond here to keep this conversation in one place. First, you can't really place any blame on Andy or FAC if the issue wasn't raised at FAC; we'd love to have more reviewers, and the delegates' job is only to judge consensus. Second, on the reverted edits: "However" is almost always problematic, but I'm not sure it was misused in that case. When I read FACs, I frequently see breaches of SEASON, but often find it hard to determine how to fix them; the edits did seem to be an improvement, but discussing it on the FAC (or at article talk, as you've done) is the best way to resolve such issues. Finally, I hope you've not lost faith in FAC over matters that should be easily resolved, and I hope you understand that raising the issues on the FAC is the best way to alert the delegates! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
John, you have somewhat of a point on the "closed shop" issue. FAC can be intimidating. It is why I make a practice of trying to introduce as many editors as possible to it as conom or reviewer. I would mix industrial metaphors and say it is not so much a closed shop but an industry with some barriers to entry that can be overcome with dedication by the new individual. None of us were born at FAC, after all.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As an example, my current nominee C. D. Howe has a sentence which says that delays in a certain project might lead to construction not starting until the spring of 1957. I left "spring" in because the season is relevant. The article is about Canada and the Canadian winter is not a good time for construction. If I said "April of 1957" (even if supported by the source), the reader might miss the point. Therefore, I overrode the guideline and used the word "spring".-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Just some more food for thought for John, and why we need reviewers to cover all sorts of issues, including MOS, which is not necessarily at the head of the "core policy" list. We have all kinds of things to watch for at FAC, including correct representations of sources, copyvios, plagiarism, socks, and now paid editing as well. Does anyone check articles that could be targetted for paid editing-- like bios, products, companies, schools, buildings, etc-- for POV? Until I see more sourcing, copyvio, and POV checks, and as long as I have to stay abreast of socks, keeping up with MOS can't occupy too much of my time, and I'd love it if others would keep all of these things, including the bigger picture related to Wiki's core policies of neutrality and verifiability, in mind! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)