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.

I found a book featuring the following quotes from Jack Kirby about the good doctor:

"Dr. Doom was the classic conception of death. It was the reason for the armor and the hood. Death is connected with armor and the inhuman-like steel. Death is something without mercy, and human flesh contains that mercy." (1987) ^[1]

Doom is a paranoid. He thinks he's ugly and he wants the whole world to be like him. Paranoids are insane people who never get their way." (1976) ^[1]

"He's a good-looking guy, and he only has a tiny scar on his cheek, but because he's such a perfectionist, he can't bear to see that imperfection. He isn't hiding his face from the public — he's hiding it from himself." (early 1970s, when he drew that sketch of Doom unmasked) ^[2]

Good luck! Alientraveller ( talk) 10:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's coming along neatly, but I thought it would be better not to have a characterization/personality section because writers have interpreted Doom so differently over the years: Doombots being a famous explanation for inconsistencies in his personality. That whole thing about Kirby intending Doom to be handsome except for a scar for Bryne turned him into Darkman would also be quite relevant to fill-up the publication history.

Another note is when time comes to fill up the "other media" section, it'd be preferrable to have an image of the scarred Julian McMahon. He rarely wore the mask in the films and it just epitomises the problems people had with his depiction. Alientraveller ( talk) 10:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can find some reviews of the films, (I recall one reviewer saying Movie Doom could only be camper with high heels and a feather boa). Here's an interview with Mark Waid on the biggest 2000s Doom story. http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=001050 http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=1041 I'll also revise the lead after the main work is done. Alientraveller ( talk) 12:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, nice work on the Doom article. I have the hardcover graphic novel of Unthinkable, that 2000s Doom story, and at the back, Waid has notes on the characters and his interpretations of them, including Doom. Some good characerization stuff for sure, you want me to type it up for you?  Paul  730 13:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go:

Enjoy, I hope there's stuff in there you can use, I think Mark Waid is the best FF writer of all time, you should really read his run if you haven't already. There's similar notes for the FFers if you ever want help fixing up their articles.  Paul  730 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't trying to pressure you, like "you better do them all!", just saying there's more where that came from. Do you think you'll merge the "Doom in other media/alternate universes" articles into the main one? I know he's A-list, but with a bit of summarization, I think it could all be managed on one page easily. Jason Voorhees is gigantic, but it's the best character article I've read on Wikipedia.  Paul  730 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really contribute much to the Jason article, although I'm friends with the editor who wrote it. I was more involved in the rewrite of Michael Myers (Halloween), another favourite, mainly just contributing sources like I just did there with Doom. The only article I've mostly written myself is Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), but that's not really finished yet. I noticed you implimented the Waid info... think you should include a tad more plot? There's quite an important story point about Doom switching tech for magic.  Paul  730 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, I don't mean to pester you on the infobox image, but could you please weigh in at the WikiProject talk page? There seems to be considerable disagreement that it's a Kirby image, so it would help if you could identify what source identifies it as such. Thanks! 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Hmmm, we stopped for a while. It is tiring writing about such a prolific character. I'll continue sourcing and expanding the biography from all his deaths and resurrections from the 1980s. Alientraveller ( talk) 12:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That'd be a good standard to reach. Old comics aren't as complex as today. Alientraveller ( talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey David, 'sup. I noticed this when you made a big edit to it and the bot reporting in the countervandalism IRC channel flagged it as a 'large edit'. I thought the was really cool, I'd be interested to know when you have it finished :) Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 04:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! I assumed you wouldn't mind me making a few minor tweaks, and I do have a couple minor comments, for you to consider or ignore as you wish :)

• "...network (ask someone to do it for you)[11] and to ask for assistance" - same thing
• "even I cannot write perfect English and interesting prose at the same time" - the jokingness of this might not be coming across enough. Maybe exaggerate more: "even one such as myself" or something
• dunno if you need to restate WP:FA? quite so much, I'd pare it down. We can at least hope that someone who's serious about it would have read it themselves ;-)
• The signature thing didn't come out in the last ref.

But yeah, I thought it was really good. I like how it's newbie friendly. Good of you to take the time to make it. delldot talk 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for subject title, been playing TF2 all week. Anyway, Downloaded passed (finally), so we are ready and rolling. Will ^{( talk)} 01:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

hello. I was wondering if you would like to adopt me. I'm not as new as I used to be, and I need help. People keep yelling at me and I would like help as to be able to stop whatever I seem to be doing wrong. Can you help me?

• Oreo lover ( talk) 02:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)*

yah well i haven't been on until i left you the above message so i don't really know whats going on at the moment. -- Oreo lover ( talk) 03:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know if you would be my mentor. I saw your section on the Adopt-A-User page, and I need help knowing what content I should add to pages. Neospaceblue2 ( talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to ask you for a petition of spoiler warning in some articles about books or films. How can I introduce spoiler warnings in some articles? For example, the last week, I was reading the Guards! Guards! plot and in second line, it reveals who's the 'bad man' :( I have searched in wiki the way to advice to the readers about things like this, but I didn't fount anything.. How can I fix this? Thanks very much...

• Lutherv ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A Castlevania Sorrow Series Featured Topic is one article away from nomination, and that is Alucard (Castlevania), and instead of waiting two months to nominate it, since I saw you are active reviewing video game articles, if you would give it a critique so we can have one sooner :) If you have time that is! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've made a try at addressing your comments at the aforementioned article. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that I've addressed your comments. Thanks for the review, David. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done my best to address the comments you listed on the talk page. Thanks a bunch for doing the review -- take care. -- Nomader ^{( Talk)} 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your comments again. I guess I should be leaving this note, but in the future if this GAN continues, feel free to tell me not to. -- Nomader ^{( Talk)} 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you take another look here please? Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂0) 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw the Black Mesa Incident and Seven Hour War AFDs, and I'm thinking - want to help (totally not to FL, just as a question) with List of Half-Life universe characters? There's a good chance they may be AFD'd soon, so I thought I'd get there before hand and make a list. The only problem is categorizing Eli and Alyx (Eli appeared in both series, but Alyx is arguably more major than him despite only being in HL2). Will ^{( talk)} 20:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That would put Gordon, Barney, Alyx at the top, then the other player character (Adrian) and the two recurring professors (Eli, Issac), then the one-level characters, yes? Will ^{( talk)} 20:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to send back about the logo you made. We were looking for a more Xbox logo related logo, which we have just created but thanks anyway.-- Blackwatch21 ( talk) 20:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your conclusion the result was delete has absolutely no basis. There was no reasonable consensus for delete. Many of the delete opinions said a merger or renaming was acceptable and the same for many keep opinions. The fact you completely failed to acknowledge this suggests to me you did not even review the responses fully. Never mind it was pretty evenly split and showing a clear dispute over whether the article was speculative or not.

You justification of the deletion on position of WP:CRYSTAL is fallacious and selective on its face. Your suggestion that one part of the policy means another part is invalid make no sense. Also it's not even remotely accurate. The article had nothing to do with "future history" or "speculation". It included many things have that have happened. Republika Srpska did pass a resolution calling for a referendum on independence if Kosovo is recognized by a majority of U.N. members. That is historical fact, not future history or speculation. The statements given are all statements that have been made and many included were actually reactions to the declaration. Another administrator, the one who started the article on Kosovo's declaration of independence, did not nominate the article for deletion before it was changed, but instead put it on the page for Kosovo's declaration.

Originally the biggest complaint was the title itself, with most seeing the article subject as legitimate though in need of improvement. Some who said delete actually said they could change to keep if the article was changed enough.

The policy on crystal ball, which you cited, says Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Yet the policy on original research does not say anything which vindicates your argument that the inclusion of verifiable sources is irrelevant. Indeed even if somehow being that made it original research in spite of verifiable sources you would have to argue where the article presents extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" and so far no one has responded to this question of where such speculation exists, yourself included. I also fail to see where opinion or analysis of the editors is inserted because all information was a statement of fact. I doubt you'd actually be able to cite that either, despite constant challenges to cite such problems no one ever provided any specific instance, instead asserting a vague and unverifiable criticism. All the same the policy on crystal couldn't be any clearer on this matter, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, and this was not such a collection. Questions about bias, structure, and so forth are legitimate problems not justifications for deletion.

The subject itself, given the change, no longer had the problem as the question of a precedent is dealt with as a controversial subject brought up by independence, not the article's subject itself. There is no denying such a controversy PRESENTLY exists and is of wide interest. Thus it is not speculation on the future and the fact included in the article was the question of whether the independence was legitimate, which, I might add, was biased towards it being legitimate if biased at all, verifies this.

Given the change in title and thus clear notability and relevance of the article there was no reason to delete the article while disregarding a lack of consensus.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 00:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a simple question of improvement. An article shouldn't be deleted just because it needs improvement. Given that there seemed to be no clear consensus it should not have been deleted in the first place.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 00:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with The Devil's Advocate. There was no consensus and I think a consensus could have emerged on the basis of clearer definition of what the article should cover, which is an editorial issue. The tide of opinion changed when the article's name was changed, which suggested that some of the earlier votes could have gone the other way. The precedent Kosovo sets has important political and legal implications, particularly for ethnic grievances and the issue of territorial integrity, and this is an important dimension of the controversies surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence. It is therefore an encyclopaedic subject, regardless of the dispute over content. This much is clear from the article that is now deleted. The article was well sourced, verifiable and not original research. But perhaps Wikipedia would be better as a resource for fans of pornography and fictional Pokemon and Star Trek characters rather than serious subjects. I am mystified as to how you can state that the consequences of Kosovo's independence is unencyclopaedic when there is so much nonsense in Wikipedia, eg The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Time Cube and Shit happens.-- Conjoiner ( talk) 11:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to undeleted it and then relist on AfD.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 19:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you undelete the article and relist it on AfD?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 05:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I work for Ambition Talent, an Agency based in Toronto, representing Actors, Writers and Directors in Toronto, Vancouver, as well as L.A. I see there is a request for a speedy deletion of our page within the Wikipedia site.

How can we stop this and have a page on here??

Please feel free to contact me at info@ambitiontalent.com

Thanks for your time, Chelsea

Ambition Talent & Literary Agency User talk:76.65.226.174

Hey, just thought you should know about this WP:AN/I#User:David Fuchs since apparently people can't inform someone if they are bashing him/her at AN/I, adios. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referred from User:SilkTork about adoption.

There have been two somewhat minor descrepancies and i am facing a tribunal, they want to kick me off or something, i was wondering if you could adopt me? COntact me on my talk page, thanks. -- Tom.mevlie ( talk) 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. This morning, I clicked "edit" and started typing comments on the FAC for this article. One thing led to another and I didn't click "save" until just now, only to discover that the nom was closed and archived in the mean time. I copied my comments to Talk:Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards. -- Laser brain ( talk) 18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you have been in touch with me already, but i am not sure how to be adopted, i put the thing at the top of my page, could you adopt me and show me the way? Tom.mevlie ( talk) 07:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 09:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wanting to finish off our stubs and get them to starts, I filled in this article with sourced content, but I'm not sure where to go with it, meaning what kind of information should be included, similar to the O'Donnell question. Anyway, I'll see what I can do to the others, but I offer this one to you if there is any more improvement possible as of now. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 02:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there David, what's up. Holding you to this, I'm here to issue a friendly pants kicking for this, I thought it was unduly mean. Note that I know nothing about the conflict and haven't even read that whole thread, all I read was that part. I don't know what their behavior's been like, I'm sure it was rotten :-P But I feel like the standard you hold yourself to for your behavior shouldn't change based on how others act. Especially for such a highly respected user as yourself, it sets a bad example, you know? I'm sure others are emulating you, whether you notice it or not. Anyway, that's just my $0.02, you're free to heed it or ignore it as you like. Peace, delldot talk 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Any time. XD Thanks for being so cool about hearing from me from out of the blue. I think your plan to take a break from that mess is a very wise one. Good luck on your other projects :) delldot talk 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen ( talk · contribs) David Fuchs ( talk · contribs) Derek.cashman ( talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide ( talk · contribs) Calbear22 ( talk · contribs) Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) Jackturner3 ( talk · contribs) TimVickers ( talk · contribs) VanTucky ( talk · contribs) Wrad ( talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 ( talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow ( talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist ( talk · contribs) Ed! ( talk · contribs) Juliancolton ( talk · contribs) Kakofonous ( talk · contribs) LOTRrules ( talk · contribs) Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft ( talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Madame X (album) ( talk | history | start review) • Gedling Town F.C. ( talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) ( talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) ( talk | history | start review) • Jude Law ( talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Louie Caporusso • Northallerton • Patrick Omameh • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list |

Hello David. I happy to notify you that Characters of Halo has passed its Good Article nomination. You may review the summary here. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice!!! What that, all we need is Gravemind and you have your second Halo featured topic!! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 20:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I swear I once knew which Bungie employee Sketch was, but I've forgotten by now. :S Maybe you could swing by the Halo.bungie.org forums and ask? They should know who he is. Peptuck ( talk) 01:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you still reviewing Patti Smith, or can I steal it? :) dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂0) 11:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You left a few notes, I left some before... so I went ahead and passed it; just so you know. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂0) 08:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, I *gulp* reverted your excisions at Talk:ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion since I feel many of the comments you deleted (such as my own) speak directly to the quality of the article and are appropriate to the talk page. Apologies if this was an importunate action, but I feel that at least some of the comments you deleted reasonably belong. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)