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. |
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.
If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(hee!) (whacks David) Take care of the one little niggle I put up so I can quit watching the FAC and not have to see the squabbles... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, regarding that practice of declining to place refs in the bibliography if they are "only cited once" (sort of like, "only driven once, by a little old lady from Pasadena"): does that practice exist outside Wikipedia, or is it only a Wikipedia thing? If it's the latter, I think a strong case can be made that the practice should be discontinued. If non-Wiki-familiar readers peruse that type of article, they will be blindsided/negatively surprised. They will be unlikely to know the book was ever even referenced, unless they click that particular footnote... why go against the expectations of a large number of readers? I actually see no justification for the practice at all. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent) <waving arms> No, i didn't say "universal". I said "generally accepted". Look, pick a good style, any well-knownstyle, and follow it religiously. I sincerely hate MLA, forex. I think it's an ugly, high-maintenance mess. But if someone chooses to write an article using that style, and follows the style very religiously, then more power to 'em. They are doing well. The article will feel comfortable/familiar to folks from fields where MLA is used, and that is a Very Good Thing. We want to reduce the learning curve here. Whenever possible, we should b strongly averse to making up our own style. I know it's fun and it feels cool to innovate, but it alienates non-Wikipedia people. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent) here's where I get in trouble. :-) You said, "I would hope that an editor would realize this and...". I get in trouble here because I believe you vastly over-estimate the common sense of a large-ish number of editors. Folks just.. in reality, there is little sense of discipline in many, many editors. They just "follow convenience" (a literal translation from Chinese; idiomatically similar to US English "what-ever!"). I actually don't want One Ref System to Rule Them All. I want Lit articles to look like Lit articles. I want Linguistics articles to look like Linguistics articles. And I want none of them to look like Made Up Crap. :-) But Made Up Crap is in fact exactly what we get, unless we actively campaign against it. This new style (is it new???? That was my original question!) is a case in point... Crap! Did you look at the old Cantona version I linked above? Do you want to know my guess as to how that happened (and continues to happen!)? Ligulem, in a seemingly-benign example of "following convenience", wrote some documentation for Template:Reflist/doc (which I have very recently changed), and in it he/she discussed "general references" and "specific references". Then in all innocence, one or more n00bs (I do not mean that as an insult) looked at the documentation and adopted it as new style. So one editor's casual documentation error became a new freaking meme. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent, lost track of the colons) Ah, I found From Counterculture to Cyberculture on Google books. Can you point me to an example...? Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 09:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I did want to wait until a couple GA reviews were done, but no big deal. I'm glad that the madness is over. You gave my talk page new light. Randomran ( talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
Sure. Worst case is that I have a long Memorial Day weekend, so I should be able to get to it by then. — TKD [talk] [c] 15:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick request for you and your LexisNexis access. I'm currently digging up sources for a rewrite of what's currently at Last invasion of Britain, would you mind giving LexisNexis a cursory glance for me to see if they have anything of interest available? I dug up a few useful sources out of JSTOR and am in the process of raiding my uni's library; if you see anything potentially useful on LexisNexis from "last invasion of Britain", "battle of Fishguard" or "French invasion of Wales", please send it my way! -- Sabre ( talk) 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you want to nominate The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, I think it will pass. It has enough information. If you remember things that must be fixed since the last FAC. What do you think? OboeCrack ( talk) 10:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accesdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link) and similars. If you don't think the article will pass, please tell me why and I will take it out!
OboeCrack (
talk) 21:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Thanks OboeCrack ( talk) 09:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75 ½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
So what exactly is the verdict on the section for articles? Do we have a MoS style/standard guide so I can fall back on it in case of future events (and does it count for Necrid's article o_O?)
Yeah I know, a lot at once, just got back home.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the creator of the article "Wisdom University" and I would like to get it re-created. I just had a look at its deletion review (after not finding the article) and...I don't think the deleters realize that the school is actually kind of important. Certainly it's well-known among Bay Area spiritual seeker types, and comparable to other New Agy schools such as CIIS or ITP. The involvement of so many notable faculty--including the pope! (as an enemy)--is important. Few unaccredited schools make this kind of impact. I'm not trying to promote them, by any means (and in fact consider their accreditation claims dishonest). But I do think it is important to have an article on it. For one thing, potential students will come here looking for info on it. Dawud ( talk) 20:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Made more comments. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You have a current nominee at WP:FOUR. We are trying to clear out the log of nominees without having the nominator confirm the eligibility. If you have a chance could you help confirm a nominee or two.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
...is no longer a GA. This means the Characters of Halo topic is under retention, with 3 months, or until 18 August, to get the article up to GA again, or else the topic can get nominated for removal. The irony isn't lost on me that the article was an addition to your topic (by me!) and is now causing problems but well err that's how it goes I guess :S rst20xx ( talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
For your recent copyedits of Necrid and Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss that found opportunities for wording improvement that I missed. — TKD [talk] [c] 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC) |
The ANI report is not about the tag, it is about the way I was treated over it. Please, if you're going to make a comment, take the time to read all the relevant material.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything I can get for you? I noted that you don't currently have access to your library. If something is available in any of the various research databases, I can get it and email it to you. -- Laser brain (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on making TMP a Featured Article! You've been a great asset in raising the bar when it comes to Featured Articles about films! (The 2006/2007 FAs are not much to look at in comparison.) — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious about the edits you made to the article about the image placement. If I erred about the placement before, can you explain what was wrong? Imzadi1979 ( talk) 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DougsTech. As you overturned my indefinite block of this user, you should consider whether or not community consensus now supports re-instating it. Best regards, – xeno talk 07:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Films Award | ||
I, Nehrams2020, hereby award
David Fuchs the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to
WikiProject Films. Great job in your many additions to film featured articles. You have improved more film FAs then any member, all within the last year! Hopefully you continue to bring several films up to featured status (there's a lot of Star Trek films left!). Keep up the good work!
|
--Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi David; I have a LexisNexis search request for you, if you have remote access to it during the summer (if not, I'll ask again in September). I'm looking for any newspaper references for Rooster Teeth Productions or Red vs. Blue (the latter is probably best searched as "Red vs. Blue" machinima to minimize false positives). The state of Connecticut generously provides all residents with limited access to InfoTrac and ProQuest. This covers a good range of magazines and journals, but the newspaper selection is somewhat limited and inconsistent. Again this isn't high-priority, and I can wait until September—as it is, I have enough material to work with to bring Red vs. Blue up to modern FA standards (it was originally promoted in early 2006, predating even WP:WAF)—but general web/news coverage of Rooster Teeth seems to drop off the table after 2007, which is somewhat frustrating for handling reception of the newer series. Thanks, — TKD [talk] [c] 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your participation. Cheers and happy editing.-- kelapstick ( talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Dave, I presume from your remarks at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 41 in Michigan/archive2 that you are 68.50.242.207 (correct me if I am wrong). I am surprised that you are submitting and verifying an OTRS for an image Imzadi1979 has uploaded. Are you part of the OTRS team? Jappalang ( talk) 01:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
We originally considered TGI Friday's in Foggy Bottom as the meetup location, however I stopped by TGI Friday's this evening to make reservations. I was less than impressed. They apparently don't take reservations, except perhaps if you call 24 hours ahead of time. The staff was not so helpful, and the menu has hardly anything vegetarian which is an issue for some people.
So, I checked out the Bertucci's pizza/Italian place across the street (21st & I St NW). Their staff couldn't have been more helpful, think it will be fairly quiet so we will be able to hear each other, and is a very suitable place for us. So, reservations are made for Bertucci's at 5pm on Saturday. I hope you can make it to the meetup. -- Aude ( talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Being as I've seen you use this on multiple RfAs very recently, I'd just like a little more clarification about what exactly "audited content contributions" means, whenever you get a chance. Thanks. Glass Cobra 04:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
David, I've set up a peer review for List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, and since you seem to be the resident Trek FA writer, would you mind weighing in if you have the time? I've done a big overhaul on the article, and I plan to put it up for Featured List status soon. Thanks! -- Aatrek / TALK 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I want to be cautious about these, because the ticket doesn't have an assertion from the author of the email that they are the copyright holder - only that images on site X may be used. In these cases, of course, we need to be sure that the owner of site X is also the owner of the copyrights (or has permission to license on their behalf). I'm very suspicious at the moment, especially because there was mention that some of these are owned by the temples. This is why I want links to investigate further. I don't want to just "rubber stamp" OTRS tickets; honestly, I see this happening too frequently. Эlcobbola talk 18:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I saw you delisted Solid Snake. But what did you rate it now; you kept it a Good Article. GamerPro64 ( talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The external links you keep removing from the Populous: The Beginning article should be kept. Although it is not an official site, the official site is gone, all the community uses that site, the site has more content than the "official" site, various patches and services are provided by the site, and the developers of the game have even contributed to the content. For this game, this is where people go in replacement of an official site, so it would be relevant for Wikipedia to include it as an external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksevio ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Mifter ( talk) 23:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I added valuable information about Claudia Black, and also elaborated on a secret file that was mentioned in the episode. Everything I've added is fact, why was it removed please? I understand that I should be expecting a reply to my talk page. I'm afraid I don't yet have a user page on Wikipedia so I would appreciate you copying and pasting the reply and simply sending it this way: refaelba -at- g mail dot com. If the problem was with presentation then please describe it so that I will be able to better myself. Thank you! - Rafael.
UPDATE - I added a resource, the Smoke and Mirrors screenplay, from which a few quotes are taken. I hope that after giving it a look you will understand that I did not post original research but facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.94 ( talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen a few objections from you on such grounds in recent RfAs. I think you need to be more discriminating about how you use it, otherwise you risk becoming another DougsTech ("too many admins"). OTOH if a candidate has done little article work it would usually be fair to ask whether s/he will stay out of content disputes (incl all types of deletion) until after s/he has done significant content work, preferably including a few contentious topics. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
...refrain from using other editors as examples when you're making points in RfAs. I have removed part of your commentary as per the request of another user. If you have issues with my edit, please take it up with me on my talk page and not on the RfA in question. Thank you, Kingturtle ( talk) 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I left you a short little question at Mazca's RfA. Bsimmons666 ( talk) 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Halo3 ODST-box art.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Could you have a look at it? :) Hołek ҉ 08:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You recently undid my edit to the article Halo Wars which added a template that italicized the article. Could you explain why you undid it, as the italicized article would complement the italicized spelling in the rest of the article for consistency? Thanks! -- Spotty 11222 09:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You stated that audited content contributions reveal a user's temperament. In my case, couldn't you learn about my temperament from my prior RfAs? It seems like a reasonable alternative. Please respond here. Sincerely, Enigma msg 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
But I'm planning on copying a significant chunk of The Final Fantasy Legend's text regarding gameplay into Final Fantasy Legend II, and I could use an eye to go over the first game to make sure the prose is okay. I still need to update the manual refs and I'm probably not going to go for FA, but I'd rather avoid copying over content just to fix it in two spots or leave a headache for someone else to fix.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 03:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 11:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this change brings your retention periods for the Halo media topic up to date. Hope that all looks right! rst20xx ( talk) 14:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I feel like an idiot. I'd forgotten that you already wrote a feature for the newsletter a while ago. I didn't check the newsletter draft before asking for features. Do you have any issue with using SharkD's for the upcoming newsletter and saving yours for the next one? Really sorry about the mix up. ( Guyinblack25 talk 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC))
I just thought it was funny that your edit here added 666 characters to a discussion of Theology. -- Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
User:David Fuchs/Archive 27 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 • 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't you give me time to fix the problems?
The books does not have any reception info, all of the books are un-notable on their own, thats why its an article named Stargate literature -- TIAYN ( talk) 16:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that your page was listed at GAN under lit for over a month now. I am willing to review it. However, I have incredibly high standards and am very demanding. I wouldn't want to put someone through my scrutiny unless they are welcoming of it (or, are boasting about how great they are and need to be checked :) ). Just drop me a notice and I will go through it. I am use to FAC, but I will try to dull down my standards a bit. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Checking from your edits, you did more than enough to improve the article to GA status. I am sure that the article can always be improved, but it is definitely "good" at this time. Good luck, and you can have the honor of bumping the status up to GA on the various wikiproject items if no one beats you to it. :)
Ottava Rima (
talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up for your FAs. [3] Alientraveller ( talk) 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello David, Congratulations on your WikiProject Films Award! Keep up the good work! Cheers! -- irshgrl500 ( talk) 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey David. Just to let you know that, given your worries about my inexperience here, you are more than welcome to check over my first few administrator actions. Indeed, I would thank you for doing it. - Jarry1250 ( t, c, rfa) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Was that comment aimed at me? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to keep reverting the anon? — LOL T/ C 01:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering what you felt was inappropriate about my 2/19/09 edit about Halo 2 Vista that caused you to make this reversion? I just noticed it when I went back to the article. I am still fairly new to the editing side of Wikipedia, dealing mostly with minor edits. Was it because it seemed too much like an add for the game? The Original Juggernautical ( talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
There's one for the Metal Gear series and the Metroid series. I realized that the Halo games are now jumping around in chronology (such as Halo 3: ODST set before Halo 3). I thought that it might be helpful for those who might be more interested in the story of the games. On top of that, it's not too large a template and fits well into the story/setting subsections of the articles. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 21:05, 29 June 2009 (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. |
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.
If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(hee!) (whacks David) Take care of the one little niggle I put up so I can quit watching the FAC and not have to see the squabbles... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, regarding that practice of declining to place refs in the bibliography if they are "only cited once" (sort of like, "only driven once, by a little old lady from Pasadena"): does that practice exist outside Wikipedia, or is it only a Wikipedia thing? If it's the latter, I think a strong case can be made that the practice should be discontinued. If non-Wiki-familiar readers peruse that type of article, they will be blindsided/negatively surprised. They will be unlikely to know the book was ever even referenced, unless they click that particular footnote... why go against the expectations of a large number of readers? I actually see no justification for the practice at all. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent) <waving arms> No, i didn't say "universal". I said "generally accepted". Look, pick a good style, any well-knownstyle, and follow it religiously. I sincerely hate MLA, forex. I think it's an ugly, high-maintenance mess. But if someone chooses to write an article using that style, and follows the style very religiously, then more power to 'em. They are doing well. The article will feel comfortable/familiar to folks from fields where MLA is used, and that is a Very Good Thing. We want to reduce the learning curve here. Whenever possible, we should b strongly averse to making up our own style. I know it's fun and it feels cool to innovate, but it alienates non-Wikipedia people. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent) here's where I get in trouble. :-) You said, "I would hope that an editor would realize this and...". I get in trouble here because I believe you vastly over-estimate the common sense of a large-ish number of editors. Folks just.. in reality, there is little sense of discipline in many, many editors. They just "follow convenience" (a literal translation from Chinese; idiomatically similar to US English "what-ever!"). I actually don't want One Ref System to Rule Them All. I want Lit articles to look like Lit articles. I want Linguistics articles to look like Linguistics articles. And I want none of them to look like Made Up Crap. :-) But Made Up Crap is in fact exactly what we get, unless we actively campaign against it. This new style (is it new???? That was my original question!) is a case in point... Crap! Did you look at the old Cantona version I linked above? Do you want to know my guess as to how that happened (and continues to happen!)? Ligulem, in a seemingly-benign example of "following convenience", wrote some documentation for Template:Reflist/doc (which I have very recently changed), and in it he/she discussed "general references" and "specific references". Then in all innocence, one or more n00bs (I do not mean that as an insult) looked at the documentation and adopted it as new style. So one editor's casual documentation error became a new freaking meme. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent, lost track of the colons) Ah, I found From Counterculture to Cyberculture on Google books. Can you point me to an example...? Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 09:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I did want to wait until a couple GA reviews were done, but no big deal. I'm glad that the madness is over. You gave my talk page new light. Randomran ( talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
Sure. Worst case is that I have a long Memorial Day weekend, so I should be able to get to it by then. — TKD [talk] [c] 15:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick request for you and your LexisNexis access. I'm currently digging up sources for a rewrite of what's currently at Last invasion of Britain, would you mind giving LexisNexis a cursory glance for me to see if they have anything of interest available? I dug up a few useful sources out of JSTOR and am in the process of raiding my uni's library; if you see anything potentially useful on LexisNexis from "last invasion of Britain", "battle of Fishguard" or "French invasion of Wales", please send it my way! -- Sabre ( talk) 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you want to nominate The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, I think it will pass. It has enough information. If you remember things that must be fixed since the last FAC. What do you think? OboeCrack ( talk) 10:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accesdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link) and similars. If you don't think the article will pass, please tell me why and I will take it out!
OboeCrack (
talk) 21:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Thanks OboeCrack ( talk) 09:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75 ½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
So what exactly is the verdict on the section for articles? Do we have a MoS style/standard guide so I can fall back on it in case of future events (and does it count for Necrid's article o_O?)
Yeah I know, a lot at once, just got back home.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the creator of the article "Wisdom University" and I would like to get it re-created. I just had a look at its deletion review (after not finding the article) and...I don't think the deleters realize that the school is actually kind of important. Certainly it's well-known among Bay Area spiritual seeker types, and comparable to other New Agy schools such as CIIS or ITP. The involvement of so many notable faculty--including the pope! (as an enemy)--is important. Few unaccredited schools make this kind of impact. I'm not trying to promote them, by any means (and in fact consider their accreditation claims dishonest). But I do think it is important to have an article on it. For one thing, potential students will come here looking for info on it. Dawud ( talk) 20:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Made more comments. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You have a current nominee at WP:FOUR. We are trying to clear out the log of nominees without having the nominator confirm the eligibility. If you have a chance could you help confirm a nominee or two.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
...is no longer a GA. This means the Characters of Halo topic is under retention, with 3 months, or until 18 August, to get the article up to GA again, or else the topic can get nominated for removal. The irony isn't lost on me that the article was an addition to your topic (by me!) and is now causing problems but well err that's how it goes I guess :S rst20xx ( talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
For your recent copyedits of Necrid and Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss that found opportunities for wording improvement that I missed. — TKD [talk] [c] 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC) |
The ANI report is not about the tag, it is about the way I was treated over it. Please, if you're going to make a comment, take the time to read all the relevant material.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything I can get for you? I noted that you don't currently have access to your library. If something is available in any of the various research databases, I can get it and email it to you. -- Laser brain (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on making TMP a Featured Article! You've been a great asset in raising the bar when it comes to Featured Articles about films! (The 2006/2007 FAs are not much to look at in comparison.) — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious about the edits you made to the article about the image placement. If I erred about the placement before, can you explain what was wrong? Imzadi1979 ( talk) 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DougsTech. As you overturned my indefinite block of this user, you should consider whether or not community consensus now supports re-instating it. Best regards, – xeno talk 07:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Films Award | ||
I, Nehrams2020, hereby award
David Fuchs the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to
WikiProject Films. Great job in your many additions to film featured articles. You have improved more film FAs then any member, all within the last year! Hopefully you continue to bring several films up to featured status (there's a lot of Star Trek films left!). Keep up the good work!
|
--Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi David; I have a LexisNexis search request for you, if you have remote access to it during the summer (if not, I'll ask again in September). I'm looking for any newspaper references for Rooster Teeth Productions or Red vs. Blue (the latter is probably best searched as "Red vs. Blue" machinima to minimize false positives). The state of Connecticut generously provides all residents with limited access to InfoTrac and ProQuest. This covers a good range of magazines and journals, but the newspaper selection is somewhat limited and inconsistent. Again this isn't high-priority, and I can wait until September—as it is, I have enough material to work with to bring Red vs. Blue up to modern FA standards (it was originally promoted in early 2006, predating even WP:WAF)—but general web/news coverage of Rooster Teeth seems to drop off the table after 2007, which is somewhat frustrating for handling reception of the newer series. Thanks, — TKD [talk] [c] 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your participation. Cheers and happy editing.-- kelapstick ( talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Dave, I presume from your remarks at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 41 in Michigan/archive2 that you are 68.50.242.207 (correct me if I am wrong). I am surprised that you are submitting and verifying an OTRS for an image Imzadi1979 has uploaded. Are you part of the OTRS team? Jappalang ( talk) 01:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
We originally considered TGI Friday's in Foggy Bottom as the meetup location, however I stopped by TGI Friday's this evening to make reservations. I was less than impressed. They apparently don't take reservations, except perhaps if you call 24 hours ahead of time. The staff was not so helpful, and the menu has hardly anything vegetarian which is an issue for some people.
So, I checked out the Bertucci's pizza/Italian place across the street (21st & I St NW). Their staff couldn't have been more helpful, think it will be fairly quiet so we will be able to hear each other, and is a very suitable place for us. So, reservations are made for Bertucci's at 5pm on Saturday. I hope you can make it to the meetup. -- Aude ( talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Being as I've seen you use this on multiple RfAs very recently, I'd just like a little more clarification about what exactly "audited content contributions" means, whenever you get a chance. Thanks. Glass Cobra 04:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
David, I've set up a peer review for List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, and since you seem to be the resident Trek FA writer, would you mind weighing in if you have the time? I've done a big overhaul on the article, and I plan to put it up for Featured List status soon. Thanks! -- Aatrek / TALK 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I want to be cautious about these, because the ticket doesn't have an assertion from the author of the email that they are the copyright holder - only that images on site X may be used. In these cases, of course, we need to be sure that the owner of site X is also the owner of the copyrights (or has permission to license on their behalf). I'm very suspicious at the moment, especially because there was mention that some of these are owned by the temples. This is why I want links to investigate further. I don't want to just "rubber stamp" OTRS tickets; honestly, I see this happening too frequently. Эlcobbola talk 18:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I saw you delisted Solid Snake. But what did you rate it now; you kept it a Good Article. GamerPro64 ( talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The external links you keep removing from the Populous: The Beginning article should be kept. Although it is not an official site, the official site is gone, all the community uses that site, the site has more content than the "official" site, various patches and services are provided by the site, and the developers of the game have even contributed to the content. For this game, this is where people go in replacement of an official site, so it would be relevant for Wikipedia to include it as an external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksevio ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Mifter ( talk) 23:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I added valuable information about Claudia Black, and also elaborated on a secret file that was mentioned in the episode. Everything I've added is fact, why was it removed please? I understand that I should be expecting a reply to my talk page. I'm afraid I don't yet have a user page on Wikipedia so I would appreciate you copying and pasting the reply and simply sending it this way: refaelba -at- g mail dot com. If the problem was with presentation then please describe it so that I will be able to better myself. Thank you! - Rafael.
UPDATE - I added a resource, the Smoke and Mirrors screenplay, from which a few quotes are taken. I hope that after giving it a look you will understand that I did not post original research but facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.94 ( talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen a few objections from you on such grounds in recent RfAs. I think you need to be more discriminating about how you use it, otherwise you risk becoming another DougsTech ("too many admins"). OTOH if a candidate has done little article work it would usually be fair to ask whether s/he will stay out of content disputes (incl all types of deletion) until after s/he has done significant content work, preferably including a few contentious topics. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
...refrain from using other editors as examples when you're making points in RfAs. I have removed part of your commentary as per the request of another user. If you have issues with my edit, please take it up with me on my talk page and not on the RfA in question. Thank you, Kingturtle ( talk) 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I left you a short little question at Mazca's RfA. Bsimmons666 ( talk) 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Halo3 ODST-box art.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Could you have a look at it? :) Hołek ҉ 08:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You recently undid my edit to the article Halo Wars which added a template that italicized the article. Could you explain why you undid it, as the italicized article would complement the italicized spelling in the rest of the article for consistency? Thanks! -- Spotty 11222 09:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You stated that audited content contributions reveal a user's temperament. In my case, couldn't you learn about my temperament from my prior RfAs? It seems like a reasonable alternative. Please respond here. Sincerely, Enigma msg 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
But I'm planning on copying a significant chunk of The Final Fantasy Legend's text regarding gameplay into Final Fantasy Legend II, and I could use an eye to go over the first game to make sure the prose is okay. I still need to update the manual refs and I'm probably not going to go for FA, but I'd rather avoid copying over content just to fix it in two spots or leave a headache for someone else to fix.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 03:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 11:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this change brings your retention periods for the Halo media topic up to date. Hope that all looks right! rst20xx ( talk) 14:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I feel like an idiot. I'd forgotten that you already wrote a feature for the newsletter a while ago. I didn't check the newsletter draft before asking for features. Do you have any issue with using SharkD's for the upcoming newsletter and saving yours for the next one? Really sorry about the mix up. ( Guyinblack25 talk 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC))
I just thought it was funny that your edit here added 666 characters to a discussion of Theology. -- Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
User:David Fuchs/Archive 27 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 • 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't you give me time to fix the problems?
The books does not have any reception info, all of the books are un-notable on their own, thats why its an article named Stargate literature -- TIAYN ( talk) 16:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that your page was listed at GAN under lit for over a month now. I am willing to review it. However, I have incredibly high standards and am very demanding. I wouldn't want to put someone through my scrutiny unless they are welcoming of it (or, are boasting about how great they are and need to be checked :) ). Just drop me a notice and I will go through it. I am use to FAC, but I will try to dull down my standards a bit. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Checking from your edits, you did more than enough to improve the article to GA status. I am sure that the article can always be improved, but it is definitely "good" at this time. Good luck, and you can have the honor of bumping the status up to GA on the various wikiproject items if no one beats you to it. :)
Ottava Rima (
talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up for your FAs. [3] Alientraveller ( talk) 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello David, Congratulations on your WikiProject Films Award! Keep up the good work! Cheers! -- irshgrl500 ( talk) 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey David. Just to let you know that, given your worries about my inexperience here, you are more than welcome to check over my first few administrator actions. Indeed, I would thank you for doing it. - Jarry1250 ( t, c, rfa) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Was that comment aimed at me? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to keep reverting the anon? — LOL T/ C 01:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering what you felt was inappropriate about my 2/19/09 edit about Halo 2 Vista that caused you to make this reversion? I just noticed it when I went back to the article. I am still fairly new to the editing side of Wikipedia, dealing mostly with minor edits. Was it because it seemed too much like an add for the game? The Original Juggernautical ( talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
There's one for the Metal Gear series and the Metroid series. I realized that the Halo games are now jumping around in chronology (such as Halo 3: ODST set before Halo 3). I thought that it might be helpful for those who might be more interested in the story of the games. On top of that, it's not too large a template and fits well into the story/setting subsections of the articles. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)