User talk:Laser brain

FACs needing feedback view •
MLS Cup 2022	Review it now
Fountain Fire	Review it now
1973 FA Charity Shield	Review it now

The Chaser APEC pranks

Hey, may I as if you would check The Chaser APEC pranks again, to see if your comments on the fac nomination page, have been addressed. And maybe leave a comment on the fac page, if there are any issues. Thankyou very much,

Review request

I wonder if, when you can find the time, you could review an article I've been working on in the hope of getting to GA status. 2004 World Series. It;s currently having a PR but no one had given feedback yet.BUC (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:FAC

I'm trying, but recent real-life concerns have left me a somewhat unhappy and a little lacking in patience at the moment, and after nearly a month of no comments in that FAC I feel like I've been hit by a broadside from the FAC reviewers at the worst moment. I'll try to stick with it. Your concern is appreciated though, thanks. -- Sabre (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Turns out I was wrong. It wasn't "extremely difficult" to dig out the sources that the MixnMojo article relied on. I double-checked through a bunch of sources already in use and found I could cite some of the facts to them. The rest I could reword so they don't need the mixnmojo source (ie removal of the "Purcell was 'stunned'" comment to a "Purcell was disappointed" in reference to the quote that follows it). That just leaves a single use that I cannot replace. If the source is still an issue, it can now be removed and only take one sentence with it, as opposed to putting a significant hole in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi

Hi there. Your concerns have been addressed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

You've replied to my concerns, and I thank you. However, they haven't been remedied in the slightest. --Laser brain (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assessment of the critical reception is incorrect. Jerry Beck's The Animated Movie Guide states that "The film is considered to be a flawed but inspired interpretation of the classic story." (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Care to mind the good faith rule in the future before making statements like "I see that this has once again degenerated into your unfortunate pattern of behavior toward reviewers, particularly any who oppose your nominations". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

• It seems to me that Ling.Nut is operating out of a predetermined bias against the subject matter, as this person still has not explained their opposition of the article's FAC and doesn't seem to acknowledge the difference between reliable and unreliable sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
  • We've gone over any possible reliable sources that haven't been exhausted, and the article looks up to snuff now. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
    • This article has been extensively' researched. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
      • Please stop posting notes here; the conversation belongs on the FAC page. I have it watchlisted. --Laser brain (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
        • The issues brought up were addressed, or never existed at all. (03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
          • I've repeatedly commented on the bias of certain sources, while you and other editors have ducked the issue. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

1f

• people will talk forever. I suggest we !vote in the new section. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh. I have a problem. I probably have to quit Wikipedia. So everyone else will have to figure it out. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)}

Re: WT:FAC

Heh, well it is indeed difficult to avoid sarcasm in such situations. :)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Daniel (2006) *hint* –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

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?

Nevado del Ruiz FAC

Could you conduct a review? I need a bit more feedback, and you've helped a ton of people. Ceranthor 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I should be able to get to it today. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've resolved your comments. Ceranthor 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ceranthor 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Heinrich Bär FAC

I believe that I addressed all but wor of your concerns. The first is regarding his Saxon accent, see the review page here. The second is regarding about higher authority. The literature I have access to consistently state that he had this trade but I found two specific cases. Two are in the article. One was during the battle of Britain the other one at the end of the war. Maybe you have an idea to rephrase this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Laser, are you done at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heinrich Bär? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oof... can I have couple hours? I wanted to read through it again and make sure I don't catch anything else. I think I am very close to supporting, if it makes any difference. --Laser brain (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll archive, but a wait few hours to promote. Thanks, Laser! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine lyra

Hi, Thanks for the message. The citation of Ibn Khurradadhbih to Lyra can be found on p.124 (Cartomi, 1990). Ibn Khurradadhbih's citation on the bowed Byzantine lyra (lūrā) as the equivelant instrument to rabab is generally accepted as the first record for byzantine lyra. Unfortunately I can't find the original book of Ibn Khurradadhbih. (Stevepeterson (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Kannada literature FAC

Will do. Soon. Thanks for writing! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the article closely. Sometimes, sentences get changed during copyedits and such. If you need any assistance from my side, feel free to ask. Thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

One easy place to look for English translations of Kannada novels are in wiki itself. S. L. Bhyrappa is famous now-a-days. May even get the Jnanpith award some day. At the bottom of his page, his novels and the languages they have been translated to are given. Modern Kannada literature gives the names of some of the famous writers in the last 50 years. The wiki pages of the linked writers will take you further. Hope this helps.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the Kannada literature FAC

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:

1. Synthesis of secondary sources is involved in the inclusion of many topics—most notably Sarvajna and Yakshagana—in the topic of literature in the Kingdom of Mysore. For example, Mysore, even in the mid-18th century, occupied less than a third of the Kannada-speaking region of southern India (see map: File:SouthIndia1704SubrahCIA2001.jpg) and in Sarvajna's time, the seventeenth (perhaps even the 16th century), it was less than a tenth. Sarvajna, moreover, was born at the other (northern) end of the Kannada-speaking region of Karnataka. user:DK has asserted that Sarvajna was a wanderer. True, but in order to include him in an article on literature in the Kingdom of Mysore, some connection with that Kingdom has to be established. The biographical evidence on Sarvajna is so sparse that there is no evidence that he even traveled through the Kingdom of Mysore. After all, in our time, the Beatles have been wanderers, but Edinburgh doesn't get to include them in its music, only Liverpool, their birthplace, does.
2. Undue emphasis is involved in the inclusion of Yakshagana in the article. The article uses five surveys of Kannada literature, each footnoted over 20 times; of these three (the modern ones published by India's National Academy of Letters) say nothing about Yakshagana. The remaining two, Rice (1921) and Narasimhacharya (1934, incorrectly dated as 1988) mention them perfunctorily with the latter making uncharitable remarks that I have quoted in the FAC. Although, user:DK has liberally used these surveys, he uses other, obscure, sources for the Yakshagana sections.
3. Unreliable sourcing is involved in portions of the article that talk about literature produced by the Mysore royals. In particular two sources, a music dissertation by Pranesh, titled Musical composers under the Wodeyar dynasty, published locally in Bangalore, and without any ISBN information and a local Karnataka college history text by Kamath also without ISBN information, have been footnoted 37 times and 27 times respectively in the article. I have challenged user:DK to find any scholarly article on Kannada literature that references these sources.
4. Drastically incorrect paraphrasing of the secondary sources. The distorted overly optimistic readings of the sources, for me, remains a major problem in the article. I have given one example in the FAC (related to Yakshagana); however, so confident do I feel about this, that I am happy to do that exercise for any paragraph of your choosing in the article.
5. Poor writing. For a literature article, KLKM remains poorly written, as Tony1 has observed in the FAC. My points in the explanation of the tags on the article's talk page, which still have not been responded to, include some of the points that Tony1 makes about the lead. The problem is that it is not just the lead. Pretty much every paragraph has similar problems.
6. Finally, the page name. The article was originally written as "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore." My guess is that towards the end of the writing the author realized that there simply wasn't enough material for such an article, so an unsuccessful attempt was made to change the name of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900," and the article continues to retain the contents of the latter title. The problem with that title is that it corresponds to no known periodization of Kannada literature, as I have explained in the FAC.

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)

Thanks for your nice words on my talk page. Please also see: Accuracy of sourcing in Kannada literature in KM FAC. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC: Premiere (The O.C.)

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)

Sure thing! Thank you for accepting criticism so gracefully. --Laser brain (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It is amazing how a nights sleep can help and I'm sorry if I seemed stubborn at times. I do appreciate all comments, regardless of whether or not I show it at the time. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uru: Ages Beyond Myst

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)

Sure thing, I will check it out today. Looking forward to V-ger. --Laser brain (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You noticed ?

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)

Yes, I'm trying not to let it get to me. It's cyclical, perhaps? I've only been around for.. yeesh it's been more than a year.. but it seems like many people who always came around with quality content or quality reviews are just gone. Or they're playing in sandboxes I don't visit. --Laser brain (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they're gone ... or discouraged. (Imagine what it's like to spend up to 12 hours at a sitting getting through FAC, not to be able to close hardly any because there are no reviews, and then to get nothing but a stream of complaints about those I do close.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of the many things I credit you for is not letting FAC lapse into a "no feedback means support" mindset. This is all too pervasive in other circles. It just seems like there is a whole wing of this building dedicated to bureaucracy and not at all what attracts me to this project. :( --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a bigger problem, one that I've been sounding the alarm over to no avail for a long time; the children's social networking site has replaced any a lot of serious editing that may have once existed. The caliber of articles and editors we used to work with has changed, and dramafest has taken over. People would rather argue endlessly over trivial matters that don't affect articles than create quality articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey now! Insert a "most" or "almost all" ... I'm trying! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well ... you're among those rare exceptions, a true gem :)))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Second that comment! Anyway, despite be an unconscionable cynic in most areas of life, I believe there must be a solution. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. There are editors out there who want to uphold standards at FAC and who want to bring quality content to FAC. We need to do our best to support and encourage them. The editors that are just here to bandy words and leave messages for each other, well... --Laser brain (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA?

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)