|
I haven't had as much time on Wikipedia recently now that the semester's winding down, so if I don't comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South of Heaven, could you remind me this weekend? 17Drew 08:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments were fine; obviously, I'd much rather see the quality articles you've produced in British English than nothing. There's no specific section or paragraph I had concerns about. The main reason I put down a weak support was simply that I wouldn't know if there are any errors I might have missed. I'll try to look at the FAC and the article tomorrow to see if there's anything that can be done to address the editor's concerns. 17Drew (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Congrats on the FA. M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. That should show everyone the Project is not inactive. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for the really delayed reply, I lost even my limited Internet access after lightning took out my router. I'll take a look if I get around to it tonight, otherwise, I will hopefully find some time online over the next couple of days. I'll message you once I have nominated any which I feel should go. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I have gone through Megadeth and nominated all the songs that seem to have no claim to notability at all-
- It is possible others should go, but these will certainly do for a start, and, should they not be deleted, the articles will hopefully be improved. Coincidentially, they were authored by Skeeker, whom I met a few weeks ago over at the Godsmack peer review, so I have contacted him. J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while, and I didn't want to bug you too much. Please, by all means if you can. Do you also want a link to the user page we're fleshing it out on? That has a longer musical style section, for one. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go. I plan to add more to the Legacy section shortly. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now put up a peer review for R.E.M., as I said I would a few months back. Feedback would be welcome. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please offer your opinion on the article when you get the opportunity.
- With SOH, In order to contrast the aggressive assault put forth on Reign in Blood, Slayer consciously slowed down the tempo of the album as a whole. They also added elements like undistorted guitars and toned-down vocal styles not heard on previous albums." There's double quotes at the end of the sentence but none marking the start of a quote
- References WITH CAPITALS LIKE THIS, mainly the Blabbermouth ones, need to be changed to lowercase. M3tal H3ad (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Took care of the latter. M3tal H3ad (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You gotta archive this page! M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Blame the Fair Use Gestapo. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you look at Undisputed Attitude attitude when you get a moment, it can pass GA it just needs to be written well. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Lucifer, there's a newish toy at FAC that I'm trying to figure out, but I can't make it go consistently, and I don't know how to give you a link. I was hoping you'd experiment. If you go to the WP:FAC page and look below the instructions, next to the Table of Contents, you find a new Toolbox for dead links. If you click on it, it idenitifies all the dead links on every FAC article. It claims that South of Heaven has four dead links, and some other 302 errors (I don't know what those are). Can you experiment with those, sort them out, decipher the usefulness of this tool? Remember that you can usually replace dead links at archive.org. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll use it for the South of Heaven FAC, and see if it works. LuciferMorgan (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you end up as confused as I am, you can follow the conversation on my talk page and his talk page[1] with the fellow who designed the tool. I haven't sorted it all out yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I think that tool only updates once every 24 hours, so if you fix links, I'm not sure the fixes will show right away on the tool. Not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by the dead link I fixed this morning, it updates immediately. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Lucifer; I still haven't figured it out, but it points out some FACs that have far too many dead links, so I'm hoping it will be useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't totally figured it out - I just use it as a way to check dead links, and in that sense it's very useful. It'll definitely be useful at FAC in that sense. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(To LuciferMorgan)
Hi - It seems we had a bit of a spat over in Wikipedia talk:featured article candidates
I have appreciated input from you and did not act in bad faith deriving from your comments regarding my allegation of improper nomination - in fact my relationship with you goes back to when I read your comments regarding something different - I quoted you in fact - please see wikipedia talk:featured article candidates#Greater FA process Transparency. Furthermore I was pleased by your attempt at a Friendly Notice in the form of that topic in WP talk:FAC. I hope we can cooperate constructively in the future.
I understand my comments are hard to understand sometimes. I am often not very clear - I hope you will note my lack of clarity when I am unclear rather than respond aggressively sarcastically or in a similarly unconstructive manner. I am somewhat inexperienced, and I can very well learn from any mistakes, especially if you are civil.
Sincerely
--Keerllston 11:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inexperience I suppose goes towards explaining your allegation of improper nomination. As concerns that, each situation needs to be independently reviewed. If there was a cast iron rule saying that editors can only nominate X amount of articles, it'd work in some situations and not in others. If a new editor nominated two articles, I would agree with their nominations being scrapped. When it comes to an editor like 17Drew though, well, he has a few FAs under his belt. When you've written a few, they're easier to handle.
- I've noted the lack of clarity in your FAC comments, and hope this is something you can improve upon. A good idea would be to highlight specific examples to support your point. If the editing is poor for example, highlight a specific instance of this within the article. As someone who's been on both sides of the fence at FAC, I can say that nominators really appreciate specific criticism. Anyway, you're not a really bad commentator and I'm sure this will improve over time.
- Editors will tell that I am not a civil or uncivil editor - I call a situation as I see fit at that specific time, and a spade a spade. Sometimes it lands me in hot water, but it doesn't bother me. I hope you appreciate me being honest, as opposed to lying through my teeth like a lot of other Wikipedia editors who adopt a nicey nicey approach. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you can be honest :D -
I'm glad we talked - I'm glad you can be patient.
I hope I can improve in terms of clarity.
Sincerely,
Thanks,
Keerllston 19:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[PS: I wasn't kidding about the request for a request for copy-edit - at least try to get a notable copy-editor to review - I'll Strike-through my oppose if that results in an additional support for South of Heaven]
- If I knew which specific part needed a copyedit, that'd be especially great. I'm hoping 17Drew can take another look at present. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know much - I believe there's a copy-editing league inside wikipedia?? - I believe Tony1 is a great copy-editor as well. Drew17 - I don't think he's quite a "copy-editor" by nature or notable as a copy-editor - although he has made FA quality articles - I'm certain he could be beneficial as well all the same.--Keerllston 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This copyediting league is largely inactive, which is unfortunate. 17Drew had expressed concerns, and I value his work as an editor - more so than most copyeditors. He's written several FAs in the music category, so has a much better understanding of how a music article is generally set out. Tony1 is a great copyeditor whom I've spoken to on a few occasions, although he is very much in demand (more so than anyone). I consider him the authority on the 1a criterion - if a million admins said one thing about grammar, and he said something else, I'd go with what he said every time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that 17Drew's two current nominations both needed copy editing - which makes me doubt his use as a copy-editor. I have great appreciation for Tony1 as well - he is very much an authority in FA quality in terms of criterion 1a and would be my choice as "notable copy-editor" - if he supports I would definitely withdraw opposition and maybe even declare my support.--Keerllston 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inexperience - yes it does go some way in explaining what I do - I have really been contributing around 3 months or so - and have less than two thousand edits.
Have you read the section on Friendly notices in WP:CANVASS?
--Keerllston 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've read that specific section. I've also read the section on votestacking also, which the article categorises as "ending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote." This specific editor sent notices to editors that were registered with a specific WikiProject, which I would interpret as being "on the record with a specific opinion". I'd like to note also that this page is only a guideline, and I didn't vote on this guideline. As opposed to citing X section of Y article, I think editors should come forth with their own opinions for a change. This isn't a court of law, so I don't feel people should keep using guideline articles to strengthen their viewpoint.
- Furthermore, he didn't ask them to review the article but asked them to vote. If there's little discussion on an FAC, I wouldn't really agree with messaging over 50+ editors. Also, you're supposed to acknowledge if you're an editor of the same project an article falls under the same scope (like Ceoil did at my FAC for example). I don't think people should worry about little feedback at FAC either - at the end of the day, the aim is to improve an article. I think the nominator who I feel votestacked got carried away, and acted as more of a politician attempting to lure votes as opposed to a Wikipedia editor wishing to improve an article. Sometimes the attraction of an FA star gets in the way of the real goals. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmm... I think too little feedback anywhere is bad - especially so in terms of PR and others, but also in FAC - where not enough consensus of support or too few comments can lead to an article not getting promoted or getting promoted erroneously. And since (at least supposedly) opposes count for more than supports - that counterbalances the effect of lots of non-FAC reviewers commenting/vote-stacking.
- I do agree with Friendly Notices. - I did not mean to use it lawyerly- although I want to stress that lawyerly-ness has it's benefits, and helps in clearly stating a case.
- I think your attempt at exercising your duty as a part of wikijustice was admirable.
- In regards to that specific case I also felt rather strange in regards to whether it was or wasn't an innocent "friendly notice" or was canvassing of an objectionable sort once I finally read the comment left on users talk pages... I am rather sure that the directorship is one of court-manners and preferences instead of army-manners and execution - :D - I'm not sure I like either of the two options as I stated them.
- --Keerllston 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Too little feedback at PR is especially bad, I definitely agree. Your point as regards FAC either promoting an article erroneously or not promoting a worthy one is definitely valid too. Another problem would be a non-FA worthy article, but where an editor is willing to address the concerns. Sometimes those concerns are not stated clearly enough, which then makes it much more difficult for the nominator. A oppose tends to count more than a support only when that oppose is valid according to the criteria - if one is more clear in their objection, this can strengthen the validity of it. Lack of good FAC reviewers is a shame - I know for a fact that when Tony1 wasn't reviewing at FAC for awhile (early this year I think), editors felt that a few articles with questionionable writing were promoted. The lack of reviewers has also been prevalent in my FAC nominations - in my latest FA nomination, three of the supporters have voted in my past FACs. While I didn't message them, it still gives the impression that if you can collect a few editors together, you can push an FAC through. However, if an article has glaring issues then editors will notice it. If it isn't up to standard, there's always the FAR process too.
- My concern with the canvassing was the amount of people being messaged, but more so whom was being messaged. For example, you would message someone with the calibre of Tony1 if writing was an issue. His example of objection is to be heavily recommended, so please read it. When he objects, he states his case very clearly. Wording is also important in messaging people I feel - I would prefer nominators asking for a review of the article, as opposed to asking for a vote. I also think that fellow Project members should state they're Project members when voting. I'm glad you reviewed the specific case in question, although it's best of course to review each one on their own merits. Especially objectionable I thought was the fact an editor who hasn't edited in 16 months voted support. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:
As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).
In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.
The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do Lucifer, but gimme a few days, am in FAR hell at the moment. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Thanks for uploading Image:Cool Yule.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to take care of all the points mentioned at the peer review this week, as well as give the article a final tune-up. Do you think there's anything I'm missing from the article? The only thing I know I need to add is description of the band's lyrics. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, although it is not featured yet, I think. So far the review is really good.
Thank you,
Skeeker [Talk] 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Holy crap it is! Woo my first! When is the article history going to be updated?
Thank you,
Skeeker [Talk] 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've acted on most of your comments here. Thanks for reviewing, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the IP for disruption, not for voting. And I've already apologized to the IP for doing so. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what? First of all, I had no idea Sarah had further threatened to block him; I removed the IP's talk page from my watchlist after he refused my apology. Second, the IP wasn't a critic - as we had determined at this point, the IP was a well-known block-evading editor who was trolling the ArbCom elections. And third, I have no idea what "accusations" you say I now have to "live with". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are looking for an 'outlet' to end your album format struggles... User:Rock Soldier is likely a alterego for permanently blocked User:Alterego269. Several discussions about the edit similarities between the two... especially the fascination with band member lists... have occured already. Admin Cholmes75 is familiar with Alterego269. If the two are linked then Rock Soldier created the alternate account to push through edits that were not supported by other editors (kinda like your Slayer album formatting issue) After Alterego269 got the banhammer the Rock Soldier persona began to take over the edit 'agenda' of the Alterego account. Wiki doesn't care too much about socks unless they are involved in vote stacking. But when an editor is permanently blocked from using one account already... the use of a different account could also be frowned upon. Just thought you'd like to know in case other editors (or IP's... look at Alterego's sock list... he's used many IPs in the past) start doing edits similar to RS. Merry Christmas. 156.34.211.133 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
){kind=link}