User talk:David Fuchs: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:43, 4 October 2009

If you ask a question here, I will go to your talk page to respond, unless you state otherwise.
While this makes messages more fragmented, it also saves time. Please note many other users prefer to centralize discussions.

Archives: 01 (10/05-12/10/06), 02 (12/10/06-1/20/07), 03 (1/20/07-2/8/07), 04 (2/8/07-3/31/07), 05 (4/1/07-5/17/07), 06 (5/17/07-6/28/07), 07 (7/1/07-8/19/07), 08 (8/20/07-9/24/07), 09 (9/28/07-10/27/07), 10 (10/27/07-12/02/07), 11 (12/03/07-01/11/08), 12 (01/14/08-02/09/08), 13 (2/09/08-3/05/08), 14 (3/06/08-4/17/08), 15 (4/17/08-5/25/08), 16 (5/26/08-6/29/08), 17 (6/29/08-7/31/08), 18 (7/31/08-09/06/08), 19 (09/07/08-10/01/08), 20 (10/02/08-10/28/08), 21 (10/29/08-11/23/08), 22 (11/24/08-12/29/08), 23 (12/30/08-01/30/09), 24 (1/31/09-03/03/09), 25 (03/04/09-04/02/09), 26 (04/03/09-05/07/09), 27 (05/08/09-06/30/2009), 28 (07/01/09-08/05/09), 29 (08/08/09-09/10/09)

Non Free SVGs (part 2)

View previous discussions

Hello David, I see you've archived. I'm not done discussing. To clear things up, no, I still do not agree with you and still think that the SVG should be used. I acquiesced to you because of your stubbornness and incivility towards me, which I regret now. We do not have an agreement. What sets the Bungie article apart from all of the other articles that have non-free vector images in them? I am still waiting for an answer. Connormah (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree w/ David on the SVG issue (meaning I feel that it is incorrect to treat SVGs as high resolution), the answer to your question is other stuff exists. It makes just as much sense to ask why Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a featured article but Zardoz is only start class. Protonk (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists doesn't apply here. This isn't a situation in which someone is arguing that X is comparable to Y, Y exists, so X should exist too. The point is that X is Y, and the community has decided to use Y. (The image is a non-free SVG, and the community has decided to use non-free SVGs.)

Connormah and I have asked David to explain how X isn't Y (how some sort of special circumstance renders the community's decision inapplicable to the article/logo in question), and he has ignored our requests. Thus far, his only rationale for removing the SVG ~~seven~~ eight times is that he personally disagrees with the community's decision and believes that his major role in authoring the Bungie article entitles him to control its content. He has expressed this in an uncivil manner, stating that Connormah is "not a significant contributor to this article" and repeatedly telling him to "go away." —David Levy 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ffd

So this is more of an issue with the other million articles with SVG logos, right? Reverting the changes in the article because you think you reserve ownership of the article is a terrible venue. I think consensus is clear that the SVG should be used, so if you have a problem with SVG fair-use images, please discuss this somewhere else where the community can determine whether it should be a guideline. It seems clear to me that you violate WP:POINT and this can be a serious issue especially since you are an admin in which we expect better from. ZooFari 04:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes/archive1

What's the status of the image here? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I've asked someone else for a second opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David Fuchs. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Battle of Grand Port

Thankyou very much for your comments at the FAC for the Battle of Grand Port. The article has now passed, and your interest and comments during the process were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free SVGs

It's obvious that no one is happy with the current situation. I agree with you that a major community discussion is called for, and I support your efforts to initiate one.
As I've noted, while I regard the use of non-free SVGs as the status quo, I'm neutral as to whether it should continue. I believe that there are strong arguments on both sides of the debate, and I'd like very much for all of them to be fleshed out and addressed on a larger scale.
I hope that we can work together (along with other editors of varying viewpoints) to organize such a debate and agree to abide by whatever consensus emerges. One thing of which I'm certain is that an unambiguous policy (whether in allowance or disallowance of non-free SVGs) would be vastly preferable to endless bickering. I hope that you agree. —David Levy 22:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gullibility

You placed full protection on this article in Nov 08. Please could you reduce this to semi-protection, say, as I wish to write upon this notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belated response to call for sources

Hi. I remember that you asked, weeks ago, for Turok: Dinosaur Hunter references on the WPVG talk page. Despite the fact that you already got Turok to FA, I thought I'd mention that I found a few notable reviews recently, while digging through Wayback to improve the newly-created Online print archive. If you're interested in including them, they can be found here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're at all interested in further improving the article, I just found this while digging around for the Online print archive: a shortened Making of from NGC magazine. It contains a few interesting facts that might benefit the article, including details about the team's near-total inexperience, the lack of Nintendo censorship, and other things. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Topic image?

Hey, I noticed you created free images for the Seasons of Bleach and Seasons of Naruto featured topics, and wondered if you'd be interested/willing to do one for the Tokyo Mew Mew candidacy? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to touch base to see where things were with the image. The FT has "passed" but is being held for the image :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 3: ODST and the FT

As this game is now released, you have until December 22 to get the article to GA, or someone can nominate the Halo media FT for removal. I'm sure that won't be a problem though ;) rst20xx (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
Features and admins: Approved this week
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Thanks for your participation in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1. The resulted was Promoted. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 03:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VG Barnstar

		The VG Barnstar
		For promoting Turok: Dinosaur Hunter to FA. Thunderbrand (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was perusing Wikipedia as I normally do and saw that Turok: Dino Hunter was promoted to FA! I dunno if you remember me, but I worked on getting it to GA status and tidying up the Turok articles awhile back. I stopped editing in April 2007, but I usually wander around when I'm bored. I wanted to give you this barnstar for the hard work you put into the article and making it a great source of information. Thunderbrand (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corner tab.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Corner tab.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 20:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

odst revert

Why did you revert my edit to Halo3 ODST when the sniper is over telephone wire? (please reply here) rdunn PLIB 14:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not what the source says. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Station

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Peer Review as to whether you feel your original comments have been dealt with, if you see any new issues with the article, and whether or not you believe the article will meet the criteria for Featured Article status. Any new comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otterathome discussion

I was probably wrong when I stated that this wasn't a DRV candidate. However, that's not why I proposed the community ban -- it was Otter's repeated attacks on MasterOfPuppets for "not responding", and his badgering of opposing editors in the AfDs and DRVs that caused me to propose it. Should I go back and add diffs to make this clearer? I'm responding here as I'm trying to stay out of the community discussion, as an involved editor. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 'Ello, guv'na

I kindly decline the offer. Maybe another time. Gary King (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

misc.

My comments were intended to reveal the editor's true character, and that mission was accomplished. The thread was closed at the perfect time. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not something I could do as an admin. In fact, there are lots of things I couldn't do as an admin that I can do as an editor. So as it turns out, I have more freedom by not being an admin. The basic problem is that admin candidates who are too well known and who would be good admins are opposed by those who fear they will do their jobs and crack down on malcontents like OR. (Which I couldn't do, though, as we have a prior history - that would be up to someone else to take care of.) So by being a phony, and kissing up, one can get to be an admin. At least for awhile. Like that snake called "Pastor" Theo. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing about OR's saga on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case is that he's trying to make it to be a content dispute, but it reads more like a bi-directional RfC/U. "They're terrible!" "No, HE's terrible!" etc. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Interview

Sure, what all do you want to know?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King/GA1

Hi David. Can you extend the "deadline" on Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King/GA1? I'm planning on improving the article soon. Thank you, The leftorium 17:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. :) I'll be working on it in my sandbox, in case you want to put that on your watchlist. The leftorium 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I thought I'd have time to work on the article this month, but unfortunately I don't, so feel free to close the review. Regards, The leftorium 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Opinion essay: White Barbarian
Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
Features and admins: Approved this week
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for later?

Hiding "Refs for later" in a comment is ... messy. Please considering doing this another way, bookmark the links in your browser, save them in a file on your own computer, create your own wikipedia sandbox page, mention them in a comment on the talk page and encourage others to help add them or at the very worst add them to the external links section (possibly with a comment saying to merge them inline). By adding them hidden away as a comment, all in one block, not even individually where you think they might be useful references, those links look a lot like spam, and are very likely to be deleted. At least by adding them to the Talk page or External links other editors might think to try and add them inline to the article. My first reaction was to delete the links but I've made the extra effort to ask you to please try to find a better way. -- Horkana (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request if you have the time and capability...

Hi, Dave. If you still have Pro Nexus or those whatcha-may-call-it newspaper archive access services, could you do me a favor? Are there any dead-tree media coverage of Sacrifice that would be useful to the article? If so, could you send them to me? Also, I would appreciate your comments for the article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sacrifice (video game)/archive1 or Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Sacrifice (video game) if you have the time or spirit to do so. Jappalang (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ODST resolution

I'm more curious than anything else, but why is this edit to ODST an issue? It's merely a cite for the resolution, and 360 Gamer isn't considered unreliable. I really don't see what the issue is here unless that particular news article is false. I'm sure there's a good reason, I'd just like to know for my own future reference. --Teancum (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. That's what I wanted to know. --Teancum (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LSWII's FAC

Hope you didn't forget about Lego Star Wars II's FAC. I don't want it to be closed due to inactivity, so please respond to my reply to your comment. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

GA Delisting of Go (game)

Hi, could you please relist Go (game) as a Good Article? Allowing only one week for the article's reassessment is far too short, IMO. I, for example, happened to be away on holiday for a week, and never even got to see the fact that it was up for reassessment, much less comment on it. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 == Thanks! ==
 {{WikiCookie|Thanks so much for helping out with the image reviews at FAC - your hard work is much appreciated! [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)}}
+== GA Delisting of Go (game) ==
+Hi, could you please relist [[Go (game)]] as a Good Article? Allowing only one week for the [[Talk:Go (game)/GA1|article's reassessment]] is far too short, IMO. I, for example, happened to be away on holiday for a week, and never even got to see the fact that it was up for reassessment, much less comment on it. [[User:HermanHiddema|HermanHiddema]] ([[User talk:HermanHiddema|talk]]) 12:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)