User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10

M3tal H3ad

Thanks for that, after Lombardo I'll work on Show No Mercy which i expanded yesterday then King and possibly God hates us all (kind of recent so should be able to find a decent amount of stuff), M3tal H3ad 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration would be nice :), regarding reign in blood i can't find the studio and need members comments during the recording process, how long it took and stuff - that kind of info is scarce. I don't think there's enough editors to better articles on the big four, we do Slayer, the creator does Megadeth, Anthrax has 0 references, Metallica is alright but far from GA. M3tal H3ad 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think i could get Angel of Death (song) to FA, and was hoping you could help me out, do you see any information missing that would fail as comprehensive? Also on the peer-review "Article doesn't deal with notable cover versions of the track, and how these covers were critically recieved." I know its been covered by Cradle of Filth and one or two other bands but can't find any reliable references - just download sites. M3tal H3ad 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, still lots more to go. Also i can't find any information about the song being released as a single (no proper picture and track listing), should i just change it to song?. M3tal H3ad 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Done, thanks. This month sure went quick hehe, i also sent a few flickr e-mails around asking for users to license their pictures under a CC-SA license, got one for Hanneman, Slayer (its up) but i just found out how to license a single picture today so they'll be up and licensed soon, and i asked someone for Bostaph's one. M3tal H3ad 05:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know i expanded Hell Awaits to start class. M3tal H3ad 10:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea, that section is the busiest, three articles there one day and in five days there was 12, I'll review other articles around Slayer so someone will look at your ones sooner. M3tal H3ad 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Four

1. I'm totaly keeping in mind the Metal Genre Wikiproject. I haven't had a change to really develop an opinion of it. Why are you not in favor of it, is it too broad, or the people in it are not serious?

2.I would like there to be more eyes on the Big Four and I think that the Metal Wikiproject's scope is too big. I would like the Slayer Wikiproject to merge with the Big Four (there are only several members anyway) and become part of a bigger, more serious, editing audience. Thank You for you concern and opinions!!! Adumbvoget 06:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A little something in return...

I don't like to sound mercenary, but I was wondering if you could do me a favour. I'm thinking about nominating Isis for GA; I'm not asking you to completely review it, but I understand you take part in these reviews and am curious as to whether a vet like you thinks it'd be a wise nomination. If you've not got time (I can see you're doing a shitload of Slayer stuff at the moment), don't worry. Thanks in advance. Seegoon 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your response - I'll definitely take all you said on board... and I'd prefer to be scrutinised by a picky reviewer than a lax one. As for Slayer, I'll give it a once-over at some point tomorrow. I remember reviewing it at PR a little while back, and it definitely had sufficient content in my eyes. As for the prose, I'll be anal as hell about it. Are you pushing for eventual FA with it? Seegoon 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sure thing. Makes little to no difference anyway. Seegoon 00:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:

  • "Like Slayer's two previous albums, all rhythm tracks on Christ Illusion were laid down by King." - "rhythm" is ambiguous. Rhythm, i.e. backing guitar, bass, drums? I'm a little confused.
  • ""a non-profit corporation in the State of Wyoming,"" - I'd put the comma outside the quotation marks, but that's personal preference.
  • There's a possibility that the use of the phrase "conservative retailers" will appear NPOV to some FAC reviewers. You'd know more about that than me.

Overall, the prose is very sound. The lead is particularly concise and logical. I don't see any glaring flaws here; good luck. Seegoon 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the Rubin bit, it sounded OK to me. As for "Slayer came under fire due to several concerns surrounding Christ Illusion", I wouldn't describe it as "redundant", if that's what Ceoil did. Maybe he objected to using "Slayer" and "Christ Illusion", and felt you could use a pronoun in their stead. Either way, I personally am totally satisfied with it. Glancing over the featured article criteria, which I am only vaguely familiar with, I don't see any stumbling blocks for you. I guess you'll just have to take the plunge! Seegoon 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

1c

If none of the keep votes state the reasons why the article does not fail 1c, and that's the concern addressed, then they cannot be counted. FAR reviews articles against the featured article criteria; it is not a room to determine what those criteria mean, so those keep votes are obsolete unless they prove that the article passes 1c. — Deckiller 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Evanescence

check this, Fallen nomiation. Armando.OtalkEv 21:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've checked it. But you need to paste the last thing I've posted. Check again [[Fallen nomiation. Armando.OtalkEv 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know but I really disagree with most of the reasons stated. Armando.OtalkEv 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really hope that happens. If not, the only thing I and other contributors can do is to keep working and working to see if we can get the article to GA status (like Evanescence).. Armando.OtalkEv 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason

There is no real reson to write this, except to say hello, and also to say it's nice to see your name on the GAR pages (I'm on there wih Mal Evans at the moment). All the best. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiarostami

Dear LuciferMorgan!

I noticed that you review FA candidates. Just in case you have time for review:

Abbas Kiarostami is now a FA candidate. In case you have any comment, please let me know on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbas Kiarostami page for further improvements. Thanks. Sangak 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Antioxidant FAC

Hi there, I've added webcite templates to the three web references. If you have any other comments, they would be very welcome. TimVickers 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen that done, I think the reference would be complete without the link, but the PubMed link is added just for the reader's convenience. By the way, I have stolen your talk page formatting, and it looks very nice indeed. Thank you. TimVickers 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Feeder (band) Peer review

Howdy!!, thanks very much for your feedback on the afforementioned article!!!. Will get working on your pointers during the week! :).

Marcus Bowen 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

Heavy metal music FAR

Was almost tempted to leave a Messages left at LuciferMorgan comment here ;). I can add sound files and work on Black and Doom metal subsections. Any suggestions re files? Ceoil 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Infinite monkey theorem

I've overhauled Infinite monkey theorem, so please revisit its FAR. Thanks! Melchoir 08:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

About Pmanderson singling you out: try not to worry about it. I've concluded that some people restrict their statements-about-content to particular users because they worry that their points don't hold up on their own. For example, if an article clearly does not pass 1c, then it is much easier to complain that a single user's 1c demands are groundless than to say the same of all such demands. If you read such statements as admitting weakness, then they're much easier to ignore. Melchoir 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway… did you want to comment on the new version and/or change your !vote? Melchoir 03:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:H. P. Lovecraft.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:H. P. Lovecraft.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you saying that this image was taken by H.P. Lovecraft himself? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes. Published photographs enter the public domain after 70 years after the death of the photographer, not the subject. (this page is an excellent resource for determining copyright status) I think that this photograph of Lovecraft might still be used, but it's going to require a rationale for fair use. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If the image was taken prior to 1923, it is likely in the public domain. If it was taken between 1923 and 1963, it is in the public domain if the pohotographer published it without a copyright notice, or if the copyright was subsequently not renewed. Without knowing source details, such as the photographer or date of publication, copyright status is difficult to determine. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment from an article page

Thank you for helping out with the Biography assessment drive. Good news. Outriggr recently designed a script that will cut your biography assessment time down by about ten fold (what took ten hours now may only take one hour with Outriggr's script). For more information, please see the 'assessment from article page' discussion. -- Jreferee 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

Your GA nomination of Still Reigning

The article Still Reigning you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg, see Talk:Still Reigning for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. Tellyaddict 23:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems the HMM Wikiproject is reviewing good articles now, i've nominated it for GA/R here M3tal H3ad 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan, and Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan

Thanks for the template citing page. I thought that everything was cited correctly, No? Get back to me on my talk page please. Ty. -- Happyme22 03:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll try doing that. You've been a big help. Happyme22 05:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

God hates us all

Edit away, I'm just randomly putting in sentences with all the info i can gather and will combine them all later. M3tal H3ad 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

On the Angel of Death GA review (only decent review a Slayer article has got) the user suggested somewhat a music and structure section. I started it and can be found here would appreciate if you could take a look. M3tal H3ad 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kneale FAC

Well there are no actual objections so far, anyway. So that's a positive. I'm more than prepared to act on specific criticisms, but thus far there haven't really been any, just general comments. We shall see how it goes, anyway. Angmering 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Adrianna Lamalle

Hi Lucifer! You removed {{WikiProject France}} from the talk page! Any reason for that? STTW (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Still Reigning

Emailed you two articles. I think one of them calls the two main guys of Slayer "the Lennon and McCartney of thrash metal" or something similar. I just glanced at them, didn't read carefully. Hope they help. --Ling.Nut 11:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Typo

Thanks for correcting that! — Deckiller 02:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Still Reigning

Hi there, I'd appreciate it if you would not make comments on User talk pages (User:Michaelas10) about my reviews of this article, I found them to be quite offensive as you were saying they were lame. I'd appreciate it if in the future you could refrain from this kind of thing and please try to remain civil. Thanks and I'm sure your intentions were good! Regards - Tellyaddict 22:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The truth hurts i guess. Your review was lame all your "reasons" for failing the article were crap. You didn't say any criteria it failed, or make any valid points. I suggest you read the GA criteria and know what you're doing before reviewing an article, hellooo Lucifer btw :D M3tal H3ad 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL has been quoted to me a few times, but I prefer not to sugarcoat my opinions that's all. Hi Metalhead btw :D LuciferMorgan 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)