User talk:Laser brain

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

Hastings line[edit]

What's happening with the FAC? Mjroots (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I have archived it. Unfortunately the article has not attracted any support for promotion since early May, and there has been no activity at all in almost three weeks. --Laser brain (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You mean it's not being promoted, despite support from two editors and no objection from the third? Face-sad.svg Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mjroots: The number of supports a nomination receives is mostly irrelevant in comparison with the quality and substance of that support. Try not to get hung up on numbers. That being said, from my reading, only Tim Riley supported promotion. Blofeld left comments but did not declare support or opposition. While Tim's comments are thorough and his support substantive, it was quite some time ago and you didn't get near the amount of support where we would consider promotion. Hope this helps. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I came here to ask the same question. I've had this FAC on my watchlist, and the closing remarks give no indication of whether it passed or failed, and if it failed, on what grounds. @Mjroots: has updated the article to most comments, or given good reasons otherwise. I see no reason for this failing - or what elsecan be done instead. Incidentally, I fully support the FAC; but having been involved with the initial peer review I wasn't sure if I was entitled to !vote. Please reconsider this closure. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
If Optimist was entitled to !vote, then it would appear that the instructions need clarifying. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mjroots:, @Optimist on the run: Per the FAC instructions (at the top of WP:FAC), nominations are promoted only if consensus and substantive commentary support promotion. One reviewer's support does not constitute consensus, and we would never promote a nomination simply for lacking opposition. Review some recent promotions (for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mutiny on the Bounty/archive1) and you will get a good idea of what consensus generally exists by time a nomination is promoted. The FAC instructions also indicate the reasons nominations are archived. We do sometimes leave a brief closing note (something like "This nomination seems to have stagnated, and so it will be archived") if we feel the reason for archiving may be unclear, and I beg your pardon if I fell short on that front. However, we do not leave detailed rationales such as you might find on complex RFCs or AN/I threads. Archiving isn't "failure", it's just an indication that there was no consensus for promotion. I'm not sure where either of you got the idea that a peer review participant is ineligible to comment on the FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Then maybe the way that FACs are archived needs reviewing. There was no warning that the FAC was in danger of being archived, otherwise I would have had the chance to ping Dr Blofield to ascertain his reaction to comments I'd left in response to issues raised. I'd also have had time to nudge WP:UKT and WP:TWP members to chipping in. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mjroots: I agree. The number of times I answer queries similar to your own indicates that the process needs improvement. Perhaps it's something as simple as "I'm planning to archive this if there's no movement in n days." At any rate, you're free to open a new nomination at any time. --Laser brain (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is important of course that no part of the process puts off people wanting to nominate articles or contributing again. Mj is an excellent contributor on transport topics. But I can't see any way in which the coordinators have to inform the nominees that they're going to archive it working, unless there is a standard "if the FAC hasn't been commented on in xxx days it might be archived" applied to all. It should be very clear that if the nom has gone on over six weeks and hasn't had input in over two weeks it is highly likely that it might be archived if general support for it is low. I was leaning towards support BTW, but I wasn't convinced. Usually I will state support or oppose soon after reviewing. I suppose if you'd merged many of the short sections and reduced the repetition I'd have stated support. The turn out was still poor though, whether I'd supported or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Echoing what Laser said about the level of support on Mutiny on the Bounty, in my experience I really think it's important to get a thorough peer review done before nomming. The Hastings article Mj stated did get a peer review, but how many people exactly? Where was their support at FAC? More people need to know about it, and in effect you stand more of a chance of attracting the support you need to pass it at FAC. If Hastings had had a good peer review by at least five of the FA regulars beforehand and improved it to a standard they were willing to support it would never have gone three weeks without comment and would have passed weeks ago anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"Laser brain"[edit]

Has to be ... Face-grin.svgATinySliver/ATalkPage 23:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver: Bingo! --Laser brain (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

James Horner[edit]

Hi Laser brain,

I do not appreciate your recent blanking of my edits to James Horner. You removed my contributions citing WP:MEMORIAL, but all that page says is "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." I have given citations for my edits, yet you remove them with the comment "unsourced, unhelpful." Furthermore, my contributions are removed whereas you choose to leave other users' edits "Contemporaries and collaborators paid their respects to Horner, including composers Paul Williams and Alan Menken, and directors Ron Howard and James Cameron." This is discriminatory blanking. Please stop removing my contributions to the page for no reason.

Thanks. LiuserK (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@LiuserK: I'm not sure why you are claiming I removed your text for no reason right after citing the reason I gave you. I directed you to WP:MEMORIAL because a laundry list of celebrities who expressed condolences is not useful or relevant to the article. --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It is not a "laundry list" of celebrities. I only listed three celebrities, all of whom worked extensively with Horner. It is especially a pity that you keep removing Celine Dion's tribute to him, as her collaboration with him on "My Heart Will Go On" is by far his most acclaimed. Also, you did not acknowledge my main point that although you are repeatedly removing my edits, you decide to keep other users' edits, even though they also list celebrities who have written tributes regarding the late James Horner. Furthermore, nowhere on WP:Memorial does it state that listing a few tributes regarding the recent death is against Wikipedia's policy. LiuserK (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@LiuserK: I realize we have a disagreement here, and you will note that I did not remove your text again. It is still there. I opened a discussion at Talk:James Horner to solicit input from other editors. I will respect whatever consensus emerges. --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe our misunderstanding came from our differences in considering Dion's and Crowe's direct work with Horner, considering you wrote "I think it's germane to speak of people whose careers were firmly linked with Horner's (like James Cameron) but other celebrities should be omitted." Personally, I believe Dion's collaboration with Horner on "My Heart Will Go On" to be even more notable than James Cameron's collaboration throughout his career as the song is known worldwide. I am sure many people will agree with this sentiment. The same goes for Russell Crowe, as "A Beautiful Mind" is one of his most notable works. Also, as P Aculeius pointed out, I do not see any mention on WP:MEMORIAL that states lists of celebrities paying tribute are not welcome. I am totally for trimming Dion's quote, as someone already did. LiuserK (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


In my understanding the by-gender singer-songwriter categories are meant to be non-diffusing. So the edit as made is correct. See Category:American male singer-songwriters and Category:American female singer-songwriters. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite alright, and nothing to worry about. It's something I'm struggling to get used to, myself, quite often. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R. V. C. Bodley/archive1 not processed[edit]

Hello Laser brain, the bot probably needs your signature to process the nomination (you added only the template to close). If that doesn't help, we'll have to ask Hawkeye to take a look - newer nominations have already been processed, so it's only a problem with this single nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: Ah, thanks for the catch. I had just left a message for Hawkeye asking for ideas about why it didn't close. --Laser brain (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


Hmm. Thanks for the pointer - it's not something that would have occurred to me, to be honest. I suppose my understanding of the term is incorrect. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)