User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Something you might need to be aware of

Since you've been around in similar circles to me recently, you might notice some peculiar edits connected with this:[1]. Also, review of my edits on this matter is most welcome if you have the time. --kingboyk 12:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

FAR nominations

That sounds reasonable. :) Judgesurreal777 16:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope Judgesurreal777 is just busy in real life. Joelito (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Layla

I have reviewed Layla. My comments are on the FAR page. If they are addressed I will move for the article to keep its FA status. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

I think i'm just the person who frequents it the most and archives most everything, people will often chime in eventually from the project now and again to give an opinion. (Mostly in time for discussions to get a decision) Homestarmy 21:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing, I just thought I should warn you to be careful on delisting articles (especially science related ones) just for inline citations, since we had that fight and everything with Science article editors and one of them insists that we list that criteria as "disputed". And also, the GA delisted template has a function in it to enter the date in when you've delisted articles that has to be entered in manually. Homestarmy 00:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Delistings

I have a question about your (many) recent GA delistings. You say you fail on 2b yet you post a link where it is disputed. If it is currently disputed why are you falling articles based on it? Cbrown1023 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that there should be in-line citations. I just mean that it seems a little self-contradictory that you also post that there. Also, just because a page does not have in-line citations does not mean it should fail. Only if it needs citations and doesn't have them should it be failed. Plus, there seems to be citations at the Horror film page (which is the page I am referring to). Cbrown1023 00:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the guidelines (having reviewed a few myself) and know the policy. I also do realize that they weren't "visible", but that does not matter because any inline citations are appropriate per the guieline you cited. (I'm don't think they were there prior to then, so just strike this comment if that is the case.) I will of course re-deslist it. (It's being rereviewed if the criterion are not met.) I only reverted it because I saw this on two occurances and I'm the one who has to re-grade the articles you de-class; I just wanted to know your reasoning based on the current dispute. Cbrown1023 00:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you missed the clause above it (Category:Film articles by quality): You should not assign any article GA or FA grades arbitrarily. (In certain instances this is okay though, like Filmmaking.) These grades must pass through official Wikipedia channels. Plus, I entirely disprove of you just removing the grade completely; I'd be more apt to agree with you if you changed it to the next lower rating (a "B"). Cbrown1023 03:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles Atangana inline cites

Hi, LuciferMorgan. Would you mind returning to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Atangana and explaining your objection? I'm not sure what the objection is and would like to properly address the issue. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 22:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Note 6 - it just has the name of the author (no page numbers). LuciferMorgan 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(Moving conversation back here to avoid fragmentation.) Ah, Note 6 (and other notes that give only an author name) refer to webpages and thus have no proper page number. -- BrianSmithson

GAR

Pls respond at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Robert_Baden-Powell.2C_1st_Baron_Baden-Powell Rlevse 03:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

archiving at GA/R

Hello,

Should I simply manually delete the section regarding the 6 train articles? That's not quite the same thing as archiving. Thanks--Ling.Nut 05:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it, never mind, thanks..--Ling.Nut 05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		...dunno if you're into barnstars, but you got one anyway. For sterling work on WP:GA/R. Ling.Nut 11:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

new rules about delisting GA

Hi LuciferMorgan,

There are brand-new rules about the delisting procedure on WP:GA/R. Some people have worried that they will slow up delisting of flagrant violations of WP:WIAGA. However, I think they are sufficiently elastic,as Homestarmy noted in a post (on Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Review) beginning "I don't like having to wait for immediete delisting either..."--Ling.Nut 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(reply from my talk page): I didn't think you were being rude.

I might not be around much for a couple weeks.... but "I'll be back." I see you hang around FA. I might do that some day later too.

Cheers --Ling.Nut 04:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agrippina (opera)

Hi LuciferMorgan,

Please forgive the intrusion. May I ask you to explicitly vote on the GA of Agrippina (opera), or explicitly repeat your vote if you already voted in that long discussion? It has already been the subject of prolonged debate, and I believe it deserves some closure.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 15:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your concerns have been addressed - the potentially POV notes have been referenced. The rest of the article is already heavily referenced. Moreschi 09:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well perhaps you would mind specifying for me which statements require further cites? Best, Moreschi 18:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

FAR comment

You said: "why do editors keep open FARs that have no work being done after the limit has expired?" I had been away for the weekend with no internet access. This is the reason why the FARs were not closed. If you wish to get my attention on a particular FAR you may leave me a message on my talk page. Take care. Joelito (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think you were making a nasty comment. Joelito (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles Newsletter 008

I'm trying to get some info into the current newsletter, to be found here, and I note that you are pretty hot on what is up for, and has been, deletion from FA status. If you want to add any info (and bag yourself an editor label) or comment on the talk page, please do. LessHeard vanU 22:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you spell out what the acronym FARC means - I'm pretty sure it isn't a Colombian revolutionary party in Beatles context - so I can expand on it (whether it is good or bad) in the newsletter. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't you a Project member anyway? You have certainly contributed more in recent times than many of those whose names do appear on the list! I do have ulterior motives, naturally - I can note you joining in the next Newsletter (I really am able to go that low to fill up column inches!) Thanks for your help... LessHeard vanU 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All it commits you to is receiving the Newsletter (reason enough not to want to join, I suppose), but even then you can request non-delivery. Seriously, your advice and comments regarding referrals of articles to review has helped enormously - and as commented above you have been a lot more active in the project than some on the list. In the end it is your choice, and if I do seem to be badgering you (which I will now stop) it is only because I appreciate your efforts. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 00:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Jim Royle voice: Bloody hell Lucifer, just sign up will ya?! ;) --kingboyk 02:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sad note

Just wanted to make sure you've seen User:Marskell. Sandy (Talk) 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He left for an illness: I'm sure he'll be back shortly. Sandy (Talk) 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Punk Rock

Wondering if FARing this article interests you - it's listed on our list of articles lacking citations, but it has been largely cited since that list was drawn up, so we should be able to get a quick Keep out of a FAR, with some minor copyediting and finishing up on the references. What do you think? I don't have time or interest to work on finishing it up, but thought you might. Sandy (Talk) 00:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I was just poking around for some articles that could be easy "saves", since we got very few keepers in Marskell's absence, and I was hoping he could return to some good news. I don't really have the knowledge or books to take that article on myself, so I'll let the idea go ... Best, Sandy (Talk) 00:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I worry about approaching a group of editors I don't know: sometimes they take it wrong, ya know? Sandy (Talk) 00:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Macca and prose

Re; Prose. It's not as hard as you think, LuciferMorgan. I think I've worked this Wiki thing out, although it's very different to normal methods:

• Delete all the adjectives and POV.
• Avoid too many paragraphs (even if they are needed). Work on the assumption that if it looks connected, and flowing, then it is. Too many paragraphs make it look like a bullet-point list (which editors absolutely loathe... :)
• Think of how a police report looks. It's all, "The car came from the left, which was travelling at 50 miles per hour, and struck the on-coming vehicle on the right side..." It may seem pedantic, and boring, but editors absolutely love it, and it does make everything clearer, and easier to read.
• Compelling Prose: If there is something in there that is not common knowledge - i.e., fresh and interesting - then it will be an enjoyable read, which is what we all want, is it not? (Putting something new in gets more points...)
• Buy a book on any subject, and paraphrase the content (to avoid copyright problems). "McCartney played under a different number of names when playing with other groups." Changed to: "When McCartney played with other groups he used many different names."

You probably know all this already, but if you don't, I hope it helps. --andreasegde 17:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Allmanbro59

Thanks. I've indef blocked this one. If you see any other account adding the same link to an article, feel free to let me know. Thanks, Gwernol 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Megadeth a FAC

Hey dude, just wanted to let you know I finally bit the bullet and put Megadeth up as a FAC. Thanks again for all the cite help and general guidance. Just looking at other FAC comments, I hope they aren't too brutal on me... ugh. Skeletor2112 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

email failed; Lebanon

I just sent you an email but its delivery failed.

I also just removed an entire section ("Education") from Lebanon as copyvio.

Sigh. --Ling.Nut 15:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't really anything terribly significant in the email. It was just a comparison of the cases of Lebanon and Arabian horse, and the lessons to be learned. [Including: Look for IP edits :-) ].

My email was bounced as spam. Perhaps a spammer has got hold of my email address. That's not unlikely; it has happened to some of my other email addresses & I had to jump through a couple extra registration hoops before I could participate in some forums.

Later --Ling.Nut 19:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruption on Operation Downfall

If you continue to mass-add fact tags to this article, I'm going to block you for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Raul654 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Block someone for adding {{fact}} tags?? Disruptive? WP:POINT? I mean, really, are you serious? Do you think you can make your argument stand? I sure hope you have some other disruptive behavior to point at as evidence...

--Ling.Nut 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The diffs for his edits make my argument for me. Adding dozens and dozens of fact tags, to virtually (literally?) every sentence in an article (which goes *far* beyond any citation standard anywhere on Wikipedia) is a textbook case of disruptive editing. Especially so when, as the edit shows, he was so bent on adding as many of them as possible he was adding them to already cited sentences. So yes, I'm quite serious, and anyone doing such a thing to any article can expect a block. Raul654 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was adding cite tags to specific numbers which can easily be error strewn - by the way Ling.Nut, believe him when he says he'll block anyone, as he's the Featured Article Director. Also, if you consider mediation, judging by his userpage he is a member of the arbitration committee so that wouldn't work. Did I forget to mention Operation Downfall was originally nominated for FA by the Featured Article Director himself? LuciferMorgan 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First, in the past, people adding a whole bunch of fact tags to articles on every uncited figure has been seen by most administrators that i've seen to be disruption :/. While I think the case is often blown highly out of proportion, as is likely the case here what with the third person perspective ban threats, a whole bunch of fact tags filling an article do make it look very odd, the general references template I think would be better in those kinds of situations. However, the Meditation committe appears to work separatly from the Arbitration committee, and I don't think Raul is on the mediation commitee, and since User:Essjay who seems to run the bot for the comittee just returned, I think mediation cases can proceed nowadays. But even if this got to Arbitration, I really don't think Raul could just remove ArbCom requests like he might try to remove entries in Featured Article reviews and whatnot, I think he'd probably recuse himself. Homestarmy 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)