User:L1A1 FAL/Storage

User:L1A1 FAL/Storage

I store useful templates, and store stuff for my records here

---

I'm still waiting for you to address my concerns (formal complaint to/about User:Petergriffin9901/"CallMeNathan"

Firstly, I should point out that I am quite reluctant to voice my complaints in such a bold and up-front manor (even as I am typing this, I am hoping that you would render more useful assistance in improving Endgame), but I feel that you have marginalized me.

I must say that while I was understandably disappointed by the result of your review alone, I am even more irritated by the fact that you still have not even addressed my concerns about your reviewing of the article. You have said that:

• the prose is not strong - How is it not strong? I personally haven't found a great deal of issues with it, just a few here and there, although that is not to say that it could not be better.
• MoS violations...You specifically cited Billboard - Were you talking about in text (one instance only) or in the references? what other MoS-contradicting features are there?
• Unsourced content...you specifically cited the chart positions - You 100% were correct in pointing that out (and it has been fixed)
• To quote you: "The references are just in shambles. So many poorly formatted references and just plain unreliable ones; infowars.com, megahammer.com, roadrunners.com, everydayjoe.com" - What part of the format is poor exactly?
  • You cite Infowars as a unreliable source...in the context that it is used in (Mustaine on the Alex Jones Show) it is perfectly reliable since it is Jones' website. I would think he would be a reliable source for his own show. Would I use infowars as a source for George W. Bush or Queen Elizabeth II being 7 1/2 foot tall lizard people or whatever? Probably not. But in the context that it IS used in it is perfectly suitable - I would think Jones should know who was on his own show.
  • you claim that there is a source by the name of "Megahammer" There was none. Perhaps you were seeing "Metal Hammer" which is a heavy metal news magazine, and would be perfectly acceptable as a reference on a heavy metal-related article
  • "Roadrunners.com" - You were right in that it was a typo (supposed to be "Roadrunnerrecords.com", the website for Megadeth's label), but not that its an unreliable source (fixed now)
  • "everydayjoe.com" - re-reporting a story from Roadrunner Records' news website 'Blabbermouth.net' (since replaced w/ original source)

It seems to me that you didn't really look closely over the article, as I would expect a reviewer to not make such trivial mistakes, much less refuse to acknowledge them, and that is exactly what you have done - you have been condescending ("I'm sorry to say this, but all this shows is your lack of understanding of the GA criteria[...]"--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC) <--this for example could have been phrased more politely) and dismissive - you have simply refused to clearly address my concerns, and simply resorted to hiding behind the GA standards whenever I ask you to address my concerns.

Furthermore, you put words in my mouth: "I don't know here you got the idea that a GA reviewer is a copy-editor, who fixes all the issues."--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)(on my talk page) when I never said, nor inferred that the reviewer was supposed to rewrite the article; what I said was: "[...] it was my understanding (based on looking at other discussions for GA reviews) that should problems arise in the review, that you, the reviewer, were to prepare a list of things to be improved and give the nominating party, me in this case, an opportunity to remedy those faults."--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)(on your talk page)

You claim that you would gladly re-review the article with no wait when (more likely "if" now, since I am still not really sure of what all the things you were pointing out are) I get the article GA-worthy - however, you really offered no help in the interim, since you really aren't clear as to what needs to be done (how is the prose bad? MoS violations? what/where? so I can fix them. How are the references poorly formatted? I can't fix this stuff if you don't explain a little more clearly what exactly the problem is. Most of what you have pointed out is quite vague.

Ultimately, while I must again stress that I was displeased by the result of your review, I am most irritated by your condescending and dismissive attitude and what I believe to be a lack of attention to, and/or interest in the subject matter of the Endgame album's article.

I would also like to note that I am seriously considering putting the article up for reassessment - not that the immediate assessment result may be much different, but if it is, hopefully I can get some better feedback from another reviewer other than yourself on how to improve problems in the article.

Lastly, while I would greatly appreciate if you would grant me assistance so that I may improve the article, I expect otherwise. Quite frankly, I can't say I even expect you to read my complaint in its entirety.

Extremely disappointed in you, --L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Regional English variety preferences

(copy and paste)

Band member timeline chart

Album chart ranking list

(from Endgame)

Chart	Peak position
Billboard 200	9
Top Rock Albums	2
Top Digital Albums	10
Top Hard Rock Albums	1
Top European Albums	16
UK Top 40	24
Argentina Albums Chart	7
Australian Albums Chart	11
Austrian Albums Chart	22
Canadian Albums Chart	4
Finnish Albums Chart	7
German Albums Chart	21
Italian Albums Chart	26
Ireland Albums Chart	27
Norway Albums Chart	15
Poland Albums Chart	19
Switzerland Albums Chart	32
Swedish Albums Chart	17