Jump to content

User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Trent Valley Line

This article does not meet GA criteria. The lead is weak and not in accordance with WP:LEAD. (UK) should follow United Kingdom. Random wikification of stand-alone years, month/year combos not wikified, decades are not wikified along with other words that should be. Townships are randomly wikified when they all should be. Date formats are inconsistent. "... currently (October 2006)...", what is that? The last paragraph is missing a period (full stop). There is a misplaced comma in the same paragraph in a date. There are not enough references. The second reference is not properly formatted. References are listed under Notes heading. There are only 2 inline citations which leaves the article appearing to be riddled with OR. I suggest taking this to GA/R. I predict it will be delisted. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 04:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Too many articles are passing GA without proper reviews. The more we find and delist, the better. --LaraLoveT/C 03:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If I have some extra time tomorrow (I'm off work Wed and Thu), I'll delist that whole list in one big swoop. As far as our previous misunderstanding, I assume you are referring to my GA review of Gwen Stephani's Wind It Up article... It's already been forgotten, but I do appreciate the apology. For the future, may I recommend to you what I recommend to everyone, always assume good faith. Most of the time people have the best of intentions, you know? Regards, LaraLoveT/C 17:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

I just can't quite decide what to do with it, really. So I'm having a bit of a think about it! Angmering 08:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Angmering 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for that. It's a good way of showing material I'm proud of without making the page look too show-offy. :-) Angmering 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Cradle of Filth

I think you have me confused with someone else. Cardinal Wurzel 18:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, would you lke to moderate your tone of voice, please? Thankyou so much for "assuming good faith". Very big of you. An apology for your mistake would have been nice. No, I didn't know we were in violation (we've had two peer reviews and neither has picked that up). Replacement of the offending references is underway. Learning all the time! Cardinal Wurzel 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think I've had enough of you. Cardinal Wurzel 19:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I really resent that. They are not bad faith nominations, and we've dealt with the suggestions both times. Suggestions from the last review were:

  • Images still need fair use rationale. - Done
  • Too many album covers cluttering up the page. - Is that just opinion or are we actually contravening a guideline? I don't really agree.
  • No images of the band? - Nothing suitable in Commons, and nobody has yet come forward with a non-free image. Using recognisable logo instead at the moment.
  • Fix statements like "Global sales were impressive." It really doesn't help just to source the comment, you need to show how they sales were impressive and not just tell us that they were. See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Done.
  • Instead of one of the many album images, a picture of one of the shirts mentioned in "The Music for Nations era" would be nice. - Done
  • Please replace all curly quotes (’) with straight quotes ('). The curlies feck up in my browser. - Not done, because I don't understand and can't see the difference between the two.
  • Tidy up your citations. Use Template:Cite web - Done, but not by me. Will add dates retrieved. easy enough as all retrieved on the same day!
  • You should really try to get an audio clip of one of their songs. You really can't understand what Cradle of Filth is without hearing them. I remember someone telling me to listen to "Haunted Shores" and then latter learning that all of that gibberish screaming was actual lyrics and just barely believing it. - Not exactly done, but we now have an external link to a site with sound samples (although I suspect you'll now tell me it's a site we shouldn't be linking to).

That's what's been going on in the time since SeizureDog did his last review, and that's why I re-nominated today. If you think there's more to do then give me some more suggestions. You could even help! Cardinal Wurzel 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's all fair enough. But you can see my point: Seizure Dog told us we were close to GA and that there were just a few minor adjustments to make, which we've made (I remember taking out "global sales were impressive" because we didn't have the figures to back it up. What other "peacock terms" are we guilty of? I don't see it). You're now saying that we're nowhere near GA and the page needs major work. Which of you is right? Looking at your record with featured articles and whatnot it looks like you're a trustworthy advisor, but it's completely out of order to accuse me of bad faith. You sound pissed off, as if you've told us this a million times. You haven't. Nobody has. Give us a list of things to work on like Seizure Dog did, and we'll work on it. Haunted and I are trying to make a good page - you're acting like we're dicking around to be deliberately irritating. Cardinal Wurzel 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure - I'll withdraw the nomination, and if you want to give us a new list, that would be very helpful. No rush - looks like you're busy! I'm going to move this discussion to the talk page of the actual article, if that's ok with you? Cardinal Wurzel 20:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal reply

Alrighty then, I'll keep and eye on the accounts anyway. ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your AIV report

I've removed your AIV report for Frank-i-am220 (talk • contribs). Of his 9 contributions, only one is vandalism and that was almost a week ago, for which he wasn't given a final warning or any warning. I've added below the template which explains how we will issue a block for future reference. If you have any further problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. All the best

Thank you for making a report about Frank-i-am220 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Khukri 10:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV report of DUMKOOLMAN61290

I have removed your report of DUMKOOLMAN61290 (talk · contribs) because they have not received a recent warning and do not qualify as a vandal-only account. I will re-warn them however, and if they continue they will be blocked. —dgiestc 21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments to Buckingham Palace FARC

Hi. I've removed your comments from the Buckingham Palace FARC. This isn't an attempt to censor you, just to prevent a flamewar on that page. If you continue to have strong feelings about that that FARC please think about re-wording them and whether they might be more approprate at Talk:FARC or elsewhere. Regards, The Land 16:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

sadly, too late, he also reverted me, and no one reverts me. Giano 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of being reverted either. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shooting your mouth off

Lucifer, I came at you because your initial comment amounted to the following: "let's have a fight." Literally, it served no purpose but to enflame. (Speaking of no good reasons). You can lob purple insults my way once the review is closed. Marskell 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No good reason? How about the fact that everyone's voting keep for no valid reason and that the way it's going an inefficient FA is going to be kept? Good enough? LuciferMorgan 20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Your lament would make sense if the review had been prematurely kept. Which it hasn't been. The review was quiet. It is one ALoan's pages. It isn't a keep but is very close. So? So, the only unwanted intervention was your comment. It achieved nothing. If you have a problem with my closing FARs, bring it up somewhere. Marskell 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
My lament makes sense since I'm certain it will be kept due to pressure from all the keepers, unless you've changed tack from last time. You even say it's close to being kept, when the page is far from FA. I've seen GA/R delist better articles than Buckingham Palace. The only unwanted intervention is actually you Marskell; don't expect me to keep quiet when I smell rubbish like this. Furthermore, definitely don't expect me to keep quiet when you tell me to shut up because I'll shout twice as hard. Others may put up with such stuff but I certainly will not.
I didn't have a problem with you closing FARs actually, but you definitely are more concerned about harming your reputation than actually doing what's supposed to be done. It's rather sad actually, and this whole recurring scenario is definitely a good reason for people not to want to be an administrator. As concerns "bringing it up somewhere", I have no intentions of pandering to your will - in cases like these what usually happens is things inflame and I end up with a block, even though there may be wrong on both sides. I've already had a block in the past for a previous encounter with you, and I have no intentions of notching up any more thank you very much. LuciferMorgan 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In point of fact, it is one of my nominations - most of it was written by Giano. As things have been going, I am starting to doubt that I am going to have the time or inclination any time soon to do the necessary.
It is a little troubling to see LuciferMorgan's comments about "no valid reason" for voting to keep a featured article like this one (I thought we had agreed to disagree about the extent of citation required?) and an "inefficient" FA ("inefficient"? howso?) As for "pressure from keepers", that is how the FAR/FARC process works, by consensus: is there a consensus to remove "featured" status from these articles or not? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And I always thought these people had to prove why their keeps are valid also, but apparently not. As concerns your idea of "consensus", I'll have to keep that in mind if any of my Slayer FAs end up on FAR. Perhaps then, in tribute to your idea of "consensus", I could then hope that other members vote in keeping the article's status and then it's kept per "concensus"? As concerns "a featured article like this one", I fail to understand that. There's nothing particularly special about this specific FA, or anything which warrants someone to refer to as "like this one" - this is just another article that happens to have the star at this moment in time. LuciferMorgan 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is fucking rubbish. Let me offer one thing, to get at the point: if ALoan doesn't work on Buckingham Palace, then it will be removed (unless I'm removed) because DrK's edits are specific and outstanding. That is, I actually agree with your current evaluation LM, and would demote this if it were User:Joe who hadn't shown up for twelve months. But of course, removing would be incredibly stupid here, because ALoan is an active editor and ALoan knows very well what current citations standards are. "Reputation" or some other horseshit isn't at issue—it's sensible know-the-editor editing. I remove FARs (honestly, bring it up somewhere—I'd like to be told off) and I know ALoan's pages. We can leave it up a month, two, three, whatever. Conversely, if he's not going to edit, I think the page should be removed as it stands. My nose is very much where it should be. Marskell 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Marskell, I don't wish to bring it up as I could do without the trouble, and to be fair you or FAR aren't worth the effort. And please don't swear on my page - despite your intentions, I am not walking into receiving a block thanks. And the reason I take offence at you swearing on my page is because I became blocked for saying some things a lot more subtle than that too. LuciferMorgan 22:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Your continual attacks on my decisions and the integrity of the FAR process, and your desire to bait Giano, are anything but subtle. If you could do without the trouble, don't show up on Wiki pages cursing yourself.
I won't swear on your talk page again, sorry. My last edit of the night is usually sub-standard. Marskell 06:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have the right to express my opinion Marskell, though I shouldn't have to do it in the fear of getting blocked. This isn't a criticism of you or anything and I am definitely not saying you'd be doing the blocking or pressing for one, but I hope you can understand where I am coming from. My "continual attacks" on you is rather an inaccurate description of me - I voted in favour of your adminship and when the issue of FAR closers came up during a recent FAR I said I'm in favour of both you and Joel closing FARs. Besides, the reaction you got was for telling me "to shut up" - I don't agree with that at all, didn't like the curtness of it and certainly don't feel I should self-censor myself and keep quiet at all. That's equally for example if Giano etc. has something to say also. As concerns my opinions on some of your decisions and the integrity of the FAR process, I certainly stand by them. When Giano et. al's FAs end up at FAR I certainly feel the 1. c. criterion is much more leniently executed than for all other FARs - I remember Josiah Rowe working like hell to save Dalek and for an entire two months for example trying to get 1. c. met. I definitely value the integrity of an editor who tries his best to save his FA than one who can plainly not be bothered that much - I don't wish for the 1. c. criterion to be devalued by such FARs as Buckingham Palace etc. As concerns "my desire to bait Giano", you forget the fact that Giano baits just about everyone who disagrees with him on FAR, FAC, or anywhere else for that matter. Definitely not the angel his Wiki friends paint him out to be.
I have no problems with you swearing on my page Marskell, it's just I'm a little frustrated with the fact that for similar such endeavours people keep saying WP:CIVIL to me that's all so to be fair I have to watch what I am saying. If I had said that word, I would've received a 24 hr block. Also, this issue isn't worth bringing your adminship into minor disrepute or anything (I'm not sure what the powers that be feel about it, but I'm personally unbothered by the swearing). LuciferMorgan 09:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've no interest in the FA squabbles, but please avoid ad hominem arguments. The way to calm a situation is not to accuse people of 'baiting' - please avoid personal attacks. If you believe you are being baited, then the solution is not to rise to the bait, not to say 'I'm being baited', which is either feeding a troll or, more likely, being a troll.--Docg 13:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have control of the situation, and do not need to be told by other Wikipedians what to do. Instead of quoting Wikipedia pages verbatim, perhaps people can use common sense? LuciferMorgan 15:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
To me it doesn't look like you have control of your anger or your language. Are you really enjoying the arguments you keep having? The Land 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
To you, WP:CIVIL is the code. Frankly Land, I'm not bothered what you think nor what anyone else does as you're all hypocrites anyway. People also insult me on my page, swear at me, and be incivil to me, and nobody says anything. I say something and someone cries about how Wikipedia is going to the dogs - I know you, Giano and the rest of you have my talk page on your watchlist (and it makes my skin crawl also I'll have you note). If you don't like reading the truth Land, then don't read what I say it all - I have no intentions of sugarcoating the truth for you. Now all of you run along, act pseudo-intellectually and of high importance as usual, and leave me alone, because if you all think I'm going to start kissing all your backsides then you have another thing coming. LuciferMorgan 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for incivility, personal attacks, and language designed to provoke and inflame - go away and cool off. I urge others not to post anything here which will inflame further. I will protect this page if there are any further flames.--Docg 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No surprise there Doc. Haven't blocked anyone else who personally attacked me or was incivil to me, or used language designed to provoke me have you? No you haven't, and have proved my point. You're definitely one of the people I referred to as having my page on your watchlist, and are definitely a hypocrite pseudo-intellectual. As we can see, you're one of Giano's cronies and are definitely a biased, self-important imbecile who abuses their admin powers to further their own ends. Or their friends ends that is (yes, you have abused your power).
As for protecting my page Doc, leave my page alone and go bother someone else you hypocritical fool. LuciferMorgan 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This kind of intemperate response is not going to gain you any sympathy. Anyone who bothered paying attention would know that Doc is hardly a "crony" of Giano: they are simply mature enough to be able to work together on this project without descending into profanity. Any request for you to be unblocked is likely to be rejected until you can control your temper and your language. If you carry on in this vein, your block is likely to be extended. —Phil | Talk 16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my assessment of Doc 100%, and have no intention of pandering to an apology as he does not deserve one in any way, shape or form. Things were under control between me and Marskell - that is until Doc and The Land decided to intervene for no reason whatsoever. Why did Doc decide to poke his nose in when me and Marskell were just getting off our chest our opinions? His and Land's intervention in the matter has inflamed the situation and now I've been blocked. It's Doc I hold mainly responsible for this, and the reason is that he posted inflammatory remarks accusing me of "trolling", and then Land trying to hold me primarily responsible for things. It isn't fair this biased way of dealing with things and selectively choosing who to hold responsible, instead of seeing fault on both sides. Bad practice indeed. LuciferMorgan 16:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Lucifer, I think it will serve you best to stay away from FARC and concentrate on promoting FAs. The Slayer project is already closing in on WPFF in the number of featured articles :) — Deckiller 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, and thanks for the message. LuciferMorgan 17:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bradley Joseph FAC

Hi LM! I don't believe we've spoken before, but I've noticed you around quite a bit in my FA wanderings for examples of musician FAs and have read many of the FA articles you've contributed and FAR and FAC comments you've made. I just think you know you're stuff and thought I'd ask if you could have a look at this FAC. The only outstanding issue for this FAC is copyediting (old nom) and it is listed at the LoCE for nearly a month, could be eternity before it gets looked at there. It just needs new eyes and I thought of you. And even with an oppose, that would give me something to work on to improve the article. (Writing is what I struggle with most). Of course, if you don't have time I would completely understand - but I admire your work and it never hurts to ask. Cricket02 19:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look, though I don't tend to make one long comment with all my opinions. I'm the kind of person who comments a few times with new concerns or suggestions for improvement. LuciferMorgan 23:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for the kind words which mean a lot. It makes things worthwhile and is highly regarded. :) LuciferMorgan 00:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't thank you enough for all the time you spent on this. All your points make perfect sense, as I knew they would, and I never saw any of it before, real eye-openers. It will take me a few days but I'll work on all your suggestions. And...just know that you are truly appreciated. Your work is invaluable. Please, if there is ever anything I can do for you, I am but one button away. Cricket02 05:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
For the time I spent? I didn't spend that much time, so it's not a problem at all. I'm real happy that my points made "perfect" sense, since there's nothing more disconcerting than making a few improvement suggestions and hitting a brick wall so to speak. Hopefully these improvement suggestions will also help your future FAC prospects overall and your skills as an editor, which is the best thing really as then you won't need certain things pointed out anymore. If you have anything else that needs reviewing, get in touch. LuciferMorgan 13:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve the attributions, at the same time adding some more content. Although I'm afraid I may have gotten carried away with the Musical Style section and wondered if you could have a look at your convenience. Its in my sandbox: User:Cricket02/sandbox. The different methods of attribution had me confused, but I definately see where this way is much clearer in defining, and really adds integrity to the information provided. I'm learning a lot.  :) Cricket02 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Words cannot express my gratitude to you for taking the time to completely dissecting this article and gently guiding this editor into piecing it all back together to bring it up to FA standards. Thank you! Cricket02 04:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem - someone just needed to take the time to look at the article and help you, and that happened to be me. Your next FAC will run a lot smoother likely. LuciferMorgan 10:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hiya LM! Just wanted to let you know I got up the nerve to email the artist and ask for old reviews, etc., if possible He sent me copies of three old reviews not to be found on the internet and copies of some pages of a book where he is mentioned in. I'm SOOOO glad you asked all the right questions and have much more and better content. Don't know why I never thought of doing that. Thanks much again! Cricket02 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

username

id change it but as my username suggests i am unable to figure it out as well as another really irratiting person(no u r not irritating)Dog jumper idiot100 03:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

GHUA

I didn't know you changed it, sorry if it looked i was correcting you, which it wasn't. I'll change it back and thanks for the fixes. M3tal H3ad 07:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing Jay's concerns. Good luck with Eyes, i won't vote because i believe you should get that extra recognition from editors who haven't seen the article, as you did an awesome job with it. M3tal H3ad 07:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Btw, did you hear about that guy writing a English Slayer biography? You probably have, but if you haven't check it out - here M3tal H3ad 07:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, I'm writing a report on networking so don't have much time but a few things
  • Lombardo's drumming right up front in the mix." should link Lombardo as it's his first mention
  • "South of Heaven" was the only album, italics for albums
  • "couldn't top "Reign in Blood", quote after top? i don't think RIB should be in quotes
  • when South Of Heaven came into the picture. italics, it's also a lowercase o
  • The first sentence of Reception is a bit too long, the Slayer parted ways can be a new sentence
  • at the sludgier speed of Black Sabbath. Link BS?
  • Could get rid of credits as the noteworthy people are mentioned in the body.
  • Some re-directs under track listing, from that other user
  • With the cite templates wikilink the date. M3tal H3ad 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I was bored and thought the topic templates looked cool, so i made one of our progress to FA topic, if we we ever do..mmm M3tal H3ad 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
edit | discuss
Slayer
29 articles
Slayer discography
Show No Mercy
Haunting the Chapel
Live Undead
Hell Awaits
Reign in Blood
"Angel of Death"
"Raining Blood"
South of Heaven
Seasons in the Abyss
Decade of Aggression
Divine Intervention
Live Intrusion
Undisputed Attitude
Diabolus in Musica
God Hates Us All
War at the Warfield
Soundtrack to the Apocalypse
Still Reigning
Eternal Pyre
Christ Illusion
"Eyes of the Insane"
"Jihad"
World Painted Blood
The Vinyl Conflict
The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria
Kerry King
Tom Araya
Jeff Hanneman
Dave Lombardo
Paul Bostaph

reported to ANI

Hello, I have acted on your challenge to report your behavior to ANI. Arcfrk 08:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And it amounted to nothing as he can see by going there. Cantor need citations, fight it all you want to it's a fact of life. Quadzilla99 11:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I've made my response there. Hopefully that ANI can be quickly archived. LuciferMorgan 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I was defending GA against the suggestion that it was engaged in personal revenge out of Jewish nationalism. Your ideas of what footnotes can achieve remain unrealistic; but I have commented on that on WP:GA/R. If the project is moved to a neutral name, I will leave it alone; and if it ever comes to pass that a {{GA}} tag does not suggest an over-written POV rant, complete with fraudulent citations, I will rejoice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't wish for this to go to ANI PMAnderson, and was surprised the editor took it there. If you wish to open a debate as regards citations, you're fully welcome to do so via the GAC / GAR talk pages so the criteria can be debated upon. LuciferMorgan 20:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
GA is utterly hopeless; a waste of good editors' time. It should be deleted; but I will be satisfied with removing the implications that the articles it likes are good and the ones it dislikes are bad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough; you're perfectly entitled to your own opinion, and I'm fully aware you aren't a lone voice. I've heard a few people say as such, but think it's better to modify GA's weaknesses and make it into a better framework which more people will be happy with. LuciferMorgan 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LuciferMorgan/Archive_14&oldid=1190107080"