User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Delist per what she said...

=) Hi, Lucifer. Friendly notice that it's been determined that such recommendations are inappropriate. There's a policy, but it's 4am and I'm too tired to go find it. I'll look tomorrow. Regardless, each recommendation should be followed by an argument. While it doesn't have to differ from mine entirely, there should be some effort put into it. I know we used to do these kinds of recommendations, but with the recent changes (GA/R going from more of a "vote" to a weighed consensus), such votes as "Delist per [whoever]'s reasoning" will carry no weight and thus not contribute to consensus. Does that make sense? Regards, LaraLove 08:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't vote on this policy, and I have no intentions of following it - it probably got voted in by 2 or 3 people, as is per usual at GAR. Such practice is used at FAC and FAR which are much more established (and respected may I add) than GAR, and I'll continue using it. GAR policy tends to change from week to week these days, and it gets a little ludicrous. If someone makes a sound argument which echoes mine, I see no reason to reiterate and paraphrase - in fact, I will vote as I choose, and you can feel free to tell these policy makers that their policy is a bunch of horseshit (no offence intended to you). LuciferMorgan 12:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Noted, although not appreciated. However, it's not a GA/R policy. It's a Wikipedia policy essay, WP:ATA. Upon looking I realized I incorrectly recalled it as being a policy. Well, anyway, this was brought up during the GA/R revamp discussions. Considering GA/R is no longer a vote, a recommendation without an argument may not carry weight for determining consensus. It also is not fair to the custodians and/or nominators considering it can give the impression that the reviewer didn't actually read the article. Each reviewer who gives a recommendation should look over the article and list those things they found to be wrong, whether it be the same or different than those things previously listed. If you choose not to do this, that's your choice. I'm just letting you know, your recommendation might not count for much if you don't back it up with something other than "per [someone else's review]". With that said, may I also note that it's unfortunate that you are not only not interested in improving the process, but you're actually put off by it. LaraLove 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Oh yea, and if it were a GA/R thing that got approved by only "2 or 3 people", that would currently be the majority of regular participants. So I guess it'd have to do. LaraLove 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not put off by the process, though my opinions on how it should be approved usually fall on deaf ears so your last comment in your post is wholly inaccurate. In my opinion, GAR should follow the template set out by FAR though nobody seems interested whatsoever - this is despite the fact FAR runs much better than GAR and follows a much more stable structure. With FAR, nominators and all relevant Projects are notified, the lot - this isn't the case for GAR.

If I was in charge, GAC would follow the same method as FAC but people would vote based on GA criteria. Now you know of my opinions, I hope you can understand I certainly am aware of GA, its shortcomings, and how it can be approved. LuciferMorgan 17:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I see "per user X" type objections on the FAC, I consider them valid unless X has struck or otherwise withdrawn the objection (in which case I consider them both withdrawn). Raul654 16:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, and that's why I use this approach. Usually an editor like Sandy, or someone else, summarises the article's deficiencies (if there are any) much better than I, and that's why I tend to sometimes vote in this manner. LuciferMorgan 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. Now Raul comes along and says that and I totally question everything! While I've only once participated in FAC, and never in FAR, I know the work Raul does and have great respect for him, but I just don't like the way "per nom" recommendations look. I suppose as long as it's a valid initial recommendation, it should count for as much, but I'd still like to point out that GA/R is a frustrating time for article custodians already (and I'm sure it's ten times worse for FAR), so adding the impression that we're just vote stacking isn't going to help the situation.

So vote how you like. I suppose it should carry as much weight. What a pushover I am today. But I would like it to be noted that I think it's a bit disrespectful to the custodians of the article that hangs in the balance. Some expansion should exist to show that you at least looked at the article rather than possibly just trust the reviewer with which you concur. Not saying that's what you did, Lucifer, but it can have that impression, as noted in all that GA/R drama a few weeks ago. LaraLove 17:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The impression we're vote stacking is wrong, though GAR / FAR / FAC will always be accused of this by frustrated editors who feel their work is being criticised. As concerns the vote being disrespectful, I disagree. They're welcome to ask for further feedback on how to improve the article if they wish, and I'm happy to be of help. The problem is if one person, for example, says verification is missing and this is the case, what do we do? Paraphrase? I can see though how one could get the impression of me not looking at the article though, and I understand your concern. All I can say is this simply isn't the case, and I did take a look. I add brief comments most of the time simply because usually a GA / FA has been abandoned, and any in depth look usually falls on deaf ears.

As concerns the GAR drama, if you're referring to the debacle with the maths editors, well my opinion is frank and clear - that lot needs to grow up, especially PMAnderson who purposely tried wrecking my FAC (how childish). LuciferMorgan 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll just reply to all of the above here. :) First, I am whole-heartedly behind revamping GA/R to more closely resemble FAR. I actually mentioned proposing that just this night as part of my VC assignment. It's on my (mental) to-do list right after creating the Uncategorized Good articles task force. I also agree that GAC would be better if it ran more like FAC, with the exception of one editor processing it all. A panel of Raul's would be my preference. But, alas, too many want to keep GA informal. Too bad it's to the projects detriment. One step at a time, though, right?

And I never doubted that you reviewed the article. My concern is that the custodians of the article will make that wrong assumption. You know how touchy some can get over these reviews. I just like to keep things as cool as possible in that room, so to speak.

As far as PMAnderson; he also voiced "concerns" in how admin-worthy editors who participate in GA/R can be, in the RfA of a once-participating editor. Totally ridiculous. That's a shameful individual, and he's exactly the drama I was talking about. Regards, LaraLove 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial Warning!!

Dude, I am officially (unofficially) requesting that you refrain from commenting on any future Giano related matters. So there. I know your intentions are hot headed but good, and I though your comments on Sandy's talk last Saturday night were fairly level headed, but whatisthepoint. Lets not forget how helpful he was during the last FAC and how the page improved after his comments, so IMO, water-bridge, all that other stuff has fuck all to do with us by now, let them at it..OR ELSE I WILL, ER, BE CROSS! Meanwhile, I finished "Choosing Death: the improbable History of Death Metal and Grindcore" - oh t'was so good, and I'm still creeped out by Pintado interview, holy god. The Motorhead project is odd; most people I know just like that one song. Anyway, Slainte. Ceoil 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your advice, even though my opinions of Giano's intentions haven't changed. We'll never be friends, though I suppose it's best to learn to tolerate each other. I will have to purchase the Grindcore / Death metal book and give it a browse. Yeah the Pintado interview is somewhat creepy, and one I think some other Rock historians covering the genre should pick up on a little. I own a good few Motorhead albums and am a big fan of Motorhead, so on the outset the Project sounds cool - I just hope it actually does some work on their articles. There's too many Projects around which do little if at all anything. LuciferMorgan 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. This goes for Geogre too by the way; Sandy is well able to take care of herself, although I see she does value your support. Whatever, onto more important things, do you like much music outside of metal? If so Wesley posted a link to what looks like an interesting book last night [1], might be worth a read. I was thinking about the 'studio technique' thing we were talking about above, next time you are in Cardiff a lot of the better book stores have beginners guides and the end of their music sections. Get one; if you know a bit about how its done it does open things up. For example there are a few producers that I follow around. Top of the hill being Steve Albini. I would listen to that man hitting spoons off a kettle. Ceoil 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I do like music outside of Metal also yes, but mostly classic rock etc. Next time I'm in Cardiff I'll pop into one of the Waterstones stores (there's 2) and take a look. Interesting you following producers around - there's a few in Metal I notice that produce music I really like (Fredrik Nordstrom, Andy Sneap etc.). I guess you're a big Steve Albini fan then - I personally know little of him. Did he produce In Utero? LuciferMorgan 20:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Ceoil is on a travelling Wikibreak: yes he did. He also produced Walking into Clarksdale, even though he once said Robert Plant has the worst voice in rock music. Dude comes off as a total jerk in print (apparently he's more personable in person) but he has produced some great albums, In Utero included. WesleyDodds 09:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah right. I'm only vaguely familiar with Albini, so I don't know much about him. Ask me about Metal and I may know, but most other genres I haven't a clue about. LuciferMorgan 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One last thought - you said "my opinions of Giano's intentions haven't changed". His intention are good, look at all those FAs! This is just a difference of openion, a personality clash. Actually its gang warfare, but what the hell, that's life. Ceoil 19:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I still have little time for him - I don't think he thinks much of such "lowbrow" culture as heavy metal music. We just don't get on, and I don't like the fact nearly every comment he makes has a subtle criticism that comes along with it. LuciferMorgan 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please see my comments here Raul654 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Raul. Despite myself being at times hot headed, I hope you understand that I can also be good for Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you don't take FeloniusMonk's rather slanderous comment on Sandy's talk page seriously (ie. you don't believe they hold truth), and hope you understand that all those editors bear no malice towards you. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 14:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Slayer

Hey, I read what you put on M3tal H3ad's pge under my comment. By the way, nice job on Christ Illusion! I wanted to talk to you about something pretty important: I've heard some DJs on a local radio station talking about Slayer returning to the studios in 2008 or 2009 to record a new studio album. Any official word on this?

Another quick question: where do you thnk Slayer will go from here on out? Personally I hope they go back to the lyrical styles of Reign in Blood; you know, really sick and twisted. Satanic is cool, but I really liked songs like "Necrophobic" and "Piece by Piece." Anyhoo, I'm just glad that Dave Lombardo is back. Feel free to look at my user page and leave a message, dude! Dark Executioner 23:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Thanks for the compliment as concerns Christ Illusion. Interviews with Kerry King have indicated that he wishes to get back to the studio sometime soon, maybe next year, as he feels that in say four years that would end up being a farewell album.

As concerns as to where Slayer will go from now, I feel Christ Illusion is probably the best indicator both musically and lyrically. Anyone holding out for a Reign in Blood Part 2 is going to have a long wait. Thanks for stopping by. LuciferMorgan 17:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

email

It bounced back from the other day. Tony 03:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On which date? Last time I recieved an email from you was the 21st. LuciferMorgan 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:LuciferMorgan/Image related bot messages

You really don't need to archive crap like that, unless you want to look at it. It's quite alright to just zap the messages once you've read/acted on them. Let me know if you want the page deleted. (If in fact you keep it for a reason personal to you, I don't need to know :)) Cheers --kingboyk 21:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep that archive so people can be reminded of the Fair Use Gestapo's insanity, treading their jackboots around Wikipedia like their cause is more worthwhile than actual article improvement. LuciferMorgan 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Check my recent contribs. --kingboyk 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:SlimVirgin

Please don't keep adding this. It is obvious she will have read what you added (four times now), and also that she doesn't want it there. --John 03:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the FAR talk page per her request. I didn't add it four times, as that would've counted as 3 reverts which would've resulted in a violation of the 3RR rule. LuciferMorgan 13:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't stay away long

We need all the help we can get at FAR, PR and assessment. And you have helped a great deal in these areas. Please don't let squabbles get the better of you; simply move onto something else for awhile that is less stressful and then come back when others are not acting like hotheads. At least, that is what I try to do. --mav 04:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind message Mav. I'm just a little fed up with the squabbling you speak of - it seems these days it's getting more and more frequent. I'm not usually one to curb my tone, so I feel if I continue further in these squabbles I'll be at the end of a ban (which isn't good). The effort which goes into these arguments is better spent elsewhere to be fair. I'm just going to have a breather off Wiki, reduce my editing a little, and then hopefully come back with a better feeling. One thing I must say I've noticed is this; people working in the mainspace seem to be much happier than the ones who work in the other areas. Once again, thanks for the message. LuciferMorgan 13:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Buck Rogers

Hi!, just read your message :). I'd be happy for your assistance in getting the article to featured status! :).

Cheers!! Marcus Bowen 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

no worries! :), thanks for your help! Marcus Bowen 19:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Have been looking at other articles to help me while working on the main band article :), thanks for the article you've provided! Marcus Bowen 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

I'm calling you on this, now that it's the current Collaboration of the Week. I understand you're taking a bit of a breather and I would like you to come back refreshed and ready to edit, but anything you have to offer helps. WesleyDodds 08:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on Tool Fac

This is very simply a thanks for pointing out that when an opinion is stated it is much better when the person with that opinion is attributed directly in the sentence. This is much better style. I think some of the problem with me not understanding it was being a fan of Tool and looking over the edits on the article so much. Kind of too close to it to notice it, I guess. I was reading another band article last night (that was a GA) and noticed that it was written with opinion of one person carted around as fact and it was annoying.  ;-) So thanks very much for pointing that out. daveh4h 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and paying a compliment, although you're still fully entitled to an opinion separate from mine. I'm happy that you understand where my opinion was coming from, and that total clarity in an article is always better. I saw Tool sometime last year, and it was before the public smoking ban in Wales came into force - they only played on the condition the venue didn't permit smoking that evening. I can understand being too close to an article to notice something - it's happened to me during some articles I've worked on. I hope that my persistent ways (which can annoy people very much) of commenting at the FAC haven't deterred you from any future contributions to FAC (I'm assuming Tool is a collaborative effort by you and Johnny), and that you work on some future FAC material. All the best :) LuciferMorgan 23:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Too often talk pages are filled with why people disagree, so I try to thank people when they make good points. I didn't understand it at first, but after some thought I think it will help me very much in my writing. I like your no-nonsense critisism.

I heard a fairly recent bootleg of a Tool concert (not sure where), and during Stinkfist Maynard says "I can't do this if you smoke..." then goes into a pretty long scream. It was a good recording too.

Anyways, I think I've learned a lot from this FAC and it is very exciting. I do hope that I get to contribute to some more in the future. daveh4h 23:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't want to interrupt your chatter here folks, but I as well would like to leave a note of thanks here for your criticism. I was a little surprised that the FAC was archived this morning, since I hoped to get more feedback after the latest changes. Epbr123 withdrew his opposition which was nice to see. Well, if you're not too busy, I'd love to hear if your concerns have been addressed as well. Best wishes, Johnnyw talk 09:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Archived? Well, I can say right now it shouldn't have been archived. Message the FAC director on his talk page, explain you were addressing concerns, that I have conceded my concerns have been mostly addressed and that you're working on my others. The ask him if he could restart the nomination. The article is a lot better in terms of being neutral, and congratulations as concerns that. If you wish to hear the minor concerns I have left (mostly I have nothing else to object to), feel free to get in touch. LuciferMorgan 09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do so! 10:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Good to hear from you again. The real world is giving me a break for the next couple of weeks. Dmoon1 21:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pennsylvania Railroad

I've been working on the article Pennsylvania Railroad. Currently it's under peer review. If you have a minute, please take a look and give some advice. Thanks Shinerunner 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi, LuciferMorgan. I've recently put Fun Home up for peer review, but haven't gotten a lot of feedback yet (the only response is from Angmering, who I specifically requested). You've got a lot of experience with FAs and FAC — do you think it's ready to stand for FA? I'd appreciate any feedback you can give. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the article a glance over. I suppose I'll put it up on FAC in the next day or two. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I have the same idea as a couple other people. I'm finally getting to move from Stefani to No Doubt articles, and I'm hoping to get Hey Baby (No Doubt song) to FAC sometime soon. The main issue is that there isn't as much information available from six years ago, so the Critical reception section in particular is short. I know you've whipped up more from less with some of the Slayer articles, so I was hoping you might leave a few pointers on how to lengthen the section at the peer review. 17Drew 06:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

R.E.M. as an example

I was planning to bring R.E.M. to FA status in the future anyway, but now I'm considering something grander: given all the sources I have available on the band (supported by a core of a thorough biography that involves participation by half the band, a collection of articles and reviews up through the late 1990s, and a companion book that does everything from analyze the music and lyrics to detailing guest appearances on TV and other records) I want to aim for making this the best band article on Wikipedia. Basically, using it as a way to put everything we've all learned about making a band FA into one article, that can also serve as a guideline for future band FAs. I want to make it better than even The KLF, Pixies, or Stereolab. Hopefully I can get other band FA writers into participating in some form or another, be it copyediting and sourcing to just even simple feedback.

Let me know what you think. I'd appreciate all the help and feedback you can give me in the coming months. I plan to put the article up for peer review in a couple weeks. Don't worry about pulling punches there :) WesleyDodds 09:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, though I don't know how to respond to your message. I'm not a "band FA writer", as my three FAs are not on bands (but on an album, and two songs). If you go to peer review I'll take a look at the article, though there isn't much more I can offer really. I'll try landing the best punches I can there :) LuciferMorgan 13:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Urgent Help

I am asking for help. Is this source reliable? http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=239085&aid=1079194 Does this mean that Early Winter is the fourth single from Gwen Stefani's Album The Sweet Escape. Please reply soon if you can. I want to make a page for it. Thanks! Luxurious.gaurav 18:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, i could not inform you. Sorry for being late. The page has been created by 17Drew. Thanks for you guidance. Luxurious.gaurav 10:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Current and future events comprehensiveness

Hi Morgan (or Lucifer?). I was wondering if you could drop a thought on this discussion. You seem to know the GA processes quite well, and I'm not sure how to interpret the criteria in this case.--SidiLemine 16:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically WP:CRYSTAL and the stability issue comes into play. Once the 2007 season finishes, then it could become GA - the problem with current events is that you have fly by editors making poor, unhelpful edits to an article which can radically degrade an article. I think you're better off waiting until the season ends and then making a GA bid - remember it's only a GA. If this team is of interest to you, I would recommend working on the 2006 article and bringing that up to shape (if it isn't yet). LuciferMorgan 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll try to see if there is a way to clarify WIAGA on this matter.--SidiLemine 12:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:HMM redesign

I'd be happy to redesign the project's pages, if you don't mind it being similar to WP:ALM. The problem with the current page is that much of the page contains links to articles of no particular importance to the project, which confuses people a little. Here's how the ALM project page used to look. Any questions in particular? CloudNine 16:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you possibly stop by the Pearl Jam FAC sometime? It's been nearly two weeks since the last comment. Don't feel obliged to do so though :) CloudNine 16:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I couldn't give a definite reason; I do know that expanding the project's scope, like starting the collaboration of the week, didn't really affect the rate of featured content. However, making the page clearer and the project easier to navigate can do no harm. It may be worth actively recruiting on user talk pages. It is a puzzle though, I do agree. CloudNine 22:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CloudNine that actively recruiting users is the best way to go. Plenty of decent users have just signed up and become active participants of WP:ALM without any of us having to contact them first, but I personally try to establish a rapport with good editors I stumble upon while searching through Wikipedia pages. Some editors have their specialties, but sometimes that can pay off handsomely. On our end, Teemu08 primarly focuses on Wilco articles, and of course your familiar with M3talH3ad's dedication to Slayer pages. Even CloudNine primarily works as an editor on Pixies articles. They've all been able to yield a number of GA and FA articles with a specific focus. Work in a small area can go a long way. It also might help to focus on a project that gets lots of edits in the first place; that might bring in a number of stay users. Might I suggest Metallica? WesleyDodds 09:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Redesigned the project page; I can change the color scheme if need be. Another tip would be to implement importance ratings so that new editors know where their edits count most (it's not clear to me what the most important articles are in the project). CloudNine 11:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from Metalhead, I can't really identify any other users who can yield FAs / GAs. Trying to establish a rapport with editors is going to be difficult. LuciferMorgan 11:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some surprises; Xihix was at loggerheads with most other editors on Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers, but then produced an FA, Dookie, in several days (albeit with a little help copyediting). I suppose a little guidance can work wonders. CloudNine 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A job?

Anything really- whatever needs to be done. I am happy to sit and write articles about bands (I prefer smaller bands with unambiguous names, for easy Googling!) clean up en-masse, rate, handle categories, whatever. You're pretty much project leader, what do you think needs to be done? Oh, and if you set up a peer review, I would both submit and review articles- I reckon that's a great idea, really sets apart a project that does something and a project that is just a reference page. J Milburn 21:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely- I'll have a crack at Chrome Division, see what I can do. I'll keep my eye on the project page. J Milburn 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot- nice to feel valued. :) I'll welcome anything you have! J Milburn 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am yet to look through all the references- there probably won't be enough, but I think the style is certainly going to warrant a mentioning somewhere. I'll probably just end up writing about it at the same time as the band's conception. J Milburn 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Enjoyed it, and I had a free evening! Think you'll have the peer review up and running any time soon? This could be a good first article to submit. J Milburn 11:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We are going to need a separate template, or a different parameter on the talk page project box, (that's how WikiProject Biography do it) to disambiguate between whether this article is at heavy metal peer review, or regular peer review. J Milburn 12:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, understand now. Sorry, only just woken up. J Milburn 12:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's great. It is also less likely to deter other potential reviewers. J Milburn 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, not at all. Just been doing a few other things today- I'll have another look at it now. J Milburn 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)