Jump to content

User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 25

Spiffier triple crown, new awards available

The standard triple crown.

Hi, I've been sprucing up the triple crown awards. Here's the new version of the standard triple crown you've already earned. Feel free to replace your old one with this if you like the new version better. I've also introduced two new triple crown awards for editors who've done a lot of triple crown work: the Napoleonic and Alexander the Great edition awards. If you're active in a WikiProject, check out the new offer for custom WikiProject triple crowns. I'll make those upon request if five or more editors qualify. See User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle for more information. Thanks for your hard work, and cheers! DurovaCharge! 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had as much time on Wikipedia recently now that the semester's winding down, so if I don't comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South of Heaven, could you remind me this weekend? 17Drew 08:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments were fine; obviously, I'd much rather see the quality articles you've produced in British English than nothing. There's no specific section or paragraph I had concerns about. The main reason I put down a weak support was simply that I wouldn't know if there are any errors I might have missed. I'll try to look at the FAC and the article tomorrow to see if there's anything that can be done to address the editor's concerns. 17Drew (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA. M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That should show everyone the Project is not inactive. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Megadeth and BLS songs at AfD

Hi, sorry for the really delayed reply, I lost even my limited Internet access after lightning took out my router. I'll take a look if I get around to it tonight, otherwise, I will hopefully find some time online over the next couple of days. I'll message you once I have nominated any which I feel should go. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have gone through Megadeth and nominated all the songs that seem to have no claim to notability at all-
It is possible others should go, but these will certainly do for a start, and, should they not be deleted, the articles will hopefully be improved. Coincidentially, they were authored by Skeeker, whom I met a few weeks ago over at the Godsmack peer review, so I have contacted him. J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Joy Division

It's been a while, and I didn't want to bug you too much. Please, by all means if you can. Do you also want a link to the user page we're fleshing it out on? That has a longer musical style section, for one. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. I plan to add more to the Legacy section shortly. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've now put up a peer review for R.E.M., as I said I would a few months back. Feedback would be welcome. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Metallica

Could you please offer your opinion on the article when you get the opportunity.

  • With SOH, In order to contrast the aggressive assault put forth on Reign in Blood, Slayer consciously slowed down the tempo of the album as a whole. They also added elements like undistorted guitars and toned-down vocal styles not heard on previous albums." There's double quotes at the end of the sentence but none marking the start of a quote
  • References WITH CAPITALS LIKE THIS, mainly the Blabbermouth ones, need to be changed to lowercase. M3tal H3ad (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Took care of the latter. M3tal H3ad (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You gotta archive this page! M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Blame the Fair Use Gestapo. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you look at Undisputed Attitude attitude when you get a moment, it can pass GA it just needs to be written well. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New toy

Hey, Lucifer, there's a newish toy at FAC that I'm trying to figure out, but I can't make it go consistently, and I don't know how to give you a link. I was hoping you'd experiment. If you go to the WP:FAC page and look below the instructions, next to the Table of Contents, you find a new Toolbox for dead links. If you click on it, it idenitifies all the dead links on every FAC article. It claims that South of Heaven has four dead links, and some other 302 errors (I don't know what those are). Can you experiment with those, sort them out, decipher the usefulness of this tool? Remember that you can usually replace dead links at archive.org. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll use it for the South of Heaven FAC, and see if it works. LuciferMorgan (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you end up as confused as I am, you can follow the conversation on my talk page and his talk page[1] with the fellow who designed the tool. I haven't sorted it all out yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I think that tool only updates once every 24 hours, so if you fix links, I'm not sure the fixes will show right away on the tool. Not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the dead link I fixed this morning, it updates immediately. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Lucifer; I still haven't figured it out, but it points out some FACs that have far too many dead links, so I'm hoping it will be useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't totally figured it out - I just use it as a way to check dead links, and in that sense it's very useful. It'll definitely be useful at FAC in that sense. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)