User talk:Drewcifer3000/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Quick Failed nominatation? What in the world does that mean?

HI,

Let me make it clear here that I intend to immediately re-nominate the Freddie Mercury article as a Good Article again, since I do not believe that it was even reviewed. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not see any feedback or reviews from users. Instead, it appears you “quick failed” the article without any explanation whatsoever. I would appreciate an explanation of what in the world that means. Furthermore, since it was never really reviewed, I would do not believe that a failed article designation is necessary.

Let me make it clear that I do not care how the article is designated. Among other things, I admit that it is probably very biased. At the same time, I was hoping that we could at least receive some real feedback or constructive criticism that may lead to improvements. On the contrary, the article was not even reviewed.138.67.44.69 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your concerns on the Freddie Mercury talk page. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Drewcifer 23:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. However, I did not notice that it was at the bottom of the page! I am glad to see the feedback as well, alhtough I do not understand the free-use (copyright?) issues involved.138.67.44.69 23:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog contest

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for your participation in the GAC backlog elimination drive! ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Spawn 2

Since, according to the article, the movie is still being written, and there is no guarantee that it will go into production any time soon, it is much too early to give Spawn 2 an article. —tregoweth (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I witnessed the deletion and redirect of Spawn 2, and I'd like to point you to the notability guidelines for films. Articles on films should not exist unless production is already underway, and this does not seem to be the case with Spawn 2. I would suggest cleaning up the article's content and merging it to either Spawn (comics) or Spawn (film). When the film enters production, the article can be revived. You can see similar implementation for other films in development hell, such as Knight Rider (film), Fahrenheit 451 (2008 film), Metal Gear Solid (film), Spider-Man 4, et cetera. I have Spawn 2 as part of a clean-up agenda, but I probably will not get to it immediately. If you can help clean it up per WP:MOSFILMS so it can be merged in a tidy manner, that would be appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for the heads up. I'll see what I can do about incorporating the information into another article once I get a chance. Drewcifer3000 16:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. There's no issue with coverage of this future film, considering the notability of this franchise. It's just a matter of placement of the content so people can still be aware that there's been a Spawn 2 in development. Let me know if you need any help referencing; this may be a good start in rounding out the existing information about this project's development. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

KLF at GA/R

I noticed you brought the article KLF Communications up for discussion at WP:GA/R. In the future, make sure you leave note on the talk page of the article listing the problems, along with an invitation for the custodians of the article in question to join the discussion. Our main goal at GA/R is to see the article brought up to GA standards; delisting is a last option and if the people who watch the article aren't notified, then the article stands little chance of being fixed. I have taken care of it this time, but in the future please remember to leave notice on the talk page. Thanks for all that you do at Wikipedia. Later. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My intention with the review wasn't to have the article delisted, just to get some comments on it really. I attempted to make that clear with the language of the nomination, and was careful not to endorse delisting or anything like it. But you're right, it would've been nice to have mentioned it in the article's talk page. Thanks for the heads up. Drewcifer3000 03:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The Reputation

Could you drop me a note on your thoughts on the need for The Reputation to go to WP:GA/R.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to add it to WP:GA/R. My question is more along the lines of whether you would willing to respond to feedback during such a process. I hope to post it there and have it be adopted and/or cleaned up and not delisted. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:OldSchool.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:OldSchool.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Music GAs

Did you go through all "Performers, groups, composers, and people related to them" GAs and all "Recordings and compositions" GAs? Did you do any of the other music subsections? Thanks I just don't want to review articles that have recently been reviewed. T Rex | talk 11:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, those are the two sections I went through. Kind of forgot to do the smaller ones. Drewcifer3000 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Photek & Grohl

Keep up the excellent efforts over in Nine Inch Nails land! Incidentally, Photek did contribute "additional programming" to NIN's song "All the Love in the World", though I can see where you're coming from in regards to removing him and Grohl from the main article. BotleySmith 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Drewcifer 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspending GAC review drive

Since the drive hasn't started, I would ask you to consider putting the review drive on hold as explained in points to consider. Please reply at that page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This is the formal invitation to invite you to join the GA Sweeps. I have placed my trust in you because only experienced editors who are trusted in this project can participate in the sweeps to uphold quality of GA. Don't forget to keep track of the articles you read by going to Sweep's talk page and list the articles & status. If you're unsure about what you should leave in the article's talk page, take a look at Talk:Alan Turing#GA status reviewed. Any other questions can ask me at my talk page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Taj

Hey Drewcifer. You might do well to point out some specific objections on Taj Mahal. I think it could go a long way in resolving the current dispute. Consider going through the article and adding {{fact}} to items that you are specifically challenging to require inline citations. I don't think the editors of the page would have a problem addressing such concerns. IvoShandor 11:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to be kind, but this has moved me from mild irritation yesterday, to hopping bloody mad today! You are not solely to blame, but we can call you the straw that broke the camels back. I don't know where we will find another editor so expert in the history of the Mughals. There is nothing to be done for Nemo, worn down by the elements of the project's idiocy and the POV-pushing of P.N. Oak supporters, your insensitivity and sheer blundering incompetance has made sure of that. I do not want to upset you - but you should be upset - he was a very good editor. However, nothing will be gained from my venting spleen here other than to point out the obvious salutory lesson.

There are a number of outstanding issues at GA criteria and GA/R.

1. I've had a stab at rewording the criteria on the talk page, please see if they make any more sense to you now.
2. Taj - for god sake withdraw the GA/R - whatever you might think, there's certainly no consensus for a delist.
3. St. La Salle Hall - the main criteria again is almost complete lack of references - well almost is a way of saying it has them, but you seem to think it needs more - and do you mean inline citations or references - they are not the same thing. please clarify.
4. Onion Dome lack references - what? there's at least 10 I can see, foreign language references are fine if there's no easily available english equivalents - if you want to research and find some them then great otherwise we assume the good faith of the editor and considering most onion domes are in russia it makes sense that most of the academic study has been done by russians, in russian.
5. Onion Dome again - poorly formatted references - please either format them the way you want them or let us know what this objection is supposed to mean.

Regards --Joopercoopers 17:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That really sucks about Nemonoman. Honestly it does. Whether or not I'm responsible for ruining everything seems questionable to me though. My most recent comments on the Taj Mahal have been fairly even-keeled, I thought. I've admitted that my interpretation of GA criteria is exactly that: an interpretation. I've also admitted that my interpretation of the same criteria is pretty harsh. I've also done my best to improve the criteria to avoid the need for interpretation to begin with, regardless of whether my interpretation is adopted or not. If I was wrong (and by "wrong" I mean having an interpreting of criteria that is unpopular) I will freely admit that. In fact, it seems that is the case: I was wrong. I don't mind being wrong, as long as being wrong improves the encyclopedia in some way. Making lemonade out of lemons if you will.

What seems strangest to me about the whole Nemonoman situation is that the more I've back-pedaled, the angrier he's gotten. If you look at my last couple edits to the discussion (diff, diff, and diff) has there really been anything even marginally insensitive? Honestly, if you see anything let me know.

As for the pending GA reviews, Taj Mahal, St. La Salle, and Onion Dome, I'll go ahead and assume that the GA criteria will be changed to reflect the general consensus of the ongoing discussion at WP:WIAGA. Namely, that in-line citations aren't required for anything other than controversial material. That said, I'd be happy to withdraw the GA/R for Taj Mahal, St. La Selle, and Onion dome. I'll take another look at the articles and do a little cleanup and put in a few {{fact}}'s where I think necessary, but a little cleanup aside, they'd satisfy GA criteria.

As for "sheer blundering incompetance," that's just plain mean. Especially since the only thing to really come out of my actions are that the Taj Mahal article will be marginally improved (and has been so already), and that the GA criteria will be substantially improved. And I suppose that we loose a very good editor in Nemonoman, but that's his choice not mine. If he's as good an editor as you say, I hope he'll be back after a break and continue to contribute.

Drewcifer 20:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's draw a line, but please take on board the 'lollipop' issue; speed is less of a virtue here than getting it right. Peace. --Joopercoopers 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really follow you on the whole lollipop thing... Drewcifer 22:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was promising shiny stars/awards/lollipops etc. for processing X number of GA's incentivises speed rather than quality of review. Quality is more important because the world won't stop turning if there's a bit of a backlog of GA's to review, whereas making mistakes in the review process can have.......bad effects. --Joopercoopers 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only recently (yesterday) found out that there are indeed awards for the sweep. In fact, I started sweeping through the GAs before the official sweep thing existed. Also, so far the majority of my nominations have either ended in delisting or have been improved, the only exceptions being Taj Mahal, Onion dome, and St. La Salle Hall. If I were an odds man I'd be pretty satisfied with those numbers. But you are right: quality not quantity. I'll do my best nominate only where appropriate. Drewcifer 19:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

GA/R

Hey, there are some rules that go along with archiving nominations at GA/R. Please read those instructions before doing any further archiving. If you're finding it typical that the articles you nominate at GA/R are being improved quickly and thus no need to delist, perhaps start by leaving notes on the article talk page. If no improvements are made, then nominate at GA/R and let it run its course. If consensus is reached one way or another, then the nomination can be processed. Regards, LARA♥LOVE 15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which GA/R is specific do you mean? I think I've followed the rules for my recent archives. Dru Hill had reached a consensus and there hadn't been any further comments in over a week. Onion dome and St. La Salle Hall were nominated by myself, and since the GA criteria seem to be changing, I withdrew my nomination. And the Weezer album was an honest mistake, and the poster has since posted the article at GAC, in the appropriate venue. Is there anything in particular I did wrong? Drewcifer 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly use the ArticleHistory template for GAR? It will make everyone's life much easier afterwards. If you see one that is still using the old template, switch it to ArticleHistory. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I did use the articlehistory template on the ones that I archived. Which one did I miss? Drewcifer 03:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting nominations on hold

Honestly, I'm loathe to do that because it's a bunch more templates and process to learn, and I'm allergic to process. I'd be happier to just see it re-nominated in 5 days and review it again then. :) Phil Sandifer 20:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DLM Help

As I clean up and prepare Dead Like Me for it's third GA review, I'm having a tough time figureing out what to cut from the "Reapers" and "Gravelings" sections. I trimmed down "Reapers" some, but hesinatant to cut too much because the info that is there now helps the reader understand the main themes of the show better. Any suggestions? Thanks. Stormin' Foreman 00:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I edited the Reaper section down a good amount (diff). Feel free to revert it. I felt like alot of the information I took out was overly detailed and didn't really add that much to my knowledge of the show/universe. Drewcifer 09:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Not enough in-line citations

Perhaps you might like to comment on my stance over here? --Joopercoopers 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Image:AnotherVersionofthePast.jpg

I saw your post to ^demon regarding this image. I cannot undelete the image because of WP:FUC #3.b. The image has not been reduced in size. I also believe it fails #2 in that it directly competes with the commercial opportunities of the copyright holder. #8 is also jumping out at me, because the summarized text in the article serves the same purpose as the image. There is not critical commentary about the design of the sight or visual representation of the image in the article Chronology of the Year Zero alternate reality game. Therefore, the exact image you uploaded isn't appropriate for use on wikipedia, and a cropped or reduced size image may theoretically be appropriate, but in the proposed article would just be decorative (and against out non-free content policy). Sorry, but I hope this explanation helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reply. I understand your Fair-Use concerns, and hopefully I can address all of them.

• FUC 3.b - Agreed. If the image is undeleted I'd be happy to reduce it's size and upload the smaller version, but I can't really do that (download the high resolution version) until it is undeleted.
• FUC #2 - There are no commercial opportunities at stake here. Because of the odd nature of the website, as part of an alternate reality game, the only logical copyright holder would be either Nine Inch Nails, 42 Entertainment, or Interscope records. No one is making any money off of these websites: in fact, they officially have absolutely no connection to any company, not even to the album (Year Zero (album)) that it is parallel to. Reznor himself has stated the ARG is NOT a promotional device. (see Year Zero (alternate reality game) for more info on that)
• FUC #8 - Although the dates themselves are similar, the text is not. The whole point of the originating website, Another Version of the Past is that there are multiple perspectives of past events. The text in the WP article is a dry, point-for-point account: "neutral" if you will. The two versions of the time line presented on the website represent both extremes of the fictional issues at hand: pro-American, pro-government, etc and on the other hand extremist, rebellious, reformatory, etc. The image provides the user an opportunity to see the POV/agendas at work and compare it to what actually happened. For example the New Orleans floods are described as a "Faith-based disaster" on one hand, and "Why Bother with New Orleans?" on the other. Drewcifer 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I still believe the image wouldn't be appropriate here. The site the image came from is copyrighted, and was used to promote the album (for the record company executives), regardless what Reznor said, so FUC#2 still concerns me, and I'm not convinced of FUC#8 either. We can simply quote snippets of text without showing it if we want to discuss how the timeline is presented. We'd need to discuss visual aspects of how things look in order to show an image, IMO. I have asked another admin who is more versed in image policy to comment here, so be patient for a 2nd opinion. Thanks for your reply.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I was asked to comment here. This image is essentially text, with decorative flourishes. As such, I don't see how it could pass WP:NFCC#8, which requires that a non-free image provide encyclopedic information beyond what text alone could convey. I don't believe that the text alone, quoted, would be less informative than the image. (And I think that much text, quoted verbatim, would be a copyright violation, which is another indicator that this image isn't allowed.) All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I know better than to argue with two admins. =) Thanks for taking the time to review the case. Drewcifer 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lightning Bolt discog

I'm not trying to kill you;) It just looks like an unneccessary article to me. In my opinion, their discog isn't so cumbersome that it can't fit in their main article. If you disagree, fine, I'm not that worried about. Murderbike 08:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally fine. I don't feel anywhere near strongly enough to care that much. Good luck on it, cheers! Murderbike 08:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nine Inch Nails FAC

I've added a new issue, and this is the same as the other examples I've previously raised. If this is tackled the same way as the opening sentence to "Musical characteristics" was, then that issue will be sufficiently addressed. LuciferMorgan 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Weimar Republic delisting

Would you be so kind and notify the notable contributors to the article that the article was delisted for lack of references, and if they could improve it with regard to that, it might be successfully renominated? I guess it would a big loss to just write off an otherwise good, and important article. Thanks! PrinceGloria 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I just now delisted it. Gimme a few minutes, jeesh! =) Drewcifer 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for you to notify specific users in their talk pages, the previous notice in the article's talk page didn't work, so I suppose this one might be overlooked too. Thanks, PrinceGloria 05:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know. I haven't had a chance to yet. I'll do it soon, I promise. Drewcifer 05:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my sweetness, do you ever sleep or something! Thanks for the prompt reply and all your hard work, but please take care of yourself... PrinceGloria 06:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

GA/R

Withdrawn, go ahead and archive it. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing subsections from The Make-Up FAC

My rationale for removing the subsection is on the second paragraph of the Featured article candidates page: "Do not split a FAC page into subsections, which will cause problems in its archiving (if necessary, use bolded headings)". I have no personal feelings toward the issue one way or the other, it just seems to me like it could obfuscate the addressed issues, or impede the bot's ability to archive the page. It seems that condensing the length of the page with a hidebox is merely an aesthetic issue. That being the case, the page is probably better off without one. You can go ahead and revert my edit if you wish—I won't remove it again, or sic my fervor on you. Now that you've heard my viewpoint, you can decide what's best. Grim-Gym 01:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Midnight movie fair use image problems

I have attempted to correct some problems on the article for Midnight movies. The captions do not refere to information from the article and at least one has no reference at all, and one is too high a resolution to be used for fair use. I had attempted to make changes but they were all reverted. I attempted to discuss on the talk page but was insulted and treated with harsh incivility. I will be looking to delete all images that do not meet all ten Fair use criteria. There are too many fair use images for this article in the first place.--Amadscientist 07:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fuckin' Nails, man

I wonder if people still yell that at Rob's camera anymore. Hey, if you don't mind, could you send me an email? leviathant@gmail.com or leviathant@theninhotline.net -- It's a more convenient medium for me. Much appreciated :) Leviathant 19:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for your help in the drive. I'm sorry that the sweeps suspended the fall's backlog elimination drive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mixtapes and the like

Hi Drewcifer, thanks for your message. Personally, I don't dislike mixtapes (I've got a few myself), I just don't think they're generally notable enough for articles. If a mixtape or bootleg is actually notable (such as The Black Album (Prince album)), I'll be happy for it to be kept, but it's usually not the case. Most can never expand to include sales, charts, certifications, critical reviews etc. All they can ever be is a track list and an infobox. It was recently proposed in WP:MUSIC to add that "demos, mixtapes, and bootlegs are generally not notable". Over the past month, I must've had over 60 articles deleted. And regarding community-based assessment, every time they are put on AfD, they always result in a delete (here's a, few examples). So yeah, I don't see this as a controversial issue. If you disagree with any of my PRODs, feel free to remove them. If sources are added (beyond a track list), I'll be happy for it to be kept. Spellcast 11:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2)

I've addressed your concerns at the FLC above, and would greatly appreciate a response. Thank you. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Nine Inch Nails

Really, you best bet for improving the "musical characteristics' section is to look up articles in music magazines, ie. Guitar World. As I mentioned in the FAC, I have a reprint of a 1994 interview where Reznor talks extensively about his songwriting approach, his guitar gear, and the computer programs he used, but unfortunately I don't have it on me at the moment. That's the sort of material the article needs. See R.E.M. (band) and The Smashing Pumpkins for that in practice. WesleyDodds 10:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got a July 2005 edition of Metal Hammer which has an interview with Reznor. I'm looking through it now for anything of interest. (After looking at it, it's more about each album rather than NIN's general musical style.) CloudNine 10:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Damn edit conflicts!

I know you did it by accident, but with this edit you removed my last 2! Gotta love EC :p Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, we're even then :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: NIN revert

Sorry about that. I did seem odd when I reverted it, because I thought I'd seen you around and you were a good editor. However, it looked like absolutely clear vandalism on Lupin's anti-vandal tool. The anti-vandal scripts are good, but there are the occasional false positives. Lick me in the ass is my favorite example; it got deleted three times before it sunk in that it was for real.

So, my apologies again. I think the comment you added was a great idea that should hopefully cut down on the problem.--Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. It's a nice article, by the way. I look forward to seeing it on the main page :).--Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts at searching for suitable free content to use here on Wikipedia, as well as taking the initiative to contact copyright holders to request they release their work under free licenses, I hereby award you this Working Man's Barnstar. =) krimpet⟲ 13:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)