User talk:Laser brain/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Laser brain. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Following up on C-SPAN FAC
Hi again Laser brain. Its been a little while since we last talked so I wanted to follow up with you about the C-SPAN FAC process. So far there have only been a few comments from two editors, which have all been addressed, but as of yet no votes one way or the other.
Since you seem to be very active in the FAC process I was hoping you could let me know what to expect at this point. I'll admit I'm not well-versed in FAC, and I'm at least a little concerned that my request is in jeopardy of being archived without conclusion; it hasn't attracted much response despite my efforts to reach out on various WikiProjects and to several editors who helped at Peer review.
Do you have any advice about how I can help this process along at this point? And do you still think you'll have time to review the article? Here is the discussion on the FAC page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there! First, I apologize that I haven't gotten around to reviewing it. My free time has been quite limited in the last couple of weeks, unfortunately. Second, I would say that it is definitely in danger of being archived if it doesn't received much more commentary. Commercial topics don't usually attract much attention at FAC—I have seen many such articles linger at FAC for weeks or months without much attention (see Nintendo DSi sitting at the bottom since July). Unless there is a huge backlog, the FAC coordinators may be flexible in allowing your nomination to stay open for a while if you communicate with them about it. I would recommend trying to solicit some reviews. Maybe you can look for active editors in similar topic areas and ask them if they'd like to review your article. Personally, I've found the best way to attract reviews is to build up capital by providing quality reviews for other nominations and then asking for one in return. --Laser brain (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the quick reply, this is helpful information. I had previously reviewed another FAC article, so I'll follow up with that editor and see if he is willing to return the favor. I'll also look into similar articles and see if I can find some new editors, and look at reviewing another candidate or two. And of course, if you could find the time to review and weigh in on the FAC discussion, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks again, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again, Laser brain. Just wanted to let you know that my submission at FAC was archived. However, in the last few weeks I was able to make some nice improvements to the article with the help of a few other editors and I do plan to resubmit once I am able. Would it be OK for me to reach out to you again at that point? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Korolev, Laika
Hi, There are films, fiction novels, graphic novels listed at the portrayals of Sergei Korolev. I added a new opera about him, is it really non-notable? (I would ask the same question to the Laika article...) Sincerely yours, GyS — Preceding unsigned comment added by GyS (talk • contribs) 09:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
YGM
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Genre warrior using IPs from Peru
I know you have tangled with this person previously so perhaps you will have some useful observation to make at the discussion I started at Wikipedia:ANI#IP range in South America being used disruptively. Either way, best wishes! Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Accidental error
Something went wrong with my browser and it was presenting an unusual edit screen mainly with text. It was working normally after I restarted the computer. I did not mean to revert your edit. I guess that I accidentally clicked when the cursor was over an action link. I only noticed that I had reverted your edit when I looked at the edit history after I restarted my computer.I can understand that you were irritated by my accidental edit, so I have explained. Snowman (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. Thanks for your help in getting the article over the top. --Laser brain (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I-196
You have some replies at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 196/archive1. It would be nice to continue working on whatever issues remain. I had committed edits to the article before your last reply, but due to some server issues, they didn't appear until after you had responded a few days ago. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry about the delay in getting back to it. I will take another look tomorrow and post up any other issues. Hopefully we can get everything squared away and move on. --Laser brain (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Half Million Award for Musical instrument
Was just looking at your user page, and it seems we owe you one of these. Thanks for taking on one of the big topics! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
|
The Half Million Award | |
| For your contributions to bring Musical instrument (estimated annual readership: 605,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC) |
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
| This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Musical instrument to Good Article status. |
A beer for you!
|
I don't agree with the broad "emotional problems" reasoning you made to uphold my block at AN; that's not the reason I was topic banned. However, I appreciate you taking the time to review the case. Cheers. MarshalN20 | Talk 14:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC) |
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Autism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis
Thanks
Just a quick note to thank you for your comment here that put the situation in a far better light then I've ever been able to. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- And a courtesy note that I've quoted you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Reagrding Elvis edit - Yeah, I really should learn the new/prevaling styles. Thanks for fixing it. Steve Pastor (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
| Thank you for your consistent, high-quality prose reviews at FAC nominations. We don't always agree on every point, but every article you review (whether you eventually support or not) ends up clearly improved by your thorough reviews. Thanks for helping ensure that Featured Articles have the highest-quality writing. – Quadell (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks! And, I would take it as a sign of trouble if everyone always agreed with me. :) --Laser brain (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Consensus on Guy Fawkes
Please read the Guy Fawkes talk page. There is consensus on the contradiction. There is one person who does not agree. Consent does not have to be unanimous and lone contrariness is not not an effective editing strategy. It is a common sense edit within Wikipedia guidelines and makes for a more intelligent and well written article. Nxxus (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- You reading is incorrect. Getsmart8699 correctly indicates Fawkes was never hung. PerrysFan states "While Fawkes was, indeed, quartered he did not die by hanging as indicated in the sidebar of the article as of 3:46 PM 5 November, 2013 (UTC). Fawkes cause of death should probably read "suicide" though he was, of course, jumping to avoid the pain and ignominy of death at the hands of the state. Killfile (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)". Please don't continue to insist on editing the article to read death "by hanging" as cause of death when this is directly contrary to consensus and the text of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nxxus (talk • contribs)
- By your logic on consensus, more editors disagree with the sidebar notation of "hanging". Why should that stand? You have not stated a reason. By your logic it should be edited to read "undetermined". You are free to do so. Moreover, if your assertion is the Fawkes indeed reached the noose and was attached to it when he jumped off the scaffolding, the article is poorly written, in particular, this sentence: "Weakened by torture and aided by the hangman, Fawkes began to climb the ladder to the noose, but either through jumping to his death or climbing too high so the rope was incorrectly set, he managed to avoid the agony of the latter part of his execution by breaking his neck. It should read: Weakened by torture and aided by the hangman, Fawkes climbed the ladder of the scaffolding, was affixed to the noose, but either through jumping to his death or climbing too high so the rope was incorrectly set, he managed to avoid the agony of the latter part of his execution by breaking his neck. Don't you agree?Nxxus (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that you've made it clear that you don't care about the quality of Wikipedia articles, you probably should remain silent. I'm not at war with anyone. If you are concerned about violation of Wikipedia policy, state so. If not, you are the very instigator of the behavior you supposedly wish
- By your logic on consensus, more editors disagree with the sidebar notation of "hanging". Why should that stand? You have not stated a reason. By your logic it should be edited to read "undetermined". You are free to do so. Moreover, if your assertion is the Fawkes indeed reached the noose and was attached to it when he jumped off the scaffolding, the article is poorly written, in particular, this sentence: "Weakened by torture and aided by the hangman, Fawkes began to climb the ladder to the noose, but either through jumping to his death or climbing too high so the rope was incorrectly set, he managed to avoid the agony of the latter part of his execution by breaking his neck. It should read: Weakened by torture and aided by the hangman, Fawkes climbed the ladder of the scaffolding, was affixed to the noose, but either through jumping to his death or climbing too high so the rope was incorrectly set, he managed to avoid the agony of the latter part of his execution by breaking his neck. Don't you agree?Nxxus (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
to stop. My only goal is to improve the article.Nxxus (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Bitcoin cited content revert
Sorry to berate, but how do you explain this revert? Do you need reminding that you can't just remove cited content if you, for whatever reason, dislike it? "Not accurate or current," is how you describe a widely reported event that occurred less than five days prior to your revert. I would imagine that "accurate and current" may be a better descriptor.
Bloomberg alone has three pieces on this story (here, here, and here), and here's a link to a google news search for good measure. Fleetham (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
A quick thank-you
Hello. I'm AmericanLemming, and I would like to thank you for letting me know when I did something wrong. I may have been on this site for close to a year now, but I'm still learning the ropes. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since you were considerate enough to be frank with me (which I greatly appreciate), I would like to be frank with you: I do not appreciate calling what I did in asking for reviewers for Treblinka on the three oldest FACs "pimping". Call it improper soliciting, obstructive, unwise, wrong, whatever you like, but don't call it "pimping". I did what I did not knowing that I shouldn't have done it, and I think calling it pimping implies malicious motives on my part. I thank you again for pointing out what I did wrong, but I wish you would have worded your message slightly differently. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it's true what they say: Pimpin' ain't easy. --Laser brain (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Positive vibes
Just sayin' how much you are appreciated :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello; you gave input on the first nomination of 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game, so I thought I would inform you that the article is back up for featured article for a second attempt. You are welcome to review it and comment on it (or not) if you want, but I figured I would inform that it is back up to spark discussion. Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 16:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Template editor
Laser, Casliber started on the medical editnotices, but seems to be off for the day now. Do you know if it is possible to change my userrights so that I can edit templates? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- That should do it.. try now? --Laser brain (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am thrilled-- you are a dear! These editnotices could have saved me so much agida over the years. Yippee ! Thank you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Howdy! I just wanted to explain my edit to Ruff; the species is listed here and on List of birds of Ukraine (which relies on that source). I agree, it is not present on the distribution map. If you have an idea what might be going on with the species, I am quite curious. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- @TeaDrinker: Hm, definitely outside my domain of knowledge. I only have the page watchlisted because I reviewed it when it was up for FA status. @Jimfbleak:, do you know why the species would appear on the list for Ukraine but isn't present on the range map? I suppose it depends on what sources you consult when you make the map. What is the accepted way of resolving such discrepancies? --Laser brain (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. A number of comments
- The map shows just breeding and wintering areas. Migrating birds often occur in countries on passage, sometimes in large numbers (Black Tern, for example, is common on passage in the UK, but doesn't breed or winter), so absence from the map doesn't imply absence from the country
- Ruff breeds in northernmost Ukraine, but not further south, according to the sources I've listed on the map's file page. Some what elderly (1986) data suggests less than ten breeding pairs. I think the map shows that, but feel free to extend the colour just over the Ukrainian border if you don't think that the map includes any of the Ukraine as drawn.
- Avibase is a bit derivative, this is better, although obviously it confirms that the Ruff is a non-vagrant species in the Ukraine
- I'm watching this page now in case there are any unresolved issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. A number of comments
Happy Holidays...
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
Precious
featured pet projects
Thank you, Andy, for quality articles such as Elderly Instruments and Musical Instruments, for FAC reviews, for you projects (people and whisky), and for knowing about break and retirement, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 February 2010)!
TRM
You need to issue that same warning to The Rambling Man. He is the cause of most of this skirmish. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like you've as good as done so. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- TRM's statement that "Bugs has a history of being unable to contribute constructively per his Arbcom advice..." is a matter of opinion. "...and that's evident in every post he makes" is a flat-out lie. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wrong dude, you're the cause of the skirmish. Stop acting like a comedian, we'd all get on better. You need to improve, per all the advice you've been given. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your assertion that "every post" I make is valueless remains a flat-out lie on your part. And since the complaint was raised, I have attempted to keep my responses to questions on the straight and narrow. If that's not good enough for you, I don't know what else to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wrong dude, you're the cause of the skirmish. Stop acting like a comedian, we'd all get on better. You need to improve, per all the advice you've been given. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- TRM's statement that "Bugs has a history of being unable to contribute constructively per his Arbcom advice..." is a matter of opinion. "...and that's evident in every post he makes" is a flat-out lie. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Really guys? --Laser brain (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Really. Shameful, isn't it? As ever, I'll get back to improving articles, and we'll let Bugs and Medeis do the ref desk thing. I'll file the RFC shortly. Although shortly, with a young baby, seems to be anywhere between half-an-hour and half-a-year, so don't hold your breath guys! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Concidentally, someone reported the other day that TRM has been making this same threat for half a year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, both BB and Meds have been threatening ANI for half a year. "Looking over his contributions to WP:AN/I, they're usually adding to the drama or really lame jokes that often derail serious conversations taking place there". ZZZZ. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have no clue what TRM is talking about in the above statement. If he can show where I've "threatened" to take him to ANI but didn't actually do so, I'll retract. As a practical matter, I don't think I ever even heard of TRM until this past few weeks. He came out of the blue and started attacking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, I really do believe all three of you mean well. But now my question is whether any of you cares enough to go beyond recreational complaining and actually do something. It may be that all of you have a point, or that none of you have a point. But I think it's been well-illustrated that your actions to solve your differences thus far haven't been very effective.
- Yep, indeed. I've continued to improve content while Bugs and his cohort have just created drama by upsetting people at the RD. I'll continue to improve Wikipedia, I'm sure Bugs and his cohort will continue to do what they do. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I find that hard to believe.BB has years of experience and thousands of edits.I am sure he has worked just as hard to improve the articles here as you or most anyone else.193.169.86.13 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)- Redacted It appears that BB has very few edits to the article space, and those that I checked are of no improvement to the encyclopedia. It didn't take long reviewing the RD talk archives to find more than a dozen times where he has been asked to cease his antics. 193.169.86.13 (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't look back far enough. As I explained to TRM, I used to make lots of article edits. I eventually got tired of dealing with vandals, and turned my focus towards answering questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Such a martyr, turned your focus to comedy duetting with Medeis more like. Also you've ignored the dozens of people who have asked you to improve your behaviour. Hopefully now it's curtailed and you and Medeis can start providing proper responses at the chat boards. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't look back far enough. As I explained to TRM, I used to make lots of article edits. I eventually got tired of dealing with vandals, and turned my focus towards answering questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, indeed. I've continued to improve content while Bugs and his cohort have just created drama by upsetting people at the RD. I'll continue to improve Wikipedia, I'm sure Bugs and his cohort will continue to do what they do. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, I really do believe all three of you mean well. But now my question is whether any of you cares enough to go beyond recreational complaining and actually do something. It may be that all of you have a point, or that none of you have a point. But I think it's been well-illustrated that your actions to solve your differences thus far haven't been very effective.
- I have no clue what TRM is talking about in the above statement. If he can show where I've "threatened" to take him to ANI but didn't actually do so, I'll retract. As a practical matter, I don't think I ever even heard of TRM until this past few weeks. He came out of the blue and started attacking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, both BB and Meds have been threatening ANI for half a year. "Looking over his contributions to WP:AN/I, they're usually adding to the drama or really lame jokes that often derail serious conversations taking place there". ZZZZ. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Concidentally, someone reported the other day that TRM has been making this same threat for half a year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Really. Shameful, isn't it? As ever, I'll get back to improving articles, and we'll let Bugs and Medeis do the ref desk thing. I'll file the RFC shortly. Although shortly, with a young baby, seems to be anywhere between half-an-hour and half-a-year, so don't hold your breath guys! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hullo Andy, I wondered if you'd mind copyediting/reviewing this article -- I'm looking for someone outside the Roads project who can also tidy prose. Squeamish Ossifrage had a look and opposed but hasn't been around for a while. His concerns have been addressed but my quick spotcheck of the lead suggested there's still room for improvement. Anyway it's a very short article so shouldn't take too long if you get a chance. Tks and Happy New Year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. Just double-checked and it's been a while since the editor has been at FAC so a quick spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing would be great as well if you can manage it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I should be able to get to it within the next 24 hours. --Laser brain (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I should be able to get to it within the next 24 hours. --Laser brain (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you able to come back to this review? --AdmrBoltz 05:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I should be able to revisit today. --Laser brain (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Happy New Year. Do you have the time to review this FAC? I would be very grateful. I think the nomination would benefit from your input. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can look at it today if that will work for you. --Laser brain (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Props
- Also trout to BMK for using bold, italics, and underlining all in one place.
That was hilarious on so many levels at once. My hat is off to you, sir. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Queens of the Stone Age
Please put a reasonable time-limit on the full protection of Queens of the Stone Age. With limited exceptions such as Office- or Arbcom-imposed or -sanctioned situations, "indefinite full protection" is a bad thing, frequently worse than the problem it solves.
Please reduce the terms of the full protection to something like 1-2 years, or less if possible. Consider putting and "update after" or similar template that will expire shortly before the full protection to remind the community to re-add at least semi-protection when the full protections expires.
If a "PC2-protection" proposal that would allow this article to be put under PC2 protection passes, consider immediately downgrading the protection to PC2 as soon as such a proposal passes.
Also, please add an appropriate pp- template so people know that the page is fully protected and when that protection will expire. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for missing the pp template. There used to be a bot that would come by and apply that, but I guess it's not operating any more. As far as indefinite protection, there is nothing wrong with that if the protecting admin is monitoring the situation with the intention of lifting the protection when the dispute is resolved or blown over. I would never indefinitely protect a page and then walk away. --Laser brain (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not intentionally I'm sure. Sometimes real-world events pull us away from Wikipedia or even the Internet completely for unexpectedly-long periods of time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, thank you for removing the protection. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
IP 58 post at WP:ANI
What was that, anyway, that you redacted? Was it meant to be pornographic? Whatever it was, redaction was a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually another admin redacted it, but it was a reference to an external web site that must be verboten around here. --Laser brain (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Laser - hope you don't mind, but I modified the block settings a bit to remove the ability of the IP to even do the same thing on his own talk page. (I also stripped email rights which was a silly mistake since IP's can't email, but... oh well. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- The explanation is that it was meant to be pornographic or something. In any case, redaction was a good idea, and its size and grossness were such that "block first, ask questions later" was in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good to know. Hopefully they've gotten bored and will find another hobby. --Laser brain (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- The explanation is that it was meant to be pornographic or something. In any case, redaction was a good idea, and its size and grossness were such that "block first, ask questions later" was in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Block of H2ppyme
While the H2ppyme (talk · contribs) reverted multiple times, let me point out that at least once it was a revert of a sock of blocked Tokyo2001 (talk · contribs) and therefore should be considered an acceptable behavior (why 112.169.25.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is not blocked - or repeatedly socking Tokyo2001 permbanned is beyond my understanding). 72h for the very first offense - and while in an edit war with a sock - seems to be a bit excessive.
Also, please don't buy "this editor has attempted to enforce their personal preference against consensus". There is no such consensus - if you look at the linked discussion, nothing remotely like consensus emerged there.
- None of it is acceptable behavior. I don't care why they were edit warring, or against whom. Did you happen to read the note on Talk:Jaanus_Sorokin? The article was protected in December and the protecting admin made it very clear that editors should seek consensus. As soon as the page was unlocked, they just started at it again. I see that you decided to pick up the mantle as well now that the other two are blocked—that is a very bad idea. --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would point out Sander that there was an Rfc which I know you are aware of that did come to a consensus for hockey players. So you are being a bit disingenuous pointing to one RfC claiming there was no-consensus when there was a more specific one which did. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)consensensus
- And if you would have read the RFC, then you would know that there was no consensus.
- Really, I do not understand why people wish to politicize and complicate this simple issue. Why not go with the facts and sources instead of vague revisionism?
- --Sander Säde 08:10, 24 January 2014 ::(UTC)
- Yes it would be nice if you guys stopped with the attempted revisionism. Trying to whitewash the situation and politicize it like you have been is tiring. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thankfully, "we guys" don't do revisionism... unless you think that the international law scholars and courts are all "revisionists". You really may want to read State continuity of the Baltic states as a first thing. "We guys" have the sources, court decisions and facts. Considering that after all these years of debates, "you guys" have yet to come up with a single solid and modern in-depth source supporting your viewpoint...
- P.S. And I really, really dislike the battle mentality of your message.
- Yes it would be nice if you guys stopped with the attempted revisionism. Trying to whitewash the situation and politicize it like you have been is tiring. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- --Sander Säde 08:10, 24 January 2014 ::(UTC)
- 72 hours is excessive, 24 hours is the usual length for a first offense, and User:Djsasso is being somewhat tendentious in claiming consensus exists, as an uninvolved admin observed previously: "it doesn't seem like there is an overridding consensus either way". --Nug (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't agree. This user has been warned multiple times for edit warring in the past, and knew exactly what they were doing when they waited for page protection to end and resumed battle on the page in question. Had they posted a reasonable unblock request addressing their behavior, I would have considered an early unblock, but that has not materialized. If they keep it up after this block expires, I will issue a longer one. --Laser brain (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice
Thanks for your advice, I am not interested in engaging in an edit war, that's why I am using the talk page. Please read what I wrote in the talk pake instead of accusing me of engaging in an edit war (if you are accusing me, I'm not sure). 186.18.238.70 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, all 4 titles that currently exist in the talk page of Empire of Brazil were created by me. That demonstrates that I am open to discussion.186.18.238.70 (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Your contribution is needed
|
Hello Laser brain/Archive 4, you are cordially invited to join the initiative Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. We're a group of editors working to maintain and improve database of those editors who are no longer with us. All of these deceased Wikipedians have changed Wikipedia for the better in some way. Now, it is our turn to pay them tributes and obituaries.
If you know any Wikipedia editor, who is no longer with us, but their names are not included in our list still, please let us know. Visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Rudra john cena (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) |
Hello, I have recently nominated 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game for featured article for a third time. You were a commenter on the first attempt so I figured I would inform you of this. The previous attempts have failed due to lack of discussion, so if you have the time you input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 00:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Collective nouns
Hi Laser brain, I've never communicated like this before, so please forgive me if I make any faux pas – it would be unwitting. The convention in British English is that collective nouns are singular. Thus, the England cricket team *is* on a tour of Australia. Likewise, Mumford and Sons is on a tour of the USA. To treat a collective noun as plural is illogical, especially if you manage to be inconsistent in your writing in the same passage (see the first paragraph of M & S's entry).
I hope that this provides you with useful information.
McDuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by McDuff (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Help, please
Hi, Andy. I need a bit of admin assistance. I am currently working on Profumo Affair. I tried to move the article name to "Profumo affair", as more in keeping with current capitalisation practice, but the move wasn't accepted and I was told to seek admin help. So here I am. Can you investigate? Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- All set! --Laser brain (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| I think that you made a very difficult decision that I considered myself but ultimately I didn't have the guts to deal with the fallout if there was any. I was going to email this message instead, but if you can block another admin, I should be able to support you publicly. I think 48 hours was a good call. v/r - TP 04:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC) |
- seriously, TParis, who knew Laser would make a great admin?? (I don't know who he blocked, but I know he gets it right) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Haha, fair enough SandyGeorgia, kudos to you too. Disappointed this had to happen overall, but glad someone had more guts than me to do what was right.--v/r - TP 06:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No, as per below, a poor decision. You may have the gts to block another admin, but you've ponly done half a job: both were culpable, and you shoud have gone for both or neither. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, TP and Sandy—and thanks SchroCat for taking time to weigh in. --Laser brain (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I support the decision to block. It is especially difficult given the nature of an admin blocking a fellow admin, but it was a gutsy call, and I salute you for making it. Sad that there seemed to be no willingness by the subject to express anything but outrage and defiance. Jusdafax 19:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm so pleased that you're so pleased to receive a barnstar for your efforts, you must be so proud of that and your half-complete implementation of the IBAN. You'll be forever remembered for your inequitable approach. Well played. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
RM @ ANI
A poor decision, I'm afraid. Both are equally culpable, so you block both or neither, not jut take one side because of the "please sir, he started it" routine. I suggest you re-visit the matter to look at it with an open mind and a fresh pair of eyes. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, SchroCat, I couldn't help but to notice your jibe that I "failed to live up to my name". I always find it amusing when people think my username is a reference to my intelligence. Haven't you seen Star Wars? Leia calls Han "laser brain" because he thinks the solution to every problem is firing off his blaster. So, wouldn't you say I did live up to my name? --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Do you mind if I undo the block? The point has been taken by TRM, and it will be better for Wikipedia to undo this block and maybe reconsider the whole interaction ban. Those two might be given a page where they can fight it out and either resolve their issues or else become so disgusted that one or both quits. Jehochman Talk 15:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't mind. But I think it's preposterous to state that the point has been taken by TRM. --Laser brain (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Probably not as preposterous as only doing half the job. It was both or neither. The tag team have been trying to get him blocked for a while, and you were the one that took the bait after the nth time they went to ANI - most of which were on spurious grounds and rightly thrown out. If you truly believe TRM overstepped the mark here and that a ban was merited, you have to also lock the other party who was equally culpable. It's preposterous not to do so. As to your "Laser Brain" comment above, I saw SW in 1977 and haven't seen it since, so the reference passed me by. Glad you can find humour in the situation, and if Leia meant Solo kept going off half-cocked and not completing the job, then I was in error: your name is perfect. – SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't mind. But I think it's preposterous to state that the point has been taken by TRM. --Laser brain (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Do you mind if I undo the block? The point has been taken by TRM, and it will be better for Wikipedia to undo this block and maybe reconsider the whole interaction ban. Those two might be given a page where they can fight it out and either resolve their issues or else become so disgusted that one or both quits. Jehochman Talk 15:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think he will be much more careful about interacting with Medeis going forward because he knows he would get blocked, even if he does not agree that he did something wrong. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Thanks for assisting. --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think he will be much more careful about interacting with Medeis going forward because he knows he would get blocked, even if he does not agree that he did something wrong. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Good to see you
I hope that this signifies a welcome return to action. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes and thank you. I'm like an old academic who retires but keeps hanging around the campus. --Laser brain (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
YGM
Please catch up soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Great work on this article, Andy, and going by past experience, none of the work you're putting in will be wasted ... the wikiproject has plenty of people who will action the comments, they just may wait until they're doing the nomming before they do that :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Awesome. And thanks for the work you're doing to step in, address issues, and generally move the process forward. --Laser brain (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Source review request
Hi Andy, could I trouble you for a source review at the William Wurtenburg FAC if you have a chance? Many tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
- Sure thing, will do today. --Laser brain (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Jason Ricci
Hello.
Thanks for all your work on the Jason Ricci page. I found a number of details in relation to his father, which I have included. His date of birth is mentioned here; possibly taken from his previous website.
His sexuality appears quite prominent on the page, which I noticed you done some editing on. Some of the recent articles and reports I found mention a girlfriend. So he possibly is bi-sexual? Recent material expand quite a great deal on his trouble with the law and his addiction.
http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/heroin-costs-world-famous-harmonica-player-64383/
I suppose some of this material needs to be included in the page in some way. But before embarking on it, I would prefer to discuss it first. Karst (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help on this! Yes I was working on the page to bring some balance to it, and at the same time I've been looking up some sources. His personal web site has a hidden page where he's posted some scanned news articles as well (hidden meaning there is no link to it on his front page, but I found it via googling). I'd like to end with a balanced page where his musicianship is the focus (since that's why he's notable) but we also pay due attention to the elements of his personal life which are prominent in sources (mainly his struggles with drugs/prison and his sexuality). I've heard him describe himself as both "gay" and "bisexual" in interviews, so I'm not sure where to go with that. --Laser brain (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to favour bisexual, considering the above references point to a girlfriend, but it would be good to have a detailed reference on that from him. I suppose a personal life section would cover those issues, leaving the rest of the article to focus on the music. When that is done, the lengthy quote can be reduced further. The articles on his website I had indeed not noticed, those would be very useful indeed! Karst (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Precious again
featured pet projects
Thank you, Andy, for quality articles such as Elderly Instruments and Musical Instruments, for FAC reviews, for you projects (people and whisky), and for knowing about break and retirement, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 February 2010)!
A year ago, you were the 700th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
ps: perhaps the list of recipients might serve as a list of people better not to block ;) - we have enough sorrow (see links to the image on talk pages) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC) |
I noticed you had questions about the article's nomination.
Ask away! Hawaiifive0 (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: Tyler Bates
For now, I'm working in some spanish wikipedia articles. Tyler Bate's article may not look good, but it has a more complete information about his work in the film industry that it had before, if you want to finish the table and add more information about his other work, do it, if not, then do what ever you want. However when I have some free time, I'll add the rest of the tables with his work on TV, Games etc... Goodbye!--Fallengrademan (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
New logging system for DS notices (since 3 May 2014)
Hello Laser brain. Recently you updated the notice log at WP:ARBIPA. Arbcom case logs shouldn't contain any 'notice' entries later than 3 May, 2014 since that's when Arbcom switched over to using an edit filter for notices. Some information is at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. See also the comment under 'Log of notifications' at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of notifications. The advice not to log notices any more is scattered around on various arb-related talk pages. Explanation of how to notify is given in Template:Ds/alert. To clear this up, I'll ask User:Callanecc if he agrees that the notice log of WP:ARBIPA should be trimmed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I must have made a wrong turn in the maze somewhere. I think last time I notified someone I got in trouble for not putting it in the log. ;) Thanks for the refresher, and for all your hard work. --Laser brain (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
You're back!?
Sooo many years ago. I"m very glad to see you here. Tony (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Tony1: Yes! Thanks for the warm words. --Laser brain (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
response to message
|
response to message |
| Hi Laser Brain,
Couldn't figure out how to respond to your message. I am not ed stringham and I don't believe I've violated the wikipedia's conflict of interest stipulation. I was however mistaken in posting the copyrighted material, and understand and appreciate your decision to remove it. I merely want to see more anarcho-capitalist academic literature. Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, and many other ancaps are already all over wikipedia. I'm just looking to add some modern ancap literature, like that of Stringhams. :) Regardless, I think I will take a break from editing as it's back to school for me. Econgrad03281992 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
A brownie for you!
|
I don't believe we've crossed paths before, but I have been on Wikipedia for 9 years. Needless to say, I've been around for some fun discussions and some less-than-fun discussions. I just wanted give you my thanks. Thank you for all the effort you have put into Wikipedia. You are a great contributor to the project.
Have a nice day! Best wishes! hmich176 18:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
Welcome back to FAC!
Welcome back to the FAC delegate/coordinator team, Andy -- following the closure of the FAC and FAR coordinator proposal earlier today, I've added your name to FAC instructions and the @FAC template, so you're right in it again now... ;-) Looking forward to working with you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: thanks! Glad to be aboard once again. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Andy, welcome aboard, and let me know if I can help with anything. - Dank (push to talk) 22:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Reply re chill
Thanks, Laser brain, I agree that it is time for all parties involved to chill, please, as you say. Therefore, as noted, on my user talk page, I'm taking some time off to exercise and get some fresh air. — Cirt (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Steve Zakuani
Do you have a few moments to take another look at Steve Zakuani. It isn't ready yet but I want to see if it is on the right track. I addressed some sourcing, English variances, and other MOS while cutting out some of the more "fluffier" language. More importantly, I wanted to address your concern over the breadth of content and expanded the section on his professional career along with a few other shorter paragraphs.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I know you have other stuff on your plate but I plan on putting this to FAC again. Wanted to make sure there were no major objections.Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Cptnono: At a quick glance, it seems much improved but I admittedly have not taken the time to look to see if you have made use of all the good sources available. Are you confident you have found all the good sources (done a library search, prominent football periodicals, etc.)? You might also consider finding a non-involved editor to just read through it and give you a second opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving it a quick look and good idea. I was able to pull up articles from around the world ranging from small operations with press passes to Sports Illustrated to English press. There is a line in a paper "FIFA Eligibility Rules and the Impact on the U.S. Men's National" that I found the abstract to. I'll see if I can get access.Cptnono (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Cptnono: At a quick glance, it seems much improved but I admittedly have not taken the time to look to see if you have made use of all the good sources available. Are you confident you have found all the good sources (done a library search, prominent football periodicals, etc.)? You might also consider finding a non-involved editor to just read through it and give you a second opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Look, maybe I'm jumping the gun on this, but...
I thought you might want to know that The Rambling Man is circling around Medeis again suddenly. After being absent from the Ref Desks since the last time he was accused of following her there to hound her (connecting with the same ANI discussion in which you blocked or unblocked him; the events also caused a fair amount of disruptive discussion on the Ref Desk talk pages at the time)...anyway, after being absent from that point on, he's suddenly shown up again and, without any other kind of activity on the desks first, has joined a discussion about a topic which Medeis is being generally criticized for right now. He doesn't mention her by name, but he does lambast the very activity she's being described as engaging in, and just scatter-shot insults anybody who happens to be standing nearby at the same time, in that way of his so that he can't be technically said to be engaging with her directly.
Like I told him, I don't know that it's a screaming violation of his IBAN, but he doesn't seem to be there for constructive purposes in any event, and with his ill regard for the place generally, I should think he would want to avoid that space, given two users he has IBANs with contribute there more or less daily. Especially as said IBANS have collectively garnered 9 or 10 ANI inquieries -- I forget exactly how many exactly; 9 or 10 more than should have been necessary if they could act like editors should, in any event. Anyway I thought you might want to be aware of it, in case it's destined to explode on to ANI -- once again, almost immediately after the last one closed. Honestly, if it does (and I don't care which of them starts it or which of them overreacts this time), my only lowly (but I suspect popular) recommendation from the outset is going to be ArbCom. I know they have their hands full with larger issues right now, but this needs to at least be presented to them next if those parties (TRM and Medeis in particular) can't learn to stay out of eachother's way. Or at least that's what I think.
Anyway, I'm going to try not to get further enured in the petty drama between them on this go around, but before I began ducking the whole affair entirely I thought someone with oversight privileges best be aware of where things seemed they might be headed. I couldn't recall exactly if you were the admin who blocked him or unblocked him (blocked, I think), but I've seen you engage him more than any other single admin at ANI, so I figured you were the one to inform. For obvious reasons, I didn't want to ANI it. Hope I'm not just bringing you a giant headache.... Snow talk 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise: I appreciate the time you've taken to examine this situation and attempt a reasonable response. I'm not willing to waste any more time on it—and it is a waste because neither the community nor the belligerents have any real interest in solving the problem. The community did not back me up when I took administrative action against TRM for violating the IBAN, so I won't be doing it again, even though the thread you linked is an obvious violation. Jehochman made a good faith effort to mediate at the time he unblocked TRM, but that didn't go anywhere and I'm positive TRM did not interpret any of what has happened as negative reinforcement of his behavior. If anything, they've all been shown that the community will continue to tolerate it. Maybe it will end up at ArbCom, at which time I'll file a statement and evidence, but until then I've got more productive things to do. I advise you do the same. --Laser brain (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, alright -- I can't rightly say I blame you for not wanting to be the one to put yourself out there again in that context. Certainly I couldn't agree more with most everything you've said, especially as regards the fact that the community has largely enabled, rather than restrained, this whole affair and that the disruptive parties have only been emboldened as a result. TRM in particular is so consistently insulting in his dealings with others (especially when his behaviour is under direct scrutiny), that it's just jarring to me; I can't imagine anyone else getting away with 1/100th as much without a block. Perhaps Jehochman will be willing to take a look at the matter, if only to follow the discussion on the talk page and make sure things do not get out of hand; TRM didn't exactly utilize the unblock in the spirit Jehochman had intended, after-all. But I rather got the impression from the last ANI that they were as fed-up up with the matter as you. Well, I hope somebody with a mop follows it in any event, because once that ball gets rolling, nothing short of tools is going to stop it. Good luck to the regular editors who get caught in that gravity well in the meantime... Snow talk 16:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's past time to take this matter to arbitration and get it settled finally. There needs to be a deep look at who's doing what wrong and craft a mandatory solution. Noticeboards aren't good for complex, multi-party disputes, especially when an admin is involved. Jehochman Talk 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: I'm fairly well certain that there is going to be broad community support for this approach if this has to be addressed (which is looking, unsurprisingly, like it's going to be sooner rather than later). The only question is, who is going to bring the matter to them? I don't mean to pass the buck here, gentleman, but I think it needs to be an admin. TRM has a habit of slandering anybody who takes issue with his behaviour as essentially out for his blood, even if they just happen to be bystanders to his main conflict with someone else entirely and are simply asking him to reflect a little on whether his actions might be contributing the problem. As a personal example, here's where I came to appreciate just how big and long-standing this conflict has been. Note that prior to this flare-up, I'd had no experience or knowledge of TRM or his issues with Medeis and Bugs; the sum total of my experience with him before commenting at the ANI is that about a week before I had asked him a half-dozen times to please try to be more civil in his discussion with others, all of this transpiring in a single discussion on a single talk page. Nonetheless, when I commented at ANI, TRM had absolutely no reservations about misrepresenting -- no, outright lying about -- our past involvement, saying "Snow has used various venues to berate me and my approach to trying to improve the Ref Desk" and saying my behaviour is "indicative of someone with a serious grudge."
- He does this with everyone who takes issue with his behaviour, however tangentially; he goes WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the issue he is asked to address, and then instantly switches the discussion to be about the party that asked him to examine his own behaviour, implying that they have an axe to grind with him. In fact, almost as invariably he actually accuses them of being a part of some conspiracy/club/plot/what-have-you that are explicitly out to see him blocked from the site or otherwise thwarted just because he is sharing unpopular truths and thus isn't popular himself ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]; this is just a portion of the available diffs from just two of the involved threads). He's been told a number of times that these comments often take the form of WP:AGF and WP:NPA violations, but he just doesn't see it that way, or just doesn't care. And the beauty of his system is that it works, because once he's made enough of these accusations, he can therefore say the parties he has directed them at are "involved" in the conflict, just because he heaped enough abuse upon them while they were trying to separate him from others. This is his ubiquitous response to criticism; the only people I've ever seen directly call his behaviour without triggering this sort of response (well mostly without doing so) are the two of you, and I don't think it's just a coincidence that you two just happen to be the only two administrators I've seen him interact with.
- In short, if this issue does need to go to ArbCom, it needs to be taken there by someone with a broad enough profile in the community for known impartiality that they cannot just be disparaged as someone acting out a personal vendetta. Ideally, someone who has a community mandate to be be assessing user behaviour. That is to say, an admin. I certainly understand if neither of you wants to be that person -- and indeed the two of you have done far more already than any other admins -- but someone at ANI needs to step up to the plate, or this will never end. And by the way, Medeis has been no paragon herself -- I could easily reference as many times that she had protracted this whole affair. But her problematic behaviour is different from TRM's and I don't view her as the one who has the potential to make an ArbCom case a nightmare for a non-admin bringing it to ArbCom, dragging them into the mud, no matter that their only real aim was to bring a close to this un-ending disruption surrounding this pair and their IBAN.
- But that's it, I've done my due diligence here. I've taken this as far up the chain as I can and made every effort I could to summarize for the community what has passed between these parties. Hopefully someone else picks up this thread and takes enough interest to take it ArbCom so they can unravel things altogether. If not, I think it's a dimn omen of just how little control over disruptive behaviour we are going to have as the administrative process becomes even more undermanned and stressed. So, I'm at your disposal if either of you wants me to clarify my position here, but otherwise I'm going to keep a wide birth of the above-mentioned parties until their issues are taken somewhere where something might actually be done about them. Apologies as to the length of this post on your talk page, LB, but I wanted to summarize my observations of this matter for an admin (and make it clear why I think some admin needs to lead any approach to ArbCom) before I divested myself of involvement. Snow talk 04:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note, Laser Brain: I'm sorry to have had to do it when you so clearly wanted to be left clear of this thing, but I did invoke your above opinion while talking to TRM on the talk page. He's not exiting his involvement there but rather showing all signs of again manning the guns to make this a thing. And, much as predicted, he's accusing me of "stalking" him (even though I am a regular in that space, and he is not and only commented because he is being disruptive in violation of the IBAN yet again). In order to make sure his specious claim did not get traction, I decided to point out to him that an administrator found his behaviour to be once again violation of his ban (regardless of whether they chose to personally take action on it). I did it knowing it entailed more direct involvement of your opinion than you anticipated, and for that I'm sorry, but I'm at my wit's end here in how to make this editor see that his behaviour is not appropriate. Every other editor there is trying to tell him the same thing, but he just can't hear it and no one knows what to do. I don't want to take this to ANI and I don't want to keep personally engaging other admins or TRM himself. What can be done here? Can you recommend, in an oversight capacity, another admin who might be able to engage here and bring some resolution? Regular editors are getting swamped by this matter and are tired of having their good names (established through consistent and good-faith behaviour over years) dragged through the mud simply because they want to see an end to this incivility from an editor who is willing to say anything about anyone who tries to shine a light on his hostility.
Please, I know WP:CHOICE is as relevant to admins as any other volunteer, but please, no one without privileges and a clear community mandate that protects their involvement should have to be left to deal with this mess just because they can't stand by and say nothing while this goes on in front of them. Especially when the party necessitating this oversight is an admin themselves. Any kind of advice -- any kind of referral to a further forum that has not been explored, or an administrator you trust to look into this impartially, will be appreciated here to a degree I can't express. Snow talk 07:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise: I believe the situation has risen firmly above the purview of any single admin. As I said, when I took action in the past I was not supported. That does not mean I did something wrong, but it is an indication that broader consensus and discussion (and probably authority) are needed to take further action. The only thing left is ArbCom, which anyone can file and participate in. I'm not a good candidate to launch an ArbCom effort because I simply have better things to do than try to impose self-control on a group of adults. Consider un-watching AN/I, Ref Desk, and ITN. You might find your blood pressure dropping precipitously. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I don't blame any one single admin for not wanting to get involved. You seem convinced that conventional remedies will continue to fail -- and ANI is tapped, there's no doubt there -- but that doesn't mean rank and file editors should just "get out of his way" and let him do what he wants. With respect, sir, it's easy for you to advise patience with waiting until he lands himself at ArbCom; I have to watch him come repeatedly into that space to insult or hound other editors and generally raise a hornet's nest -- and then somehow convince himself he's actually a champion guarding against trolls. Are you really advising that I turn a blind eye to that?
- That's a tall order when he couples this behaviour with personal attacks. You know what he's doing right now on that talk page? In the most recent ANI, Medeis at one point compared herself to a rape victim in an overzealous metaphor to try to explain how she felt "blamed by the police"; I was the only person there, the only one, who (despite feeling that Medeis is being hounded), took the time to tell Medeis that her metaphor was hyperbolic and then spent a moment showing her that her own behaviour was not exactly helpful. I was the only person to question that metaphor as excessive. So what does TRM do? He references that event in a way that suggests that I was "on the bandwagon" with Medeis' accusation, rather than the only person who was trying to get Medeis to keep things real. Since I told him not to do this once before, and made clear this is a subject matter I do not take light, and since he's made this comment once again without a diff, this is without a doubt a personal attack under our policies. He can't prove what says, but he just says it, leaves it out there and never addresses it if you demand proof. And this has got to be the 30th time at least that I've seen him do this with another editor just in the few short weeks I've been aware of him. Are you telling me that the only way any one of us can get this addressed is to file it at ArbCom? That's a tough one to swallow.
- But mind you, my blood pressure is really quite fine over this issue, please try to believe me. I know I've been, well, verbose to say the least here. But I'm just trying to cross my t's and dot my i's so that no accusation I make is not well supported by evidence. Because that's the only option a non-admin has when they have to engage tendentious editor at length.
- You're right of course, it seems inevitable that he will wreck himself on ArbCom sooner or later, via one party or another. But neither am I exactly content in the meantime to just watch him pollute a valuable part of the project with his histrionics and temper. Or just sit back and accept his personal attacks upon anyone who just tries to get him to back off from his targets.
- I think I'm overdue to not trouble your talk space with it at all from this point forward. But I want to part noting this is not a case of someone just getting under my skin. He's a real problem, and he's an admin. That makes him doubly an administrative issue in these circumstances. That's the only reason I've bothered you and the only reason I've gone on at such length. I'm sorry if all I accomplished was to hound you with something that you (understandably) want no part of. I thought it was important to try this instead of ANI this time. I'm not sure what to do at this point. Snow talk 07:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise: Don't worry that you are bothering or hounding me—I'm more than happy to engage with pretty much anyone, even if they just want a sounding board. I have taken previous action, so it's appropriate to discuss potential further actions with me. If an ArbCom case is opened, I would be involved, so I certainly would like to stay in the loop. Your verbosity is not a problem for me either. It's your discourse style and I can't fault you for that.
- Since you are concerned and you have indicated that this conflict affects your spheres of interest on a regular basis, have you considered filing an ArbCom case? It would be a constructive way forward. --Laser brain (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, I considered it from the very start when I first saw him treating people uncivilly on the Ref Desk talk page and then followed the matter back to ANI and saw the whole sordid history there. Looking through the archives and watching first-hand in the then-present thread as TRM misrepresented his behaviour and the parties involved, I was pretty appalled and I even told TRM if he kept harassing users in the manner I had observed that I would take the matter to ArbCom. I shouldn't have hesitated to follow through on that (because of course he did continue to treat other uncivily) and at that time I was still relatively uninvolved. At this point, seven weeks, three ANI's and a couple of talk threads later and I just made to many attempts to try to reign in his personal attacks. Nevermind the fact that I've never had a content disagreement with TRM and have only ever engaged him when I felt there was a major civility issue inolved. He'll still find a way to try make it seem that my request for ArbCom attention is somehow a vendetta against him.
- Mind you, I don't doubt ArbCom's ability to quickly parse his nonsense once they've taken the case, but he'll do everything in his power in the interim to discredit whoever brings the action against him, to try to make the matter look frivolous and personal. That's why I've settled on another course of action if he proves incapable of backing away from this discussion that involves Medeis or persists in personal attacks against anyone. I'm really hoping he sees common sense and lets the matter go, but if this has to go before ArbCom, it should do so as a community recommendation, so that he can't point to the person making the filing and imply a grudge, as he is wont to do. I believe I know the way to do that in the most open and above-board manner possible. Hopefully TRM will not force the issue, but I'll keep you posted in any event. Snow talk 17:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, was wondering if you could recuse coord duties to give this the once-over for image licensing (there was one at A-Class Review) and also source review. Of course if you want to make general comments as well, feel free! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sure thing, although I probably can't get to it for another 24 hours. I'm in the city today for a job. --Laser brain (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Publisher in references
Hi Laser brain - I recently had a disagreement with User:Tomica about supplying publisher in references. My reading of the guidelines at Template:Citation#Publisher is that publisher is not usually required, because that information has no practical value for anyone who's trying to check a reference. And the guidelines explicitly say to omit it when the publisher is substantially the same as the publication - e.g. it's superfluous to be told that Time is published by Time, Inc., or that the publisher of BBC News is the BBC. Popular music articles in Wikipedia seem to often include publisher in this way, despite the guidelines, and in contrast to virtually all other areas of WP, where this superfluous information is uncommon. In the course of the discussion, this user mentioned that he had been picked up in an FA review (Good Girl Gone Bad) for not supplying publisher details. Why do you feel that this is required to achieve FA status? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, publisher is quite helpful if you're checking references - it can tell you if the work is self-published or by an academic press. I agree that with things like newspapers or magazines it's less useful, but for books, it's very useful. There is a world of difference between something published by iUniverse or lulu and something by the Oxford University Press. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Colonies Chris: (ec) I was remiss in fully explaining the reason for my request at that particular FAC, but if memory serves, it was a consistency issue. Publishers had been supplied on some of the references but not others. I disagree with the assertion that the publisher has no practical value in the citation. For those who frequently look up sources for verification and spot-checking purposes, the publisher is a very useful clue as to whether the source is reliable. The publisher can also be used to hone in on the correct source when doing library database searches and there are multiple publications with the same or similar name. --Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that publisher for books can be useful - I didn't make clear that I'm talking about periodicals or websites here. Nobody gains anything from being told that Time is (currently) published by Time Inc, or that Jam! is part of Canoe.ca. That's why the recommendation in the {{cite}} guidelines is to omit it. This kind of superfluous information was removed from the widely used {{singlechart}} template more than a year ago and not one person has objected (nor, I suspect, even noticed). A further complication arises with some magazines because they tend to change hands. For example, that article, Cry_Me_a_River_(Justin_Timberlake_song), credits some Billboard citations (from 2002/03) to Nielsen (who owned it up to 2009), and some to Prometheus, the current owners. So the information is inconsistent as well as useless and would be best just eliminated entirely as the guidelines recommend. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Colonies Chris: All fair points. I recommend considering verifiability/reliability first and consistency second. If having publishers helps verify or determine reliability (whatever the medium), they are a benefit. If there is a consistency issue, I'd rather have publishers on all or none of a particular medium than being haphazard. It seems we have a conflict between the template documentation in this case and the culture at FAC, which leans toward asking for publishers. Maybe a centralized discussion at WT:FAC would be useful. --Laser brain (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that publisher for books can be useful - I didn't make clear that I'm talking about periodicals or websites here. Nobody gains anything from being told that Time is (currently) published by Time Inc, or that Jam! is part of Canoe.ca. That's why the recommendation in the {{cite}} guidelines is to omit it. This kind of superfluous information was removed from the widely used {{singlechart}} template more than a year ago and not one person has objected (nor, I suspect, even noticed). A further complication arises with some magazines because they tend to change hands. For example, that article, Cry_Me_a_River_(Justin_Timberlake_song), credits some Billboard citations (from 2002/03) to Nielsen (who owned it up to 2009), and some to Prometheus, the current owners. So the information is inconsistent as well as useless and would be best just eliminated entirely as the guidelines recommend. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 4 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Marian Rejewski page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
informativepro1
Wait so I get in trouble for deleting a post from someone, yet that person whom was the one I deleted the post from doesn't get in trouble for deleting my post first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informativepro1 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Informativepro1: You didn't "get in trouble". I posted a standard note to your page that it is unacceptable to delete text from someone's user page in retaliation for a disagreement you had with them. Sam Sailor gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation for what he did. This is a wiki—anything you do is liable to be changed by anyone else. You might visit Wikipedia:Training/Newcomers/Welcome for some more basic information about contributing to our community. --Laser brain (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you still do copyedits?
Hey Andy, forgive me if I'm suffering from post-ArbCom senility and have you pegged as the wrong guy, but I was wondering if you'd be willing to get "Space Seed" a once-over with a fresh set of eyes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Glad to see the end of your ArbCom tenure is giving you more breathing room for article work! I would be happy to look it over, but it might not be until Monday. I've got two active FARs and some FAC coordinator work on deck. --Laser brain (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. Forgot you were an FAC coord too, looking over there a lot of hats have changed :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: Slow going—at least ten different RL factors have conspired to distract me in the last couple of days. I hope to continue and finish up tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. Forgot you were an FAC coord too, looking over there a lot of hats have changed :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask for a ping?
I was on a business trip so I limited myself to small edits in other articles. And then this. Is it really too much to ask for you to ping the person in question? 01:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: A ping to let you know I was archiving your nomination, or are you asking for more time between when I announced my intentions and when I actually archived it? Either way, I beg your pardon for the misunderstanding. It is quite normal for nominations with outstanding opposition to be archived when more than two weeks have passed, especially when the going consensus is that the article is quite a way from FA quality. I hope it does not deter you from nominating the article in the future. --Laser brain (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just a ping so I know it's being archived so I can come back and fix anything remaining. All of the reviewer's points had been addressed, he simply never returned to acknowledge that. Had I known you were going to pull the trigger I might have done something about it, but I wasn't informed, so I couldn't. This should be a basic courtesy, if not policy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, all of her points had not been addressed, only some of the examples. I'll suggest again that you should consider taking this through A-class review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- And I could have addressed those had I known it was threatened with closure. Again, is it really too much to ask for a ping? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- FAC delegates/coordinators have never been obliged to ping nominators regarding closures, and they should not be asked to do so. It says in the FAC instructions that speedy reponses to issues raised at FAC are expected. If we had to ping nominators before closing FACs with outstanding issues and/or opposition we would never get anything done in a timely manner and the list of nominations would become unmanageably long. Graham Beards (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- So your concern is that telling people there is a problem would cause more work for you, so you should not have to go through the bother of typing a few characters (while in the midst of typing a few characters). I think you're onto something here Graham, we could quickly solve the problem with health care budgets with this simple suggestion!
- Aside from the Little Britain analogs, I would suggest that your argument has it exactly reversed. Because I was not warned, I will have to re-list. So, in the end, there is double the work for the dels/coords, and quite a bit more than that for the noms. The very large number of zero-edit re-lists suggests this is a real problem, not the imaginary one you posit. All to save a few characters. Does this really strike you as a cogent argument?
- If your concern really is zombie FACs, put a metric on closure and stick to it. This sort of silent fail does no one any favors, least of all the people you champion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- We should not have to, and don't, tell nominators about problems. Nominators are expected to follow their nominations and respond in good time. Most do. Why should you be an exception. You can relist article two weeks after the closing date. In the meantime reviewers and coordinators can spend their precious time on the other candidates on the list. Graham Beards (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you have made your position clear enough. I disagree with it, and I think a lot of other people would too. That being the case, I will open the discussion in a more appropriate place than someone else's talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- We should not have to, and don't, tell nominators about problems. Nominators are expected to follow their nominations and respond in good time. Most do. Why should you be an exception. You can relist article two weeks after the closing date. In the meantime reviewers and coordinators can spend their precious time on the other candidates on the list. Graham Beards (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- FAC delegates/coordinators have never been obliged to ping nominators regarding closures, and they should not be asked to do so. It says in the FAC instructions that speedy reponses to issues raised at FAC are expected. If we had to ping nominators before closing FACs with outstanding issues and/or opposition we would never get anything done in a timely manner and the list of nominations would become unmanageably long. Graham Beards (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- And I could have addressed those had I known it was threatened with closure. Again, is it really too much to ask for a ping? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, all of her points had not been addressed, only some of the examples. I'll suggest again that you should consider taking this through A-class review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just a ping so I know it's being archived so I can come back and fix anything remaining. All of the reviewer's points had been addressed, he simply never returned to acknowledge that. Had I known you were going to pull the trigger I might have done something about it, but I wasn't informed, so I couldn't. This should be a basic courtesy, if not policy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Wait, now I understand your statement...
When I first read your reply above, I hadn't carefully examined the timestamps. Now that I have, I change my answer. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: I'm not sure I follow. I understood that you were asking to be given a heads-up about an impending archive with enough time to take whatever action you thought was appropriate. Is that not the case? --Laser brain (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's it, I had failed to notice there were only three minutes between A and B. A ping alone would not have been enough, but I see you already took that into account. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
: I did not remove content, I removed a strange formatting thing that disturbed Wikipedia's formatting rules.79.223.14.116 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I did not remove content, I removed a strange formatting thing that disturbed Wikipedia's formatting rules.79.223.14.116 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to reply, please use my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.223.14.116 (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Before you respond, let me remind you that elsewhere you seem to revert me by reflex, not because there is any reason for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.223.14.116 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Ketel One Vodka - page edit
Hi Laser brain,
We spoke earlier this year regarding Ketel One Vodka's page.
I'm a communications professional working with Ketel One Vodka and I'd like to suggest some changes to our Wikipedia page to add more insight and information.
Following the feedback and recommendations I received above, which was much appreciated, I'd like to suggest some revised changes to our Wikipedia page, which are now sourced. The following changes I wish to be made are:
Timeline
• 1794: Under the control of Jacobus Nolet (5th generation), family members build the Nolet Distillery windmill, known as 'The Whale.' http://drinksenthusiast.com/2013/04/21/ketel-one-tasting-notes/
• 1867: The Nolet family acquires an interest in shipping and begins exporting spirits. http://www.just-drinks.com/news/just-the-facts-ketel-one-vodka_id98896.aspx
• 1979: Carolus Nolet Sr. (10th generation) assumes control of the Nolet Distillery. http://www.diffordsguides.com/beer-wine-spirits/spirits/vodka-and-korn-and-poteen/BWS001121/ketel-one-oranje
• 1991: Nolet Spirits USA is founded, whilst Carl Nolet Jr. (11th generation) moves to the United States to dedicate himself to the growth of the company. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2008-04-24/ketel-one-finally-hits-the-bottlebusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
• 2000: The Nolet Distillery produces a super-premium, flavoured vodka, Ketel One Citroen, which is launched in the USA. http://www.just-drinks.com/news/just-the-facts-ketel-one-vodka_id98896.aspx
• 2003: The first national Ketel One print advertising campaign, “Dear Ketel One Drinker”, launches in the USA. http://www.just-drinks.com/news/just-the-facts-ketel-one-vodka_id98896.aspx
• 2009: The first television campaign for Ketel One Vodka launched in the USA. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ad_report_card/2009/11/who_drinks_ketel_one_in_a_recession.html
• A new orange-flavoured vodka, Ketel One Oranje, is launched in the USA. http://www.barbizmag.com/features/item/704-new-launch-ketel-one-oranje
Would this be something you could assist with? Please do let me know if you require anything else. Thank you! AdamF Grayling (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
|
Long overdue, I just realized I hadn't offered you a beer yet... Thanks for your help in saving Nine Inch Nails from losing FA status. I found the experience to be very fun and you a pleasure to work with. Here's to industrial rock at it's finest. Cheers! — MusikAnimal talk 06:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
Talk:Musical instrument/GA2
Hi, I just responded to your comment on Talk:Musical instrument/GA2. If you have time you are welcome to have a look. --Oldnewnew (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
About a page you had semi protected.
For the page Franjo Tuđman, there seems to be a lack of neutrality. Some parts seem heavily biased and intentionally engineered to slander either the subject or the Croat ethnic group. There are also accusing wordings that can't be confirmed given that the subject is deceased. Flying such opinions as fact is quite dishonest. I made some edits with explanations attached calling out poor resources and opinionated wording. i hope you look at them and into the matter I brought at hand. Feel free to revert my changes if seem fit. But I hope for the sake of keeping Wikipedia a neutral bastion of information you have someone with historical experience look into the matter. Thank you for your time. I appreciate what you do here on the community and Wikipedia.
Jackiechan321 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Jackiechan321: I don't have an opinion either way about the article—I was acting as a neutral administrator since there was a high amount of disruption on the page coming from IP editors. It is generally good to ask for high-quality sources and to remove wording that violates WP:NPOV, however I have not examined your edits in detail. It's best to remember that tensions can run high on articles like that, and discussing disputes on the article talk page is always preferable to getting into an edit war. Good luck to you! --Laser brain (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Archiving Irataba
Hi. I've looked around but can't find the "substantive issues" which have caused you to archive Irataba with only about three minutes notice. Please can you provide the link to whatever page this is being discussed on? --Mirokado (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The issues are documented on the FAC page. With additional sourced content being added as recently as today and outstanding concerns about the quality of the prose, it's a good time to archive and renominate the article when it's ready. It's usually a benefit to the article to spend a bit of time out of the FAC process when there's a good amount of work to do. There is not an established notice or warning period before an article is archived. --Laser brain (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Diane and other storms
It's just been updated on HURDAT. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/metadata_master.html CrazyC83 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Enthiran FAC
Hi Laser Brain. I have nominated the article for FAC. It has received a neutral, two supports and one big oppose from SandyGeorgia (mainly relating to MOSNUM and Citation issues) Many editors requsted me to withdraw the FAC to better shape it. Please state your opinion on whether I should continue the FAC or withdraw it. Thank you. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Ssven2: It's tough to say—it definitely wasn't ready at the time you posted the nomination, but it looks like a lot of work has already been done. I personally think you'll have a better experience if you withdraw it, spend two weeks hammering on it, and come back with a fresh slate. --Laser brain (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know how to withdraw an FAC. Can you close it? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Ssven2: Looks like Ian got it. Thanks for handling this situation so well—hopefully you aren't discouraged by the withdrawal. I think you'll be in fine shape when you renominate after some work-shopping. --Laser brain (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's a learning experience for me. By the way, do let me know if you would like to leave comments at the article's 2nd PR — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Ssven2: Looks like Ian got it. Thanks for handling this situation so well—hopefully you aren't discouraged by the withdrawal. I think you'll be in fine shape when you renominate after some work-shopping. --Laser brain (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know how to withdraw an FAC. Can you close it? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Enthiran FAC 2.0
Hi there. As you said, I have spent two (in fact, three) weeks hammering on it, and have now come back with a fresh slate. Do let me know if you would like to leave comments at the article's 2nd FAC. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Ssven2: Thanks for the note! I've been really busy but I will try to find my way over there. --Laser brain (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Marian Rejewski progress
How are you feeling about Marian Rejewski? I'm wondering if we will get to a point where a non-specialist (like me) can take over and just do some copyediting and cleanup. Do you feel like there are remaining sourcing and comprehensiveness issues? --Laser brain (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please do. As potentially unclear or awkward passages have been pointed out, I have tried to rectify them. You may well be able to identify more of them. Thanks for your generous offer. Nihil novi (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the information in the "Marian Rejewski" article, and the sourcing, are pretty complete. What is needed, actually, is review by a patient general reader who might spot passages that could benefit from additional background information or from simple copy-editing. Thanks again. Nihil novi (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Nihil novi: I am traveling but will be home Monday and able to get back into the swing of things. I will look at it then. --Laser brain (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the information in the "Marian Rejewski" article, and the sourcing, are pretty complete. What is needed, actually, is review by a patient general reader who might spot passages that could benefit from additional background information or from simple copy-editing. Thanks again. Nihil novi (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please do. As potentially unclear or awkward passages have been pointed out, I have tried to rectify them. You may well be able to identify more of them. Thanks for your generous offer. Nihil novi (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Holy cow, I see the issues you had. How is the lead now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Looks good! The narrative is clear—that much is certain. Can "encrypted" and "enciphered" be used interchangeably? --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- My edits introduced some changes in meaning, and then Nihil went through to fix them, and reintroduced prose issues. I don't think we have an FA here, and I could work for hours and hours more trying to fix it. Too much info is better stated in the article about the machine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to just delist it, in that case. --Laser brain (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Now it's become a challenge for me, but I don't think it's the best use of my time. I'm not sure what the current philosophy at FAR is. And I'm just now getting in to the meat of the content, and am doubtful about how much I will be able to fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to just delist it, in that case. --Laser brain (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- My edits introduced some changes in meaning, and then Nihil went through to fix them, and reintroduced prose issues. I don't think we have an FA here, and I could work for hours and hours more trying to fix it. Too much info is better stated in the article about the machine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Taj Mahal
Hi, LB - first I want to apologize for not going thru the proper procedures when I withdrew this nomination on Friday, 8 May 2015. Following are the actions I took:
- [16] removed template
- [17] stated so on the TP
- [18] removed it from the candidates list
- I think I also requested a speedy delete as well but can't find a diff. Was my initial nomination deleted? Could you provide the link that details the procedures for withdrawal?
I just discovered The Herald nominated it again today. I have not had a chance to review it but it appears there are still quite a few issues that need to be addressed. [19]
- You and a few others said citations are needed for some of the statements. I did not see any citation templates, so is it possible for those who take issue over the need for sources to please add the citation templates where they feel it's needed?
- I am aware about the need for higher quality sources and uniformity in citing the material and we are working on that now.
- You mentioned issues with MOS. Would you be so kind as to elaborate with a little more detail regarding what you believe to be at issue?
- One criticism was that the prose was too dry. My initial thought is to what degree can we embellish prose without being noncompliant with NPOV; i.e. dispassionate tone? Thank you for your time. Atsme☯Consult 17:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Atsme, thanks for the note. Your earlier withdrawal was fine. Opabinia regalis came along and deleted it—though G7 doesn't really apply and we struggle with well-meaning admins deleting these pages. We prefer to handle withdrawals among the FAC coordinators so we can determine if feedback is present that should be recorded and archived, as was the case there. In the case of the second nomination by The Herald, I initiated a proper "archive" so the feedback you got could be captured and the FAC could be captured in the article history template. Other items:
- FA criteria requires everything to be cited. That doesn't mean you necessarily need a citation after every single sentence, but it should be clear what citations belong to what statements. Generally if a reviewer scans the article and sees sentences without citations, they will make that comment. The best thing to do is make sure everything is cited. If people still want clarification, they can tag individual sentences.
- MOS: I happened to notice problems with image captions, but I didn't look for other things. Image captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't usually have periods. See MOS:CAPTION.
- On the prose, I didn't read enough to comment on that. Who said it was dry? I mean, this is an encyclopedia.. but you can sometimes address a concern like that by having an interesting, compelling narrative and good variety in your prose.
Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- It does help, thank you!! The user who thinks it's dry is ·maunus · snunɐɯ·, "with the well known context of the love story that inspired its building is cursory, and extremely dry", [20]. Back to the drawing board.
Atsme☯Consult 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- It does help, thank you!! The user who thinks it's dry is ·maunus · snunɐɯ·, "with the well known context of the love story that inspired its building is cursory, and extremely dry", [20]. Back to the drawing board.
- Sorry, yes, since the only other contributor explicitly endorsed deletion and had posted their commentary elsewhere, I assumed this page wasn't useful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: Not a problem at all, and I would have done the same thing. I only say we "struggle" because some nominators tag their pages for speedy and there's no good way to flag down the reviewing admin to say we might want to keep the feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Korolev
Yes, I was looking for which book I got the reference from, I couldn't remember exactly, I've read a few about him and that time period. Could refer to a talk I gave about him at a convention, I suppose.
More importantly, you messed up the link to "rehabilitation" I added later in the article, it seems to have been lost altogether now... the word doesn't appear... I'm not sure if you rolled back each version of changes I made or made an edit, but things are all messed up now, please try to fix it, I don't have time to mess with the article more right now, late for a meeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadnibal (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Somewhere In Time (film)
Dear Laser Brain, The debate on the article's Talk was about mentioning the fan club with sources. Everything I have included about the club is mentioned in articles from known newspapers like Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Sun Sentinel (a Florida newspaper), etc and should be included. The founder and current editor have gained legitiment noterity through their association with the club and should be mentioned as they are relevant to the club and the movie's legacy. The current text about the club in Legacy is good - just not complete; it leaves out a few legitiment details the article needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.92.10 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
LaRue
It doesnt look like anybody has really done much changing to the article, other than what you mentioned. As far as I know, Stevie Ray Vaughn or whoever is not a descendant and if he is a source would need to be provided. The source for all the other names (except the ball player you mentioned) is the "Six Generations of LaRues and Allied Families" by Otis Mather (1921). Thank you for letting me know.--The Old Pueblo (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Spot check request
Hello. As you know, we still need a spot check at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive3, but I can't seem to find anyone willing to do it. Is there any chance you would be willing to take a look? Maunus has most of the major sources in PDF format. RO(talk) 16:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe—depends on access to sources. Maunus, you have email disabled. Are you willing to send me any of the sources? I have academic library access so if they are in major databases I can get them myself. --Laser brain (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can send you the sources I have. Some are available online without library access (e.g. Kroeber & Kroeber 1973), most are available with library access and only a few aren't available online at all (Fontana & Kroeber, Sherer 1993,). Let me know if you need any specific ones and I will send them. I have enabled email for the rest of the day.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maunus and Rationalobserver, thanks. I have a job tonight but I'll start doing the spotcheck tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can send you the sources I have. Some are available online without library access (e.g. Kroeber & Kroeber 1973), most are available with library access and only a few aren't available online at all (Fontana & Kroeber, Sherer 1993,). Let me know if you need any specific ones and I will send them. I have enabled email for the rest of the day.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Wayne Gretzky 99 Award
Is there any award other than Wayne Gretzky 99 Award? Recently Velan Nandhakumaran is awarded with "Wayne Gretzky Award".Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Lake Ontario Wind: Sorry, that's not really something I know much about. Maybe try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. --Laser brain (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Pavanjandhyala has opened the peer review for Mayabazar (1957), the first Telugu film to be attempted for FA class. Like how Mughal-e-Azam is to Bollywood, Mayabazar is to Telugu cinema. Feel free to leave comments. 
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Calvin999 21:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
My edits to the manual of style
Hello,
The manual of style states:
"While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently."
The section "Capitalization of 'The'" was using two different spellings of the word "capitalize." I changed the spelling "capitalise" to "capitalize" to keep it consistent. This is the only point in the article that "capitalize" was spelled this way. Can you please undo your revert of my change?
Thanks! 69.116.251.84 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.251.84 (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
PR request
Hello, Laser brain. I'm not sure if you're active at Peer Review, but I've got an article there that I've been working on since early March (Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1) that really needs more input. I've put lot's of hours into researching and writing it, but now I fear it won't go anywhere for lack of reviews. Are you interested and willing? RO(talk) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Elvis Presley article
I noticed you reverted my changes to the Elvis Presley wiki, citing "dubious sources", etc. I can assure you, all the information I added was true. Perhaps I chose the wrong selection when adding images, but I believe the ones I added are in the public domain. If by any chance if I could find the correct copyrights for the images and more reliable website for citations, could the changes be added back? Thanks. Colter616 (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing everything up, man. Just wanted to help the wiki by providing some info of the years that it had skipped over (all of 1975, and a majority of 1976). Sorry for any inconvenience.Colter616 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hastings line
What's happening with the FAC? Mjroots (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I have archived it. Unfortunately the article has not attracted any support for promotion since early May, and there has been no activity at all in almost three weeks. --Laser brain (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- You mean it's not being promoted, despite support from two editors and no objection from the third?
Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: The number of supports a nomination receives is mostly irrelevant in comparison with the quality and substance of that support. Try not to get hung up on numbers. That being said, from my reading, only Tim Riley supported promotion. Blofeld left comments but did not declare support or opposition. While Tim's comments are thorough and his support substantive, it was quite some time ago and you didn't get near the amount of support where we would consider promotion. Hope this helps. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- You mean it's not being promoted, despite support from two editors and no objection from the third?
- I came here to ask the same question. I've had this FAC on my watchlist, and the closing remarks give no indication of whether it passed or failed, and if it failed, on what grounds. @Mjroots: has updated the article to most comments, or given good reasons otherwise. I see no reason for this failing - or what elsecan be done instead. Incidentally, I fully support the FAC; but having been involved with the initial peer review I wasn't sure if I was entitled to !vote. Please reconsider this closure. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- If Optimist was entitled to !vote, then it would appear that the instructions need clarifying. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Mjroots:, @Optimist on the run: Per the FAC instructions (at the top of WP:FAC), nominations are promoted only if consensus and substantive commentary support promotion. One reviewer's support does not constitute consensus, and we would never promote a nomination simply for lacking opposition. Review some recent promotions (for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mutiny on the Bounty/archive1) and you will get a good idea of what consensus generally exists by time a nomination is promoted. The FAC instructions also indicate the reasons nominations are archived. We do sometimes leave a brief closing note (something like "This nomination seems to have stagnated, and so it will be archived") if we feel the reason for archiving may be unclear, and I beg your pardon if I fell short on that front. However, we do not leave detailed rationales such as you might find on complex RFCs or AN/I threads. Archiving isn't "failure", it's just an indication that there was no consensus for promotion. I'm not sure where either of you got the idea that a peer review participant is ineligible to comment on the FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Then maybe the way that FACs are archived needs reviewing. There was no warning that the FAC was in danger of being archived, otherwise I would have had the chance to ping Dr Blofield to ascertain his reaction to comments I'd left in response to issues raised. I'd also have had time to nudge WP:UKT and WP:TWP members to chipping in. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I agree. The number of times I answer queries similar to your own indicates that the process needs improvement. Perhaps it's something as simple as "I'm planning to archive this if there's no movement in n days." At any rate, you're free to open a new nomination at any time. --Laser brain (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Then maybe the way that FACs are archived needs reviewing. There was no warning that the FAC was in danger of being archived, otherwise I would have had the chance to ping Dr Blofield to ascertain his reaction to comments I'd left in response to issues raised. I'd also have had time to nudge WP:UKT and WP:TWP members to chipping in. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Mjroots:, @Optimist on the run: Per the FAC instructions (at the top of WP:FAC), nominations are promoted only if consensus and substantive commentary support promotion. One reviewer's support does not constitute consensus, and we would never promote a nomination simply for lacking opposition. Review some recent promotions (for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mutiny on the Bounty/archive1) and you will get a good idea of what consensus generally exists by time a nomination is promoted. The FAC instructions also indicate the reasons nominations are archived. We do sometimes leave a brief closing note (something like "This nomination seems to have stagnated, and so it will be archived") if we feel the reason for archiving may be unclear, and I beg your pardon if I fell short on that front. However, we do not leave detailed rationales such as you might find on complex RFCs or AN/I threads. Archiving isn't "failure", it's just an indication that there was no consensus for promotion. I'm not sure where either of you got the idea that a peer review participant is ineligible to comment on the FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- If Optimist was entitled to !vote, then it would appear that the instructions need clarifying. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- I came here to ask the same question. I've had this FAC on my watchlist, and the closing remarks give no indication of whether it passed or failed, and if it failed, on what grounds. @Mjroots: has updated the article to most comments, or given good reasons otherwise. I see no reason for this failing - or what elsecan be done instead. Incidentally, I fully support the FAC; but having been involved with the initial peer review I wasn't sure if I was entitled to !vote. Please reconsider this closure. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it is important of course that no part of the process puts off people wanting to nominate articles or contributing again. Mj is an excellent contributor on transport topics. But I can't see any way in which the coordinators have to inform the nominees that they're going to archive it working, unless there is a standard "if the FAC hasn't been commented on in xxx days it might be archived" applied to all. It should be very clear that if the nom has gone on over six weeks and hasn't had input in over two weeks it is highly likely that it might be archived if general support for it is low. I was leaning towards support BTW, but I wasn't convinced. Usually I will state support or oppose soon after reviewing. I suppose if you'd merged many of the short sections and reduced the repetition I'd have stated support. The turn out was still poor though, whether I'd supported or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Echoing what Laser said about the level of support on Mutiny on the Bounty, in my experience I really think it's important to get a thorough peer review done before nomming. The Hastings article Mj stated did get a peer review, but how many people exactly? Where was their support at FAC? More people need to know about it, and in effect you stand more of a chance of attracting the support you need to pass it at FAC. If Hastings had had a good peer review by at least five of the FA regulars beforehand and improved it to a standard they were willing to support it would never have gone three weeks without comment and would have passed weeks ago anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
"Laser brain"
Has to be ... 
—ATinySliver/ATalkPage 23:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @ATinySliver: Bingo! --Laser brain (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
James Horner
Hi Laser brain,
I do not appreciate your recent blanking of my edits to James Horner. You removed my contributions citing WP:MEMORIAL, but all that page says is "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." I have given citations for my edits, yet you remove them with the comment "unsourced, unhelpful." Furthermore, my contributions are removed whereas you choose to leave other users' edits "Contemporaries and collaborators paid their respects to Horner, including composers Paul Williams and Alan Menken, and directors Ron Howard and James Cameron." This is discriminatory blanking. Please stop removing my contributions to the page for no reason.
Thanks. LiuserK (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @LiuserK: I'm not sure why you are claiming I removed your text for no reason right after citing the reason I gave you. I directed you to WP:MEMORIAL because a laundry list of celebrities who expressed condolences is not useful or relevant to the article. --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is not a "laundry list" of celebrities. I only listed three celebrities, all of whom worked extensively with Horner. It is especially a pity that you keep removing Celine Dion's tribute to him, as her collaboration with him on "My Heart Will Go On" is by far his most acclaimed. Also, you did not acknowledge my main point that although you are repeatedly removing my edits, you decide to keep other users' edits, even though they also list celebrities who have written tributes regarding the late James Horner. Furthermore, nowhere on WP:Memorial does it state that listing a few tributes regarding the recent death is against Wikipedia's policy. LiuserK (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @LiuserK: I realize we have a disagreement here, and you will note that I did not remove your text again. It is still there. I opened a discussion at Talk:James Horner to solicit input from other editors. I will respect whatever consensus emerges. --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I believe our misunderstanding came from our differences in considering Dion's and Crowe's direct work with Horner, considering you wrote "I think it's germane to speak of people whose careers were firmly linked with Horner's (like James Cameron) but other celebrities should be omitted." Personally, I believe Dion's collaboration with Horner on "My Heart Will Go On" to be even more notable than James Cameron's collaboration throughout his career as the song is known worldwide. I am sure many people will agree with this sentiment. The same goes for Russell Crowe, as "A Beautiful Mind" is one of his most notable works. Also, as P Aculeius pointed out, I do not see any mention on WP:MEMORIAL that states lists of celebrities paying tribute are not welcome. I am totally for trimming Dion's quote, as someone already did. LiuserK (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Categories
In my understanding the by-gender singer-songwriter categories are meant to be non-diffusing. So the edit as made is correct. See Category:American male singer-songwriters and Category:American female singer-songwriters. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Quite alright, and nothing to worry about. It's something I'm struggling to get used to, myself, quite often. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Laser brain, the bot probably needs your signature to process the nomination (you added only the template to close). If that doesn't help, we'll have to ask Hawkeye to take a look - newer nominations have already been processed, so it's only a problem with this single nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- @GermanJoe: Ah, thanks for the catch. I had just left a message for Hawkeye asking for ideas about why it didn't close. --Laser brain (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Singer-songwriters
Hmm. Thanks for the pointer - it's not something that would have occurred to me, to be honest. I suppose my understanding of the term is incorrect. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 02:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
MJ94 (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! |
Request source review
Would you be willing to provide a source review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chetro Ketl/archive1? I'm extremely confident that all the cited sources are RSs, but there might be smaller, formatting type stuff that I missed. RO(talk) 20:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Rationalobserver: I can probably get to it tomorrow. My to-do list has been growing and I'm afraid I find myself a bit short on time for anything more than drive-by editing. Please feel free to ping me again if I haven't made good in the next couple of days. --Laser brain (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's great! There's no hurry. RO(talk) 15:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just a friendly ping to remind you of this thread. Ian Rose has requested a spot check as well ([21]), so are you also willing to do that, or is this asking too much? If you are willing to do the spot check too, just please keep in mind that close to half of the sources are public domain. RO(talk) 15:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Unless I'm reading this wrong, Ian Rose has indicated ([22]) that SQ's source review will suffice. Are you willing to do the spot check? RO(talk) 23:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Rationalobserver: Did you get what you needed? I had an expected period of poor internet availability overseas and haven't checked in lately. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- No worries, Laser brain. Nikkimaria was kind enough to take a look, so that's been covered. RO(talk) 15:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Rationalobserver: Did you get what you needed? I had an expected period of poor internet availability overseas and haven't checked in lately. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
New nomination
Hi, I'd like to start Warren G. Harding. My existing nomination is still pending, Mary Margaret O'Reilly but I don't see anything lacking for promotion. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Ruby Laffoon
Please see my section in the talk page. Spartan7W § 14:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Spartan7W: Thanks for taking the time to explain your rationale. I can live with the proposed changes, but I did ping Acdixon (the article's primary author) for his feedback on the "Commonwealth of Kentucky" label. I have a feeling that's the way it's referred to in scholarly sources, so that would be an argument in favor of that syntax. --Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't disagree of this form, but referring to it as a U.S. Commonwealth or "the commonwealth's" is completely incorrect. Spartan7W § 14:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi.
I've been trying for some months now to get Carrow Road onto main page in time for its 80th anniversary on August 31st. The FAC has 3 supports, 1 finish-these-comments-and-I'll-support (where the comments are now finished), and one editor saying he won't support or oppose as he isn't familiar enough with the standards, but his comments have been addressed.
The TFA delegates are kindly thinking about rejigging their queue to fit in the article, as obviously 31 Aug is quite soon.
I wouldn't dream of asking you to step out of your comfort zone and promote an article that doesn't meet the criteria, but I would love it if you could take a look at the FAC and consider if it's possible to promote it, even if it's lower down your worklist than other candidates, because that would help the TFA delegates decide that it really is worth changing their schedule!
Many thanks for your consideration either way. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Dweller: It's around 8:30 pm New York time—I'll take a look some time this evening. --Laser brain (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fantastic, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
vacation
I replied on Iridescent's FAC. Going on 10 day vacation tomorrow and may not edit again today.• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
FAC
I've replied to you on my talk page. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Commission for Discipline Inspection/archive1
What does failed consensus mean? It gained one support..--TIAYN (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Trust Is All You Need: An article can become Featured through only consensus involving multiple reviewers checking the article against the Featured article criteria and supporting its promotion. Your nomination had been open since early July and, while attracting some substantive commentary, had stalled and not attracted the kind of support necessary for promotion. Attracting reviewers can be difficult! Some nominators ask other editors at relevant WikiProjects to provide reviews, or provide reviews of other FAC nominations to earn some capital. These methods are by no means required, but sometimes they help. --Laser brain (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Mughal-e-Azam
Hi,
I actually read all the citations available and felt that those are not accurate due to the terminologies used in the same. Hence, Please help understand on what exactly is required. - Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalshahv (talk • contribs) 13:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kunalshahv: Are you sure you read the entire citation, and not just the snippet available at Highbeam? You need a subscription to read the entire article. I don't agree with your assessment that the supplied citations don't support the article text. For example, you removed: "Shapoorji Mistry, grandson of producer Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, thought it a fitting tribute to complete his grandfather's unfinished dream of colourising the entire film." The citation supplied definitely supports that statement. Since this is a Featured article and has already been subject to a very high level of scrutiny, I would advise you to raise your concerns on the article talk page and allow the primary authors to respond before making drastic changes. Pinging Bollyjeff and Dr. Blofeld in case they have anything to add. --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's also why there is a notation stating "(subscription required)". — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Considering that there's 132 sources "I actually read all the citations available and felt that those are not accurate " is rather a broad statement. Is he claiming all of them are not accurate?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The Triumph of Cleopatra
Regarding your recently-posted request for a source review on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Triumph of Cleopatra/archive1, the sources should be (almost) virtually identical to those on the already-promoted The Combat, Youth & Pleasure, The Destroying Angel and Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball. (The other already-promoted one in this series, The Sirens and Ulysses, is slightly different as that was in storage until 2010 so wasn't covered in the same literature.) I'm not sure if in cases like this the source review needs to be done afresh each time, or whether the "seen and checked" status can be carried over. (There are quite a few more in the Etty series to come; seven completed ones waiting their turn in the queue, plus around five more still to write, so if the source-checks can be carried over it will save quite a bit of time.) ‑ iridescent 16:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Fair enough. When I get a few minutes tonight (New York time) I'll scan the last promotions and see if a hall pass is reasonable. The sources look to be consistent and uncontroversial. --Laser brain (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to press you—I genuinely don't know whether the sources need to be freshly checked each time. (Nothing in any of these ought to be controversial, other than the "Legacy" section of the main bio; some enthusiasts for John Everett Millais don't like conceding that he was influenced by Etty.) ‑ iridescent 18:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Understood. The rule is "yes" and I always feel more comfortable even if someone tosses in a "sources look OK" statement at the end of their normal review. However, being a stickler doesn't make sense when the sources are substantively identical across a series of articles. --Laser brain (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to press you—I genuinely don't know whether the sources need to be freshly checked each time. (Nothing in any of these ought to be controversial, other than the "Legacy" section of the main bio; some enthusiasts for John Everett Millais don't like conceding that he was influenced by Etty.) ‑ iridescent 18:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
History of Roman and Byzantine domes archiving
I see that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Roman and Byzantine domes/archive1 has been closed due to no consensus and I can re-nominate in two weeks. Can you please confirm which comments/editors in particular I should be looking to address before then? I am guessing RoyGoldsmith's request at the bottom was one, but I want to be sure. Thanks. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- @AmateurEditor: It's not so much a matter of unaddressed comments (although we do expect nominators to address or rebut any valid comments) as it is a matter of achieving sufficient support for promotion. After being open for quite a long time, only one editor had declared support for promotion. Generally we don't even begin to consider promoting an article until it has at least three substantive supports (a vague guide, but sometimes helpful). It doesn't hurt to be proactive in seeking other reviews in a neutral manner. Some nominators also find that if they review other nominations, those editors are more willing to provide a review. You are not required to seek reviews, of course, but it can help attract attention to your nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Shefali Razdan Duggal
Thanks for indicating copy vio as epcts in this article. Can you kindly tell me the specifc sentence which need to be rectified.? Thanks.--Nvvchar. 15:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Urgents
Hi - just wanted to see if the urgents list for FAC is up to date. I'm hoping to have time to do a review or two this week and was thinking of Maniac Mansion and Turn of the Screw, but if there are articles you'd like to see get another pair of eyes I will try to add another review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: I removed one just now but otherwise I would appreciate reviews for any listed. Turn of the Screw could certainly use some more feedback (or more to the point, more firm declarations). Thanks as always. --Laser brain (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I just reviewed Turn of the Screw; I'll try to get to the others but I think I'm going to review "Maniac Mansion" first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Reply
Dear Laser brain,
Sorry if you got the wrong intention about the time and thought process I put into my FAC comments.
Actually, I spent quite a while looking over all the articles on the list, before commenting on any of them.
Then I thought about what to say.
Then I drafted up some comments offline and read them over.
And then I posted them one-by-one at the FAC pages.
I was inspired by this model from Hurricanehink, and I recall asking him for permission to use that verbiage a while back and he had said it was okay.
Once again, my apologies if I accidentally left the impression I hadn't put a great deal of thought into my comments -- that is not the case.
Thanks for all you do contributing to Wikipedia,
— Cirt (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Andy, I'm glad you asked about this, because I was wondering about it too, though I felt it was up to the coords to ask Cirt.
- Cirt, I'm also glad to see from your reply that you really did review the articles in depth. What you did looks so odd in comparison to the normal course of reviewing that you might want to approach it differently next time -- reviewing a FAC thoroughly usually takes at least half an hour, and often two or three hours, so the speed of your contributions -- plus the fact that you only posted brief notes, and not detailed comments -- really gives the wrong impression. I think if you do something like that again (particularly with the link to your FAC in every case) people will assume that you're canvassing and not really reviewing, and you'll have to explain yourself again. I'd suggest dropping your comments on each FAC as you review them, at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, Mike Christie, I appreciate your input. I actually like to take time first to go over the articles and the individual FAC subpages on my own in total before commenting on any of them, instead of one-at-a-time. It helps me to prepare my thoughts a bit. But you're totally right and next time I'll try to draft up a larger set of some more substantial comments. Hopefully that way more suggestions might also be more helpful to the nominators. Once again, my apologies for the mistaken impression this left, — Cirt (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts, Mike Christie, and thanks for your reply, Cirt. It makes more sense now, and I fully agree with Mike's suggestions. --Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I agree with those, as well. Sorry about the confusion, — Cirt (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts, Mike Christie, and thanks for your reply, Cirt. It makes more sense now, and I fully agree with Mike's suggestions. --Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, Mike Christie, I appreciate your input. I actually like to take time first to go over the articles and the individual FAC subpages on my own in total before commenting on any of them, instead of one-at-a-time. It helps me to prepare my thoughts a bit. But you're totally right and next time I'll try to draft up a larger set of some more substantial comments. Hopefully that way more suggestions might also be more helpful to the nominators. Once again, my apologies for the mistaken impression this left, — Cirt (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
FAC query
Laser brain, I had a question for your regarding the nomination of FA candidates. I would like to nominate Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia) as my next FAC, but Romney Literary Society just passed FAC on October 1. Is there a mandatory waiting period at FAC between nominations? When would I be able to nominate this article at the soonest? Thank you in advance! -- West Virginian (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) There's a mandatory two-week wait after a failed FAC; however, after a pass you can nominate again whenever you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Nikkimaria! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Images
Hi, Laser brain, at what point do images distract from an article? Would you look at Faisalabad and scroll down to the Metro Cash and Carry, and the photos that follow. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Atsme📞📧 16:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- PS: I actually found the guideline that answers my question. Thanks. Atsme📞📧 20:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Sorry for not responding. I've been traveling. I'm glad you found some guidance in the matter! --Laser brain (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Source review for St Denys' Church, Sleaford
Hello. I am new to the FAC, but I believe that the review for this article requires a source spot-check. It's been added to the box on wt:fac, but has still not received one yet. Do you know anyone experienced with this who might be able to help out? Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC).