User talk:Zzzzz/Archive2

Argento/Bava

Thanks! If I find the time, I will try my best to write articles regarding those titles you mentioned. I'm amazed nobody has done them yet. Eventually, I also hope to greatly expand the Mario Bava main article...its incredibly skimpy as is.Hal Raglan 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Illuminatus! Trilogy

Did you have any thoughts on how you wanted it expanded, exactly? I've got the individual volumes, the omnibus, and the comics. Schizombie 19:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice job improving this article! I could possibly scan the covers of the comic books sometime, but I don't know if I would know how the make them the proper size or resolution. Also if it helps http://www.geocities.com/toffbn/illuminati_characters.html Schizombie 05:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Where had Wilson complained about royalties? None of the games use his characters, and I don't think they use any of the groups original to the book. I think just about all the games mention and recommend Illuminatus! somewhere, usually the bibliography. I've got the 1983 Illuminati Expansion Set 1 in which Shea gives a four paragraph introduction (which is pretty funny - I could type it up). Schizombie 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly you should have used Wikipedia:Good articles/Self-nominations, unless you don't view your contributions to the article as significant. I agree it's a good article, though, and I will try to make additional improvements when I can. Schizombie 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Understand I meant that not as criticism. If you want it to make FA, it probably needs to make GA according to policy; hopefully someone will nom it soon. Schizombie 09:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

PDF here is quite useful, though there may be minor OCR errors (I'm guessing that's how they did it): http://rawilsonfans.com/downloads/ Schizombie 14:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if this pic might be worth adding to the KLF section? It appears in yellow on the back of their 3 A.M. Eternal single, not sure where else http://www.cheeksofgod.com/images/klf.jpg http://perso.wanadoo.fr/vivonzeureux/Images/klf.jpeg Schizombie 17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be ready for FAC, too bad there hasn't been more feedback in the Peer Review. I'd like to find the page number for FU's self-awareness at the end, and something on the numbers would be good as you said. It's amazing comparing it to the Feb 15th version! Schizombie 00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at George_Washington_Dixon, another FAC. I kind of like the way those slightly smaller notes look. I don't know if there's a WP style policy on that. They did it by:

==Notes==

<div style="font-size:90%;">

<references/>

</div>

I went ahead and did it and I think it looks fine. I also left a comment on Mshea's page, but it might be better to try e-mailing him. FAC seems to be going well! Шизомби 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Two people have had objections to the FAC so far. I've tried addressing a few of the first's points, but still need to clarify that sentence about Hagbard and do something about the numerology (see the Illuminatus talk page). The second's objections I'm not so clear on.... Шизомби 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How long do we get on the FAC, and does there have to be unanimous consent, or what, do you know? Also please feel free to delete any of my comments on your talk page whenever you like. Esquizombi 18:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job! Esquizombi 02:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Provide Useful information please

Thanks for the spam warning on my page. What was that related to? Jehochman 21:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:FARC and The Foundation Series

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/The Foundation Series... Please do not use the {{Farc}} Template in the article space (like here): the template is meant for the article's talk page (dif). Additionally, when nominating articles for removal of featured status, please try to be more specific in your rationale for removal. Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

klf pyramid blaster pics

Thanks for the headsup. I could use them, depends on the copyright status. For a start, would be a nice little template logo. --kingboyk 18:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My usefullness has just about hit the ceiling, I'm afraid

• I've contributed what I can remember for the I!, but this is as far as I can go. I suggest you either pad our or get rid of my 'Significant Quotes' section; other than that, this article is perfect in my eyes. Tell me when you take it to the FAC; I'll vote 'yes' with you.

Fair use rationales on Illuminatus page

Just FYI -- unless you've heard differently, I don't think you need to place rationale links as you've done with the The Illuminatus! Trilogy page. If anyone wants to see the rationale they need only click on the image. I haven't seen this done anywhere else -- is this a new policy or just a CYA (cover your...) 23skidoo 18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's weird. It must be something new because like you I've never encountered it before (even on other FA candidates, despite the comment from the one voter). If it is a new rule I've got about 100 articles that need to be revised. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. And I'm just about to hop over to the FA voting. 23skidoo 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, the TARDIS article that was featured today doesn't have any of the commented-out information, so this rule is definitely not being consistently applied. 23skidoo 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Join in editing The Illuminatus! Trilogy

I'm happy to let you know that with three contributors, the collaboration is now active.

Best,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Failing Wikipedia:Good article nominees

I noticed today that you failed both Data (Star Trek) and Padmé Amidala but didn't give a rationale on the talk pages of these articles. Please don't fail without providing feedback, as that doesn't help improve the articles in question. Thanks! I see now that you did indeed provide reasoning. My apologies and thanks! Air.dance 00:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

GA template vote

Note: I read the comments linked to the main proposal. I see that replacement of the GA tag can be automated. So, I changed my vote to neutral. I do suggest that *much* more effort be put into approving the GA project than into this deletion proposal.

previous note: I'm glad you support the GA project. That needs to move forward to project -- it is best way to resolve this issue. I understand the purpose of the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#Template:Good_article vote. I do think a main article mark, just like a FA mark, is helpful. Please reread my comment, which I have clarified further. thx, Vir 19:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good article project talk page

Can you stop attacking me and referring me as a vandal? "...(despite users like User:RJN currently behaving in an unacceptable manner)..." How was I behaving in an "unacceptable" manner? All I did was vote to keep it and informed other participants in the project that the template was up for deletion. I never attacked you in anyway. You keep on attacking me by saying I have defaced articles and that I refuse to take the icon down. I was not part of creating the icon or unilaterally enforcing the icon as I just joined the project this week.—I found out about the icon this past week as well. I would appreciated if you would stop attacking me and saying that I am behaving in an "unacceptable" manner on the Wiki project page. Also, I didn't realize that there wasn't any prior discussion whether to put the icon on the main space or not. I agree with you that there should be a discussion to reach consensus regarding putting the icon on the main space. Again, I would appreciate it if you stop labeling me as a vandal on this project page or other user's talk page. You can reply to my message here as I will watch your talk page. Thanks! —RJN 01:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

All done now. Martin 22:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Ian McKellen

I closed a nomination you made at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Ian McKellen; consensus was that it is no longer a featured article. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

rapping article

I updated the page to reflect all but two of your suggestions. See featured article nomination. Thanks, --Urthogie 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Which parts aren't summarized by the lead? Isn't it impossible to create a proper section out of subject matter(wouldnt it just be one long paragraph or a ton of little ones? thatd look worse)? Which images do you have a problem with being on there?--Urthogie 09:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I edited the article to address all of your concerns except one. See the page.--Urthogie 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

La Vie en Rose (Gundam) former good article candidate

Please explain why the FA article on the fictious food product Spoo managed to attain FA status, yet a Good Article nomination for La Vie en Rose (Gundam) got canned for the reason you cited. I'm not completely interested in giving La Vie en Rose a FA nod anytime in the future (I don't think it can't so long as Wikipedia can keep going), but rather highlight the fact that for a "low-level" article, it's written well, and looks great, with ample references and editing.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)