User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 11

GA criteria
Hey Lucifer. I'm proposing a more...succinct version of the GA criteria here. Your input will be appreciated :) &mdash; Deckiller 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Without trying to sound cheeky, can you tell me the differences between your proposal and the current GA criteria? I can't figure out much at present. LuciferMorgan 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just more succinct, sort of in the spirit of the FA criteria. &mdash; Deckiller 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody will go for that since they'll want distinct differences between FA and GA. If GA / FA become one and the same, GA would be redundant. LuciferMorgan 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with the content of the criteria; rather, the writing style of the criteria. Also, thanks for catching [this; I failed to change the "an" when I turned 19 last week. &mdash; [[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]er 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me if the proposed change highlights the differences between FA and GA by having similar writing styles. Congratulations on your 19th birthday by the way (I turn 20 in May). LuciferMorgan 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, it's clear by looking that there is a significant difference. For example, the prose standard just requires clear and grammatically correct writing, as opposed to "compelling, even brilliant" prose. The comprehsiveness standard is still once again lower than that of FA, and there is a clarification footnote included. &mdash; Deckiller 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
SatyrBot 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive
Thank you for your contributions! -- WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) LuciferMorgan 19:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

recent listings at GA/R
You recently brought up a bunch articles at GA/R for delisting discussions. The instructions at GA/R clearly state that, and I quote "If you see an article on the GA list which clearly fails the criteria, you can delist it and remove it from the list at WP:GA immediately." GA/R should be used to discuss borderline cases, or when someone else objects to your moves (either to list or delist). The GA process should be kept as unbureaucratic as possible, and in cases where an article OBVIOUSLY is no longer GA status, go ahead and delist it. The articles you listed appear to be clear cut cases of delisting, and really stand little chance of generating much discussion for that reason. When you do delist an article, also leave extensive notes at the talk page to the article's editors can fix it back up to GA status. Thanks for doing such good work, though, on this project, and please keep working to improve wikipedia. Happy editing! --Jayron32| talk | contribs 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant no offense. Please accept my humble appologies.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted as well here. I tend to be verbose in my comments, and I know it is a fault of mine.  I try to make myself as clear as possible, and I know that at times my long-winded messages can come off as patronizing and condescending.  For what its worth, my feeling is that we shouldn't always assume that editors are going to object to every delisting or GA failure.  In my experience as an editor (I've not been around as long as you, but I'm not a newbie either) people respond very positively to a delisting or a failure if I explain clearly why I have done so.  While I clearly understand why you are listing them all at GA/R, my feeling is that if an editor objects to my actions, it is up to THEM to bring it up at GA/R.  I am always clear on why I do what I do, and any editor is free to challenge my actions on any article.  Also, I do not wish to criticize how you handle these situations.  My above, inexcusable comments not withstanding, your methods of handling delisting are valid and good, and they work for you, and so I should have no reason to try to convince you to do it otherwise. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. You seem to have a lot of experience and knowledge in working with Good Articles, and there are some editors (myself included) who are looking to develop better guidelines for reviewing nominees. I would really appreciate your input at Reviewing good articles. Thanks again, and I feel bad about the mutual misunderstanding.  I look forward to working with you in the future.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "When reviewing a GAC, be very specific in what you think should be improved" Looks like we have the same mentality on this. Funny that we started out in conflict on this.  I take reviewing GAs very seriously, and often spend about 45-60 minutes reviewing an article: 15-30 minutes reading it, checking pictures and references and 15-30 minutes writing the review.  It always irks me when someone just fails an article and doesn't leave any suggestions for improvement.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again there seems to be a misunderstanding (this time with no conflict though). Click the link I left in my P.S..  Really.  It will all become clear what my P.S. meant. (if you clicked the link I apologize for assuming you had not, but your recent message leads me to think to misunderstood what I was saying).  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Still Reigning
Next FA? I think it's a possiblity. It has all the information there, today i added a picture from the blade film and Lombardo's kit and made some minor tweaks. I would like your opinion on it (and Hell Awaits) if you could, all your help is greatly appreciated :) M3tal H3ad 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm I think Lombardo's a much safer bet myself. There's probably a few Slayer articles I think have more FA potential than that one, such as RIB etc. Good luck with it though. I'll take a look at Hell Awaits soon (COF definitely did cover the song btw). It appeared as some bonus song on one of their CDs and on their hits album. LuciferMorgan 20:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * RIB it is! It's almost ready just gotta add some pictures and expand the significance section. (added the COF thing to hell btw) M3tal H3ad 03:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Lombardo's definitely one for the future though. LuciferMorgan 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As concerns "Haunting the Chapel", you need to deal with covers to some extent. Do an AMG search for each song and that'll throw up a bunch of leads for that. LuciferMorgan 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Do you think RIB is ready for FA? i don't want to add every cover of each song as that section will be a bit too big. M3tal H3ad 11:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New look at Representative peer
Changes at Featured article review/Representative peer; pls revisit. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured lists
Lists usually require less inline citations, because they are taken from references that are lists themselves, and the claims are less controversial or varied. Of course, controversial claims on lists (or notes and explanations) should still have cites, but if everything is given an inline citation, it will end up being a list of four or five cites combined 100-fold. Either way, one ref for a list is nowhere near enough. &mdash; Deckiller 23:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal
Thanks. I want to let you know that while I'm not particularly a fan of the genre (all I really care about are Zeppelin and the NWOBHM), I do own the Ian Christe book and have some Guitar World issue laying around with useful metal interviews. If you ever need help with citations on a metal aricle, let me know and I'll see what I can do. WesleyDodds 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the Metal Wikiproject, the alternative rock WikiProject I've developed (WikiProject Alternative music) has come a long way; it's probably the most active WikiProject related to rock music at the moment (even then, there's probably only about a dozen of us who are really active and focus primarily on articles within the project's scope). You might want to browse through it for ideas on how to improve the Metal one. Ultimately one day I hope the Metal, Alternative, and Punk WikiProjects can all work in tandem with the Rock WikiProject to work hard on developing and cleaning up articles, but we all do have a long way to go before anything like that happens. WesleyDodds 11:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you know people who can fix this...
Hi,

I've never even heard of The KLF outside of Wikipedia, and they have high-quality articles.. while one of the top bands of the last century has... Clampdown. I'm just dropping you a line 'cause you probably know someone who can fix this... Later! --Ling.Nut 19:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Start checking your email in a minute or two; I'll start sending stuff about "jihad" by Slayer... --Ling.Nut 21:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
Hi, I've read you comments at GA:talk and that article review and think you might get better results by approaching a review you disagree with in a clam and dispassionate tone. When you insult people it tends to get their backs up and is usually counter-productive. In short - chill out. TimVickers 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're right, but it really gets to me an admin can do such a lame review. I don't mean lame as in I didn't get a positive reaction, but lame as in he didn't properly review it. LuciferMorgan 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed annoying to get suggestions that are impossible, a reviewer of one of my papers once seemed confused about which organism we were working on and suggested some very strange experiments! In that case, and perhaps in this one, a polite explanation of why their suggestion won't work or isn't possible usually deals with the problem pretty rapidly. The reviewer did seem to be trying to help, and to me it looked like you bit their head off with little justification. If the reviewer's comments are a genuine mistake, you would probably be best off just explaining to them where they went wrong. Anyway, hope you work this out quickly. TimVickers 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see where you're coming from, though it's likely too late now. It's true I likely approached the situation the wrong way, but I cannot exactly go back now. I can calm down in further talks about the situation though, so thanks once again.


 * Also I can understand about the paper bit - I interview bands (on a very small scale), and that throws up strange feedback from others. LuciferMorgan 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jihad
I'll give you some feedback
 * The track was largely written - i don't like "largely written" how about primarily?
 * might want to link "Al Qaeda", and human experiments
 * Thom Jurek of All Music Guide commented the "the - "the" twice
 * Dead Skin Mask is a re-direct to Seasons
 * To expand the structure section
 * Hanneman’s “Jihad” is one of several standouts, a fascinating departure that starts off with a wonky little riff followed by slower, mid-tempo chords that segue into a stuttering riff that swings, thanks in large part to Lombardo’s near-graceful drumming
 * "Jihad" smoothly mixes up tempos, with a catchy angular riff that brings to mind the legendary "Angel of Death" breakdown."
 * This isn't helpful but i found it funny - "Highlights here include Jeff Hanneman's long promised song written from the point of view of Osama Bin Laden on 9/11" they sure got it wrong there
 * ""Jihad," "Flesh Storm," "Skeleton Christ," "Supremist," after a while they are a blur of the same riffs, tuning, tempos and arrangements. And yes, Kerry, I get it. You hate religion. I got that impression with "Haunting the Chapel" in 1984." could be useful somewhere. At least it didn't get failed for "refs have too many numbers" and whatever crap that guy said. Mmm Slayer tommorow M3tal H3ad 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saw your message under RIB, the only thing i can think of is expanding the music and structure. The above quotes are professional reviews, IGN, Popmatters, Stylus Magazine so try exhaust them - comparing it to AOD and the other Christ songs will help. M3tal H3ad 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It has begun, feel free to edit whatever, I'm putting info in atm and will ce it later, but this is pretty damn easy, and i only really used two interviews. M3tal H3ad 06:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll fix these tonight. I'll definitely use what you're on about to expand the "Music and structure" section - I just didn't think the admin had the right idea with that section that's all. LuciferMorgan 08:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Jihad", alongside fellow Christ Illusion album tracks "Eyes of the Insane" and "Cult", was made available for streaming via Spanish website Rafabasa.com on June 26, 2006.[8] Slayer's ninth studio album Christ Illusion was released on August 8, 2006, hosting the track's inclusion. The song met mixed reviews. Christ Illusion is linked twice, and has Jihad is featured on the album twice - fellow Christ Illusion - hosting the track's inclusion, might want to reword it a bit. M3tal H3ad 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

God Hates Us All
Might aswell start a new section. If your'e still interested in collaborating, i added a "recording" and "lyrical themes" section, the information is there it just needs to be written better (which i'll do later) and there's no doubt some more info that can be added. I plan on making a section where the title originated from and about the cover art, search for a new drummer after Bostaph left, and expanding the Reception to include quotes from reviewers and stuff. So yea seems like a lot, but if we both work on it, it can be done in a week or two :) M3tal H3ad 12:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll chip in yeah - can't promise a lot (lot of interviews being fixed up for my site of late), but I'll try my best so to speak. I'll help out where I can once I've got "Jihad" through GA. To be fair, I think this one has enough material for FA, so once the work is done and feedback is returned from the regulars like Ceoil, Michaelas10 etc., I think straight to FAC is a much better option than GAC. LuciferMorgan 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some clowns been screwing with the citeweb template? The retrieval dates look a real mess. LuciferMorgan 18:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bostaph leaving, recruiting a drummer added and i added refs to sentences that needed them. M3tal H3ad 04:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if they should have inclusion, hell i don't know if they should even have articles, maybe Rubin would have inclusion in the project. I found where the Dette info came, a copy and paste from "his" MySpace Oh and i had you blocked on MSN by accident (sorry!, unblocked), i get about 5 turks adding me everyday asking for you know what... >_> M3tal H3ad 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR
One more revert in the next few hours can result in a block; I'll warn him/her. &mdash; Deckiller 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)