User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 13

God Hates Us All and Still Reigning
If you have some free time this weekend want to get them ready for FA by Monday? M3tal H3ad 09:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look and work on them Sunday, and then they should be ready for FA by Monday. GHUA needs a copyedit. LuciferMorgan 12:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Just to let you know Blabbermouth is now at AFD (1 delete, 2 keeps) and i added some info, if you have anything else feel free to add. There needs to be a criticism section about pointless articles, trolls, and musicians commenting (which is hard to find) So yea I'll add that today or tomorrow, cheerio M3tal H3ad 11:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd help with the "Criticism" section but the way you've written it makes it difficult to contribute to it. There's much more from other bands criticising the site than Gene Simmons etc. LuciferMorgan 17:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can change it if you want M3tal H3ad 07:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when are you taking Jihad to FAC? M3tal H3ad 07:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I'm trying to get people to take a look at it. LuciferMorgan 10:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, i left the lead until last so i know what to include. Anyway I'll give it a read over after work (only 3 hour shift today :D). M3tal H3ad 09:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm only problem is it's on a forum and the interviewer doesn't quote him exactly. M3tal H3ad 13:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the star, that 3 will hopefully grow to 6 - GHUA, Reigning and Dave, although all in good time. With Jihad you might want to reword the first paragraph of "Reception and criticism" as it says it's on Christ Illusion twice - "alongside fellow Christ Illusion album tracks" and later "hosting the track's inclusion". Also is there need for 'little' at "angular little guitar riff" just seems out of place and reads awkward. Anyway time to add the finishing touches to GHUA. Have a nice day, thanks again, and did you end up getting your site redesigned? M3tal H3ad 10:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit
Could you take a quick look at the last few edits to this article and let me know if you think I'm being completely unreasonable? And more importantly, have I just violated the 3RR rule? I'm not sure. I don't often get involved in edit wars, so I don't know the procedures! Anyway, if you could give it a look, I'd be most grateful. Angmering 18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah looks so. Read WP:3RR - I hope that you don't get in too much trouble. I'd expect a block rather soon... that anon's an asshole. When you get questioned over it, explain you done all that hard work and added all the cites. He's sectioning the lead - I'm reporting him to ANI. LuciferMorgan 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just reported him to WP:ANI. Raul654 has also reverted the anon's edit. Clearly a vandal who knows Wikipedia is the anon - usually vandals don't taunt with the 3RR rule, so that person has an account. Maybe someone can do checkuser or something. LuciferMorgan 18:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lucifer. I shall try and educate myself a bit more over procedures such as 3RR! :-) Angmering 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've only been to Manchester once, and I don't think I unduly upset anybody while I was there... ;-) Angmering 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You never know, maybe he genuinely thinks the article looks better that way, and just has a slightly anti-social way of expressing himself. Ah well. As for Quatermass II &mdash; all right, all right! I'll do it, if it'll stop you nagging! ;-) Angmering 14:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends if it's a FT for just the BBC serials or for the whole thing, including the film versions, the 1979 serial, Memoirs, etc. You could *possiby* get away with having a "BBC Quatermass Serials" topic covering the original trilogy with the three serial articles, the Kneale and Cartier articles and the character page, but I don't know if some might feel that was being too selective. Certainly I doubt the lead actor pages could ever be GAs, there's simply not enough information available, although I do mean to get around to at least citing them some day. Angmering


 * Nineteen Eighty-Four is definitely an article I'd like to try and bring back up to scratch one of these days. Angmering 14:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Pleasence also turns up in the eye-bleedingly bad 1956 film version. Cushing was quite upset not to get the Smith role in that off the back of his success with it on television, but frankly I think he was better off out of it. Angmering 14:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I used to write the odd freelance broadcasting feature for The Stage years ago, but that seemed to dry up after a new broadcasting editor took over and didn't seem so keen on my stuff. Ah well. Angmering 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jihad
I've just taken a quick look at it &mdash; it seems well-sourced and comprehensive, but I get the feeling you might get some FAC commentators saying it's too short to be an FA. Mind you, as there often seem to be running battles over exactly how short is too short, you can never predict what way that'll go really. A. E. J. Collins is an FA, after all, and that's tiny. Angmering 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Genesis (band)
They might not be your cup of tea, but they have an FAR that is near closing, and I would appreciate if you could review. Thanks, Ceoil 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything that's specifically wrong with it? LuciferMorgan 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter
This month's project newsletter (hand delivered as SatyrTN and Dev920 are away). Best wishes, WjBscribe 03:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reginald Tate
Sure, you can nominate whatever you like. I don't know if Tate's page is really long enough for a GA, although then again I suppose that award is partially for shorter articles anyway. Angmering 06:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Given your comments on my talk page the other day about Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasence, I get the impression you're a bit of a horror fan. If that is the case, could you take a look at the newly-expanded André Morell and let me know if I've missed any particularly important details about his Hammer Horror work? Cheers. Angmering 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Angmering 09:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the FA Medal. :-) Very kind of you. I'm not sure about Rudolph Cartier &mdash; I'm quite pleased with it, but there's a great big 10 year gap from the mid 30s to the mid 40s where I can't find any evidence of what he was up to that I think stops it being quite the top quality. Especially as he was a Germanic person living in Britain during World War II, which is pretty interesting background. Angmering
 * Well, maybe I'l give it a try in a week or two. :-) Angmering 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those review bits, too! Angmering 08:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blood in our Wells.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Blood in our Wells.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The concern is that per our fair use policies, the boilerplate fair-use template on that image is not enough. You need to justify that the image is critical for identification and critical commentary in the article in question. The fact that lots of pages may be using images improperly has nothing to do with this image. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the text you just copied and pasted to me, especially the last sentence: To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. You must add a detailed fair-use rationale for each use of each image. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Our policy is that there must be a unique fair-use rationale which explains why THAT image, in THAT instance, is needed for critical commentary in THAT article. If you cannot provide that rationale, then the image will be deleted, as it should be. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Disciple
"Disciple" is only mentioned by the interviewer when bringing up the topic of religion (using "Disciple", "New Faith", and "God Sends Death" as examples) and asking how Slayer's view of religion has changed over the years. Kerry King replies with a passage that I quoted most of in the "Lyrical themes" section. WesleyDodds 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility
Lucifer, you've been asked repeatedly - please avoid making inflammatory, uncivil comments. Raul654 15:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - notice that my response here originally started out as a block notice. However, this recent comment of yours, I'm trying to put our past differences aside and thus I am asking you nicely instead of threatening or blocking. Raul654 15:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My deepest apologies...
...for not leaving you a message on your talk page. How careless of me to assume you were trolling ShadowHalo's talk page considering you were all up in my business. You should change your name to Brillo considering abrasive is how you rub people. Just looking over your talk page, it's clear to see you have a poor attitude and are disrespectful on a regular basis... good to know it's not just me.

Now, regarding your comments. I have a grasp on how to review GAs and I do, in fact, give very thorough reviews that result in higher quality articles. When I have issues in a review, they get worked out. Whether I take the time to discuss it with the main editor(s) of the article or I go ask someone for some advice, the issues get resolved... and without bickering. Disagreements are bound to happen along with misunderstandings and such. What situations like those don't need is interference from others who need not be involved in the first place. Tend to your work and let others tend to theirs. -- Lara Love Talk / Contribs  13:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you give in depth reviews then how come you ask people to add inline cites to the lead section of an article? Lead sections don't need inline cites actually, since they are a summary of the body. The very same info that is in the lead is cited in the body of the article. Every time someone asks for citations in the lead when they aren't needed I will 110% tell them so. As concerns interference, I don't need lecturing from you when I'm in full grasp of the situation on Wikipedia and with Wikipedians. When I am not, I will ask for advice from someone I know on Wikipedia.


 * As concerns having a poor attitude, if you actually viewed all of the situation you're entitled to say so, but otherwise you aren't. Why? Because everyone who I have given a poor attitude I have given one to back.


 * I was merely advising ShadowHalo on his talk page and had nothing against you, but then you had to have a poor attitude against me didn't you? This is what is so sad about Wikipedia - you're lecturing me about a poor attitude while having a poor attitude yourself. Please look at yourself first before lecturing others, thanks. LuciferMorgan 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Arcade Fire - Neon Bible.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Arcade Fire - Neon Bible.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:28342-0-300-0-300.jpg
Hello, LuciferMorgan. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:28342-0-300-0-300.jpg) was found at the following location: User:LuciferMorgan/Draft 2. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jihad
Sorry; I've been so swamped with catchup tasks that I forgot about that request. I'll try to get around to it ASAP. &mdash; Deckiller 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph still mentions Jihad is on Christ Illusion twice and Christ Illusion is linked twice in two sentences. M3tal H3ad 14:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you do me a favour and try fixing it for me? I'd be real real appreciative. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 14:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ceoil fixed it, so no problem. If you have any other suggestions feel free to message. LuciferMorgan 18:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous territory
I've had a crack at trying to turn Bernard Quatermass into something half-decent. I've never really tried writing an article on a fictional character before &mdash; do you think it's all right? Angmering 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers &mdash; I shall ask User:Dmoon1 about it and see what he says. Angmering 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are bits and bobs of that sort of thing around; I shall see if I can gather some together and make a cohesive section out of them tomorrow. It tends to come out whenever he was ripping into Brian Donlevy for not being anything he felt the character should have been. Angmering 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have created a "Themes" section, with some brief thoughts from Kneale (frustratingly, most of the time in interviews he doesn't actually speak about the specifics of the character himself much) and some academic and critical analysis of the Professor. Angmering 19:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see how the Cartier PR ends up before deciding whether to go for FA with that or not. After that I'll probably put the character article up for PR and see what feedback it gets, and then possibly put it up as an FAC. User:Joe King has joined in on the Quatermass effort now too, so between us we seem to be building the topic up quite well. Angmering 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rudolph Cartier
No, you don't annoy me at all! I'll see about that Cartier FA nomination. Angmering 06:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have indeed. We shall see what happens. I might put the character page up for PR soon too, although I don't know whether it's considered bad form for one user to have an FAC and a PR up at the same time. Angmering 14:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Prize" makes it all sound a bit like an exercise in self-glorification, really! :-) Which I suppose it is, in a way... Angmering 14:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose that's true. I admit I sometimes feel a bit guilty that I don't contribute to any Wikipedia topics that are bit more substantive that television and related topics, but the fact is I don't know anything much about other things, so I just contribute to the areas where I can and leave the serious stuff to everyone else! Angmering 14:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's okay &mdash; whatever happens, happens. I'm fairly laid-back about it. :-) Angmering 10:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't find it that odd. I think it makes sense that the articles about more popular / recognised subjects would get more replies at FAC. That's just in the nature of things, really. Angmering 12:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I may well try that. Angmering 17:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers. :-) Well done on your recent featured article efforts, too. I always feel a bit guilty that I only ever take part in peer reviews and FA debates when I've got articles up myself, but then again I suppose if everyone commented on two or three other articles in return for putting one of their own up, there wouldn't be so much of a problem! Angmering 17:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thanks for all your help with that! I'll definitely nominate the character article at some point, even though I do feel a tad guilty about the idea of nominating such a "fluff" article! I'm not editing *quite* so much at the moment, after all the work I did in May, but I am still around and will put it up after a suitable gap from the Cartier nom. Busy doing some writing elsewhere at the moment, although of course that will fail miserably... ;-) Angmering 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, thanks for fixing that, cheers! On the Quatermass issue, I don't think there's a lot of point in nominating it as a GA really &mdash; if past experience is anything to go by, it'd only sit around there for ages until I was ready to nominate it for FAC anyway! Angmering 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Slayer stuff
I don't have any magazines that discuss Slayer past 2005, but I have found a Guitar World column by Kerry King that ran through a few years. In the columns I've found he predominantly discusses "Raining Blood", the Still Reigning DVD, and disciple "Disciple". Let me know what you want and I'll give you whatever info is useful. WesleyDodds 10:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head the stuff about "Raining Blood" and "Disciple" mainly concerns the song compositions (since Kerry King's demonstrating how to play the riffs). It's different with Still Reigning; King states it's an idea they've had for years, and he describes the first night they did the fake blood. He notes once the lights came on and the whole band was covered with blood the whole crowd went quiet and seemed a little unsettled, which King attributes to Araya looking like a psychotic killer covered in all that blood. WesleyDodds 23:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Request
Hi Lucifer, I'm going to take Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion to FAC in the next week or two; would you mind giving it a glance to ensure that it is properly cited. Thanks. Ceoil 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lucifer, for the support and for auditing the article. T'was appreciated. Ceoil 21:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * She'll be proud of you yet! ;) Ceoil 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A, "keep my head down a bit for awhile" is probably good advice. Tbh, I prefer you more when you are writing FAs than when&mdash;sorry&mdash;bitching on FAR. I'm gonna do two more Bacon articles before I move on to the man himself - Triptych, May-June 1973, Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X. That should take me to around Christmas. Ceoil 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "diplomacy" IS hard, but your gonna need it if you are to get your point accross. It would be great to see those Slayer articles expanded and promoted, though I have less and less time these days for helping out. Bloody FB. Ceoil 22:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jihad
Congrats on the FA. I don't know when i'll nominate it, but it will be soon. I want to give some other Slayer related articles a run through. M3tal H3ad 07:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's at FAC, don't know what to do now ;p any ideas? M3tal H3ad 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Help needed
Hey, I noticed you are a frequent contributor to WP:GA/R. There are a few discussion threads that are floundering and need additional comments from other editors. I would like to act on these soon, as they have been up for discussion for several weeks, but so few people have commented that I can't even archive as "no consensus" since we have a near null-set of comments. If you have the time, could you take a peek at the following articles and make any comments at WP:GA/R as you see fit? The articles needing additional comment are: Jeremy Clarkson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Anaximander, and Syncaris pacifica. Thanks in advance for your help with this! --Jayron32| talk | contribs 18:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and delist that train article. It has 5 votes, which to me indicates a clear consensus, especially for an article with as many problems has it has, and the talk has been dead a week.  The 6-vote threshold is what I use for discussions that appear active and snowballing; if a discussion is dead, and has at-least 4-5 votes, I usually archive it and act on the consensus.  As a further note, it would appear that we have a CLEAR precedence for speedy delisting ALL of the underreferened train articles; if there is any question about speedy delisting these, direct the people who object to GA/R Archives 17, 18, and 19 where we have a CLEAR list of problems that many of these share.  I would skip the GA/R nomination for all of these in the future, leave comments on the talk page directing them to the archives, and just delist them on your own without discussion.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll take your advice, but should anyone complain I'll send them to your doorstep... LuciferMorgan 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just send them to GA/R. If THEY have the problem, THEY can ask for a review at GA/R...--Jayron32| talk | contribs  02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Eyes of the Insane
I think it'll be ready for nomination after two fixes:
 * "Instead, others were contacted to produce the film" - This is unclear. - "handed over to"?
 * Can you check my edits today for typos. Ceoil 17:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lucifer, if it's ok with you I'm going to trim back the citations slightly. I'm not going to remove any actual sources, just merge were consective sentences are supported by the same note. Whats your next project bty? Ceoil 17:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)