User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 6

Christ Illusion
Happy to have a look at it. I'll read it this evening. Jeffpw 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Time got away from me this evening, so I only had a glance at it (this is trash tv night: America's Next Top Model, The Simple Life, Survival Of The Richest and Revenge Of The Nerds, so you see I was pressed for time!). It looks very interesting, though, and I will read it seriously in the morning. I did notice one little thing: you mentioned that one of the musicians was "accredited" on the album. I would thing credited would be more regular. Anyway, I will give it a thorough reading in the morning, when I am fresh, and a full list of comments. I can see already that it is truly FAC material. Jeffpw 23:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read the article, which I found very interesting and well written. There are a few minor points which you might want to address, especially if you're planning on submitting this for FA:


 * The sentences about the gallbladder operation seems a bit clunky, with HOWEVER in one sentence followed by THUS in the next. You might want to remove HOWEVER.


 * The sentence about "new track 'Cult'" could use "the" in front of "new track".


 * You might want to wikilink the parts about "number of the beast" and book of revelation".


 * July 25 sentence needs format fix foe the footnote. the release date was pushed back to July 25[9](


 * Additionally, a live performance of "Cult" was shown on "The Henry Rollins Show"; a few days earlier, a rendition of "Disciple" (taken from Slayer's 2001 album God Hates Us All) was posted online, filmed on the set of the show. This also reads a bit off. Perhaps you want to reword it so that the info about Disciple comes first?


 * ' Reasons for this were that they disliked the band's name, which they felt referred to a murderer, also taking offense to the antichrist and skull logo adorning the bench artwork. I don't think' this is a run-on sentence, but it feels like one.


 * For the chart position, you have use three refs more than once. Perhaps you can use the three together at the end of the sentence.


 * With the Peter Atkinson quote, I would use an ellipse instead of two distinct quotations, if it were taken from same source.


 * They're actually 2 different sources, albeit by the same author. LuciferMorgan 15:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "much better because he looked like a drug addict!"[38],: the footnote needs moving.


 * Lastly, if you could expand the Lyrical themes, and also combine and expand on the controversy in Mumbai, it might improve the article. I felt analysis was a bit lacking, but perhaps you couldn't find enough sources (a big problem with pop culture).

All in all, I found it a great read, and learned a lot! Thanks for asking me to read it. Jeffpw 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The first one which you questioned was just a minor format fix which I corrected (see history for the diff).


 * The second question was about a sentence that feels cumbersome to me. It is probably grammatically correct, but it had a "feel" of a run-on sentence to me. Here's the sentence and a possible change:
 *  Reasons for this were that they disliked the band's name, which they felt referred to a murderer, also taking offense to the antichrist and skull logo adorning the bench artwork ... The officials disliked the band's name, which they felt referred to a murderer. They also took offense to the antichrist image and the skull logo adorning the bench artwork. ... This just seems a bit clearer to me and not as difficult for the reader to interpret.


 * Yes, I meant if you could find more critical analysis of the lyrical content and themes of the album, that would add to the article. But I understand if that is hard to find, and you don't want to add WP:OR. I also thought it might be a good idea if you made a separate controversy section, taking the Mumbai stuff and other reactions from the different sections. Give that a think. It's an excellent article as it is written, but you wanted me to be critical. :-) Jeffpw 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

From SG
Don't know who that might be :-)  (By the way, I'm wondering why you added Battle of Leyte Gulf to the FAR urgents ? It has plenty of input ???) Anyway, on to Christ Illusion:

As you probably know, I approach an article by analyzing the structure, WP:GTL, WP:MOS, references, etc. before I even read the article - so I'll do that first, and read it once you've addressed everything else.

No immediate problems apparent - size of lead looks good, WP:GTL, WP:MOS and WP:MSH look good, no external link or See also farm.

It looks like the article could use some attention to Wikilinking.

Turning to the References, I see some problems. First, there's a lot of strange and mismatched use of italics. Book names and newspaper names are italicized, but web article titles are not. (Have a look at the cite templates or any of the citation styles linked at the bototm of the page there for sample biblio styles on refs.) All of the excess formatting, caps, and italicizing make the refs hard to read, so using a standardized biblio format should help.

A much bigger problem is the very heavy reliance on one source - a site called blabbermouth.net - I did some digging around in there, and can't find anything to convince me that it's a reliable source. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like anyone can submit news there, and there's even a disclaimer about reliability ("The accuracy of the information contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed"), so it doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. Maybe you can find something? Wiki's own entry on them doesn't seem to indicate they are a reliable source: Blabbermouth.net

Some other websites used as sources seem to have similar problems (metalrules.com for example). But the biggest problem is blabbermouth - unless you can establish that it meets the criterion at WP:V and WP:RS, there's a lot of work left to do on the references. Also, cleaning up the format. I can read the article after the refs are dealt with. Good luck on it ! (And glad that punk rock came out OK - remember when we thought it was going to be a quick and easy keep LOL !!) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead section
Hi, LuciferMorgan. In the Dalek FAR, at one point you said that the lead section shouldn't have citations in it. I just happened upon Wikipedia talk:Lead section, where it seems there was some discussion about this a few months back; although the consensus isn't entirely clear, the final recommendation seems to be that lead sections should be cited just like any other part of the article. I just wanted to let you know, so that you weren't giving misleading advice. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I hope that the FARs will be staggered, so that project members can work on providing the citations and improving the articles one at a time — I think it can be done as long as they're not all up on FAR at the same time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Hanneman
Hey Lucifer, i added a style section to Hanneman, though I'm not sure if it's that great, or could be expanded further?. I also found some interviews where he comments on Metallica and Slipknots music and could probably find more, should a new section be added? or add this to an existing section and what would it be called? Also if anything else is missing from the article feel free to mention, thanks. M3tal H3ad 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to add, i can't really find anything solely on his playing style but can find heaps on the style used on albums which includes King i guess. M3tal H3ad 08:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i can't find much info :X, "A Rare Interview With Slayer Shredder Hanneman, Gripping Firmly onto the Reigns of Metal" and from this interview, commenting on how he came up with the melodic leads for Christ illusion, Metal-rules. I did find some guitarists he was influenced by, so I'll add them but can't find any interviews that someone says was influenced by Jeff. Perhaps regarding style a paragraph for his own style and one for the dual solos? Anyway my search shall continue. M3tal H3ad 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Dalek question
Hi, LuciferMorgan. I'm slogging through the latest batch of fact templates on Dalek, and I'm unsure what you're looking for in one case. You put a tag after the phrase "Future stories in the classic series" (in the History within the show section). Are you questioning the term "classic series"? It's the one used by the BBC to distinguish Doctor Who 1963–1989 from the current 2005– run. . I can add that citation if that's what you're looking for — or are you wanting a citation for some other aspect of that sentence? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

McCartney
I have nominated it. Here we go.... andreasegde 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Masterplan Debut.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Masterplan Debut.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Somme 1916
Hello! If I userfy myself a copy of the Battle of the Somme, would you be willing to go through that tagging everything and anything you think needs fixing? (Leave a note here and I'll check back later}. Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah will do. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Much obliged. I've dumped it at User:Angusmclellan/Battle of the Somme. Thanks again! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick Drake
I'm close to bringing this to FAC, would appreciate if you could give a quick look-over for unsupported statments, before I take into the bear pit ;} Thanks + Ceoil 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hamersley
Hi :) I can see where the confusion arose - for some reason cite.php orders named refs in the order they're referred to, not the order in which they are documented, which is a bit silly IMO. It'd make far more sense to have a [24] in the infobox so people know to look in the other one if they want to edit the ref. Orderinchaos78 00:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:NWofAHM.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:NWofAHM.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review/The Quatermass Experiment
Hello there &mdash; you might remember you put The Quatermass Experiment up for FAR, and more recently voted "remove" on the FARC. Over the past day or so I've had a bit of a bash at bringing the standard of the article up a bit, and to my pleasant surprise User:SandyGeorgia has suggested at the FARC that it might possibly now be salvagable as a Featured Article. Apparently the citations look okay, anyway. I know you're on a wikibreak &mdash; hope it's for relaxing reasons! &mdash; but I was wondering if you could cast your eye over the article again as and when you get the chance, to see whether or not it's improved enough? Thanks! Angmering 21:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Lucifer &mdash; thanks for looking at the article again, and for your kind words on my work on it. I've messaged the users that SandyGeorgia recommened I approach for a prose check, so hopefully if they get the chance to look at it I can act on any concerns there.
 * On the subject of other featured articles I've worked on, I imagine you're referring to Our Friends in the North and Quatermass and the Pit? The former is definitely an article I was already planning to go back to and improve soon, and I might have a go at it sometime in the next week or so. I came across a good long article on it from The Guardian back in 1996 the other day, and there's the British Film Institute's book on it which came out last year, so plenty more cites available. I'd really like to try and keep Our Friends in the North at featured status as I think it's the best thing ever, basically. (The production, I mean, not my article on it!). I will also try and improve Quatermass and the Pit, of course, but that might have to wait a short while lest I get Quatermass fatigue! Needless to say, though, if that one came up on FARC first I'd have a crack at trying to save it.


 * Thanks again! Angmering 23:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd forgotten about BBC television drama, actually... Anyhow, thank you for your offer &mdash; what I'll probably do is try and work on Our Friends in the North this week, and drop you a message when I've had a go at it to see what you think, if that's okay? Angmering 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I didn't think you were pressurising or bullying at all. Believe me, I want to improve my articles &mdash; when I look at some of my older contributions to Wikipedia, I'm rather embarrassed about the low standards! Angmering 00:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know that after thinking about SandyGeorgia's advice about which articles needed the more urgent attention, and having anther look at it, I have decided to work on Quatermass and the Pit first. Expect a ping about it during the week. :-) Angmering 10:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Public Enemy
um... why did you remove a reference for the Public Enemy article? Aren't you the one who delists GAs because of a lack of references? Furthermore, why did you do so without explaining yourself in an edit summary? Cbrown1023 01:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * oh, I see now. I had done that when I wasn't too savvy with the citing templates.  But don't you see how much easier it would have been if you had used a summary? :) Cbrown1023 02:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification of the GAR. I really don't like it when people do not follow instructions and notify the editors of the page (I know that it wasn't you, it was another user, and I have notified them on their talk page of this).  I appreciate you informing me of this. Cbrown1023 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw this conversation by happenstance, but FYI if you're interested, you can set your Preferences to automatically prompt for an edit summary when you forget. (I used to have the same problem.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmh
I very deliberately used insulting terms with regard to GAR and FAR processes (and processees), and I started the comments with the title "WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit". I was seeking a reaction, and I got it. I apologised later in the debate for the language, and acknowledged the valuable work that the denizens of both places do. In the mean time I have engaged in meaningful conversation with a couple of editors who have argued their case coherently and civilly. I wonder if I had started by acknowledging the work and praising the general ethos of both GAR and FAR, and then suggesting a possible improvement in procedure, I would have got the attention of these people. I admit that I went against several WP policy guidelines (and am willing to take the consequences) but it did kick start the debate...

For the record; all those at WP:GAR and WP:FAR (and WP:AfD) are really valuable contributors to Wikipedia. It is just that on occasion their overzealous interpretation of policy demotivates and demoralises other members of the community, to the detriment of wikipedia and especially the ethos of The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. I felt it had to be said. LessHeard vanU 13:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Slayer
I took your advice, that the heavy metal project is a load of crap and created WikiProject Slayer. I know it won't be "super active" but hopefully will get a few decent members and get some articles to GA, plus it's a good way to organize information, with the table and goals, possible collaboration's etc. If it's a failure, I'll probably put it up for deletion later, although theres a lot of other projects on bands that are super inactive. Anyway feel free to join, and good luck with getting Christ Illusion FA. M3tal H3ad 13:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Firefox
Hi there. I have cited a few statements you added citation needed tags to in the Mozilla Firefox article, and will try to cite them all if I can (even if you add more :). I can't, however, make an assertion of reliability for the sources, and would really appreciate it if you could have a look yourself and see how you feel about them. If you think anything is unreliable or non-notable, feel free to remove/re-tag the "offending" statement and/or drop me a line. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagging LGBT articles
Hi, LuciferMorgan! Thanks for tagging a couple articles as you came across them - we're approaching 4,000 articles tagged! Two quick comments / requests: 1) You only need (without the "Template:" part), and 2) Go ahead with a rough classification for the article. I really appreciate your help! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[Removed Personal Attack]
LuciferMorgan, why do you think Catholics should not be allowed to write on wikipedia? Eedo Bee 12:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eedo, I've removed your subject header as an unnecessary personal attack. I do think LM could have have worded his sentiments better (and I would encourage him to consider doing so) but reciprocating with an inflammatory talk page post is not justified either. Two wrongs never make a right. Agne 12:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Yes, Lucifer - it does help - but I also have a spreadsheet I put together long ago with all of the WikiProjects that I 1) found in "What links here" for each article, or 2) dug out of the WikiProject Council directory - so I usually go back and add a few. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't notify yet on latest MilHist - I've queried the nominator. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He responded favorably, so I went ahead and notified those. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

work
Thanks for your comment, Anthony. Yes, it's a problem at the moment. Snowed under with clients until 1 March, then I escape to ski in Canada for the whole of March. Then half-available until May–August, which is the free part of my year. Will try to do a little. Tony 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FARs and Doctor Who FAs
Hi, LuciferMorgan. I'm glad that we were able to bring the Dalek FAR to a conclusion that I hope was satisfactory to everyone. I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong footing earlier in the process. Now that it's over, I'd like to say a few things:
 * 1) I now understand and appreciate that your interest is in maintaining and improving the quality of Wikipedia's featured articles, and nothing else.
 * 2) I apologize for erroneously suggesting that you were holding Dalek to a higher standard than other FAs. I did not realize how much more strictly the FA criteria are being interpreted than they were when the article first became an FA.
 * 3) I think that some of the tension in the FAR process could have been avoided if you had worded your concerns differently in these two edits. "Bad faith" is a very strong accusation, and I think it was the wrong term to use here.  The editors from the Doctor Who WikiProject who voted "keep" may not have had a full understanding of the featured article requirements, but their intentions were good.  If, instead of being sarcastic and dismissive, you had taken the opportunity to educate these editors (including myself), I think that the process might have gone more smoothly.  With great respect for the good work you do on FARs, I would like to suggest that you re-read WP:AGF and think about how it applies to the FAR process.

For most editors, the notice that an article on their watchlist is undergoing FAR is their first encounter with the process. I know that the Dalek FAR was mine. You and the other FAR regulars might want to look into ways of educating regular editors unfamiliar with the FAR process about it, including explaining that the citation requirements are much more stringent than they were a few years ago. A better understanding of the history of FAs and FARs would go a long way. Perhaps a "newbies' guide to FAR" would be useful — something you could point editors to when they come to the FAR saying, "What's wrong with this? Why are you picking on our article?  It was fine when it passed FA in 2005 — why isn't it fine now?" Looking over other FARs, I see that this isn't an uncommon reaction: there might be a reason for it.

I'd like to get the Doctor Who WikiProject to work together on improving the citations on our other featured articles (Doctor Who, TARDIS, Doctor Who missing episodes and Sydney Newman), but I think our energies would be best spent working on one at a time. Previous discussion indicated that members might like to work on Doctor Who first. You suggested at one point that you'd be willing to let us work on our FAs in a more relaxed atmosphere than the FAR produces — are you still feeling that way? Which article do you think we need to work on most/first? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:A Barrel Full of Monkees.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:A Barrel Full of Monkees.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Man in Reno (album).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Man in Reno (album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Private Investigations - Canadian Single Disc Edition.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Private Investigations - Canadian Single Disc Edition.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BBC Radio 1 Live (Hawkwind album).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BBC Radio 1 Live (Hawkwind album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit
As suggested, I have gone through this article this week and tried to bring its standard up to something close to the current FA level. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts. Angmering 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will do that, but if it's okay I think I shall wait a little bit &mdash; I get the impression that most of the FAR prose regulars are rather snowed under with articles already on FAR at the moment, and besides which I think I have already bored most of them to tears recently with The Quatermass Experiment! :-) But I will follow up User:SandyGeorgia's suggestion and see if I can get the article de-listed from Featured articles with citation problems. Angmering 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I probably will try having a crack at BBC television drama. I was a bit gloomy about that one last week, but in the course of researching stuff for the Quatermass pieces I've come up with more general BBC drama background stuff that could be used to cite that one up, so I think I shall probably give it a go. Angmering 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I meant to say before, I don't know if you saw them &mdash; I suspect you did, however, given your comments at the Dalek FARC page &mdash; but I'd like to apologise for my rather cynical comments the other week at User talk:Josiah Rowe concerning the nature of some people's attitudes towards science-fiction articles. Angmering 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)