User talk:Coolug/Archive 5

Human Centipede FAC
Hey Coolug. I hope you're not offended by my comments at the FAC for Human Centipede, and I'm sorry the FAC didn't work out. I really think you've done great work with the article so far and am positive it will eventually reach FA. I had to vote against any editor going through the rigorous FAC process, and I hope you don't find this roadblock discouraging and that you keep plugging away at it. Please don't hesitate to speak up if there's anything I can do to help you and, if you like, when you feel you're ready to bring it to FAC again, I'd be happy to take a look at the article before you nominate it and check if I think it's ready then. Best of luck! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your helpful comments. I couldn't possibly be offended by a vote against an FAC when it came with a load of constructive comments that can only help improve the article. I will certainly be in contact when I take it back. cya Coolug (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: THC
I'll take a look as soon as possible. Good to hear you're still moving forward with it! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

THC article feedback
Did you notice that the THC article now has one of the new article feedback boxes at the bottom of the page? You've done rather well :) Papa November (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hooray! Coolug (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Jaquet droz
Why did you delete the post on Jaquet Droz? There wasn't any info in the first place so it would be an obscure gap to the interested reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wung97 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm afraid I don't remember what this is in reference to. Please could you let me know which edit this refers to and I shall try and explain. You can show me the edit by pasting the url (web address) for the page that shows my edit onto your reply. cya! Coolug (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Coolug, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Coolug/sandbox.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message DASHbot! I was working on the article on my sandbox so I could make sure the changes would work, but thanks for letting me know. Keep up the good Bot work! Coolug (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Northrop YF-23/archive1
Okay, you wanted less technical language in this, and we've just completed a round of copyediting. See if the new version is easier to read. - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962
Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Garry O'Connor
I took out the stuff you added as I have concerns about the wording and the sourcing on a living person. Could you possibly discuss this in article talk? --John (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, why did you just remove my comment on the Garry O'Connor talk page? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, was looking at my watchlist on my phone and managed to accidentally rollback your edit (fat fingers gah!) - was about to undo this but you got there first! cya Coolug (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I really appreciate all your help with the article. Hooray! Coolug (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks Papa November! I couldn't have done it without your help! Coolug (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, congratulations, the first horror FA in a long time. You beat me to it :) Well done, though, you deserve it.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 17:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. You should consider joining the Project.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 17:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User page
Nice to see you finally have one! You can mark FAs with a little star using FA. Similarly you can mark DYK articles with dyk and GAs with GA. Papa November (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Human Centipede II UK release
BBFC passed it with cuts -- Tærkast (Discuss) 12:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the congratulations on the FA. I couldn't have done it without the help of the community.
 * I really don't know what to think about this whole THC2 thing. It does sound bloody awful, but after spending so much time on the First Sequence article I feel I do have to watch it (Papa November incidentally has never seen First Sequence and absolutely refuses to watch part 2 either). I've heard that the first half hour before all the horribleness starts is actually quite good, and the clips I've seen seem to suggest that the actor playing Martin is pretty good and even funny at times. So yes I shall be watching it as soon as possible. I would obviously never download a film illegally on the internet :) so I shall have to wait for this cut version to come out. Cya Coolug (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Korkoro
Am posting here as the FAC review page for Korkoro is archived. Thanks for your comments. I added attributions to the reviews. Is there anything else that you think I should do before renominating it? morelM William  07:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And yeah, congratulations on your first successful FA :)  morelM  William
 * Hey, thanks. With these nominations you just have to make sure you do everything that's asked (unless the person asking is just plain wrong :) ) and be patient. Unfortunately a lot of FACs are ignored by the rest of wikipedia and a lot of the time you won't get many comments. All you can do is make sure the article is as good as you think it can be, and then bang it up in FAC again. Leave it for 2 weeks before doing this though so as to not piss off the overlords at FAC unless someone specifically says it's ok to nominate it again so quickly. In the meantime, when you feel able to try and give good honest comments and supports to articles you think deserve them. Don't support articles for the sake of it. But try and be more active in FAC. Hopefully then eventually it will come back to you and maybe on a second or third attempt the nomination will get enough attention and pass. Good luck. Cya! Coolug (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

 * Those poor barnstars! Thanks though! "Barnstarpede, wake up! It's time to begin your training!" Coolug (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar FAC review
You commented on Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2 that you thought the article was too long. I've now reduced it substantially in size and it is now shorter than many other featured articles. Could you please take another look and indicate whether this resolves your concerns? Prioryman (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Signpost
You're in the newsletter. Well done :) Papa November (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's cool, but seeing as all the other recent FAs are there too it's not that amazing. Coolug (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS
Oh, and here's the link for the OTRS system. Papa November (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I emailed Ilona Six on Saturday, I don't really expect to get a reply though. To be honest I'm not super bothered really. Is it really worth putting all that much effort into the main page when it's probably a lost cause anyway? Coolug (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

GA: congrats!
Hey Coolug,

Congratulations, your article Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962 passed GA with flying colors! Now you can be proud of another achievement besides The Human Centipede (Full Sequence) :-P (kidding, it's kind of awesome that you got that through FA). Thanks for all your hard work! – Accedie talk to me  02:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the review, I'm trying to rehabilitate myself on Wikipedia through writing an article about something serious. I'm still proud of THC of course, but I can write boring stuff that no-one wants to read too! :) Thanks for a helpful review and your suggestions what have helped much improve the article. I really appreciate you taking the time to help. cya! Coolug (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your FA!
Congratulations on getting The Human Centipede (First Sequence) through to FA status. You have persistence, guts and talent. Very few editors would have attempted (and succeeded) in achieving that feat. Well done! Manny may (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. Aside from the conceptual issues, according to your article the film wasn't that graphic anyway. Much ado about little. Hope it gets on the Main page for Halloween. Manny may (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Coolug (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the kerfuffle at WP:TFAR regarding this article. What a load of nonsense, to object on the grounds of taste.  Well done on the article's FA status. Parrot of Doom 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

FPC nomination & page edits
Hi Coolug,

Could you explain how you possibly managed to do this accidentally when you added your nom to FPC? It just makes no sense. Please take care when editing communal pages such as this. Thanks, --jjron (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, seemingly by accident. Very odd as I have added things to communal pages on numerous occasions and not messed up like that. Nevermind, mistakes do happen. Thanks for fixing it and I hope you'll accept my apologies. Incidentally it seems my image is on it's way to failing also (not that it really matters I suppose) so karma is getting me back for that one. Cya! Coolug (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, karma. :) Don't worry, a lot of images fail at FPC, so don't take it personally. Not many people are successful on their first attempt (or second, or third, or ...). Anyway, I just don't get how you did that to the page. The only thing I can think is that somehow you opened up an old version of the page and edited that (hmmm, you didn't have the 'edit' page open in your browser for like 24hrs before saving it did you?). Cheers, --jjron (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, BTW, if you really want to withdraw the nom, just put Withdrawn in bold (like a vote) and sign it and a closer will be along before long to move it along. Otherwise (if you can stand it) just leave it to play out for the week. --jjron (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey that makes sense actually, I wasn't sure how to format the addition so I looked at an old revision in a separate tab, I must have then accidentally edited that one. I didn't know you could edit old versions, the thing at the top always says edits to old versions won't be saved. Interesting.
 * Anyway, thanks for the advice. I shall withdraw formally. It's not an especially pleasant image to look at and since it's going to fail anyway I might as well spare people having to look at it.
 * Cya! Coolug (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Human Centipede III (Final Sequence)


The article The Human Centipede III (Final Sequence) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Per WP:MOVIE, films don't get an article until filming has commenced.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I created the article as a redirect, but I've had nothing to do with any edits beyond that. I agree that there is no place for this article yet on wikipedia. I'm going to turn it back into a redirect and hope that my position as the spiritual leader of wikiproject human centipede will mean nobody argues about it :) cya Coolug (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Human Centipede
Hi Coolug - I've added my support comments. Happy to help anyone with Lug in their name ;-)  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks! When I was about 12 I used to draw this little cave man character who I called 'ug man' all over my school exercise books and stuff. Then the internet became mainstream (this probably dates me a bit) and my family went through all those free 30 day trials of dial-up AOL and compuserve and so on, and every e-mail address I ever got was some sort of variant on ug, ugman, ugdude and so on. When we finally settled on an account in 1995 or whenever it was I had the name coolug, and it's basically stuck ever since. Anyway, thanks for the support. cya! Coolug (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs! I've dropped a note on the talkpage of the Film Project too.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I added my support. Good work on the article!--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Cropped image
Have a look at File:Still8 Human Centipede cropped.jpg - I've cropped it to remove the foliage at the left of the shot. Might look better in the article/main page excerpt? Papa November (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's very nice for the article, but as for the main page excerpt, I'm not sure, after all, at the moment it's not immediately apparent that we are trying to put a picture on the main page of three people joined mouth-to-anus unless you really look at it. Aren't we potentially going to piss the "think of the children" brigade off if it's clearer what the picture is? I'm not anti, just that was the first thing to cross my mind. Coolug (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that my attitude would be to either show it clearly or not at all. At 100px width, it's still pretty hard to be offended by the image.  Might be worth asking for input on the TFA discussion? Papa November (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah it'll be alright, it's only a tiny little image, and no one has said anything about it so far. I'll make the chance. cya Coolug (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ..and here they come. Anyways, I'm sure you guys can see the naked, single figure with 3 people connected by their mouths and anuses. Isn't this a problem? It clearly shows the connected human centipede. And er if you look close enough, it kinda shows. Is there some alternative (heh, it's come to this again, hasn't it) that doesn't show the centipede itself, like a picture of the poster? (-and that might be worse lol) - M0rphzone (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: The Human Centipede (First Sequence)
This is a note to let the main editors of The Human Centipede (First Sequence) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 31, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/October 31, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is a 2010 Dutch body horror film written and directed by Tom Six. The film tells the story of a German doctor who kidnaps three tourists and joins them surgically, mouth to anus, forming a "human centipede". It stars Dieter Laser as the villain, Dr. Heiter, with Ashley C. Williams, Ashlynn Yennie, and Akihiro Kitamura as his victims. According to Six, the concept of the film arose from a joke he made with friends about punishing child molesters by stitching their mouths to the anus of a "fat truck driver." Six also stated that inspiration for the film came from Nazi medical experiments carried out during World War II, such as the actions of Josef Mengele at Auschwitz concentration camp. When approaching investors prior to filming, Six did not mention the mouth-to-anus aspect of the plot, fearing it would put off potential backers. The financiers of The Human Centipede did not discover the full nature of the film until it was complete. The film received mixed reviews from mainstream film critics, but it won several accolades at international film festivals. The film was released in the United States on a limited release theatrically on 30 April. A sequel, The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence), also written and directed by Six, was released in 2011. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent work here, Coolug! Now check the moral panic ;-)  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work Coolug. As one of the main contributors to Gropecunt Lane, I had a good laugh at the prissy idiots whinging on Talk:Main Page.  Make sure you do too. :) Parrot of Doom 08:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't let the haters get you down, you did great work on the article. It's good to see a Halloween feature on a new, controversial, and unsanitized flick. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've really sent ripples through Wikipedia over this. :P You should keep an eye on Twitter too; lots of comments about the film on the main page. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe next year we can get the Human Centipede Part II for Featured Article? *evil laugh*--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks for the Heiter Award. :D --CyberGhostface (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Think you'll like this too!  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 136,500 views which makes it eligible for inclusion at WP:TFAMOSTVIEWED, if you'd like to add it. Parrot of Doom 18:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not bad. I noticed that the horrible sequel got nearly 70k views too. Thanks for the heads up. I shall add it. cya Coolug (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Another mention in SIGNPOST
Here you go: Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-07/News and notes Papa November (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just about to let you know about that (hope you like it; I observed the heated debate with some... amusement... and the FP nomination). Anyways, good job with the article. As a side not, I'm thinking of trying to get ? to featured article status (I have a vision of the TFA blurb for 1 April 2013 be a ? in 130pt font), and was wondering if you'd have any ideas on what to do now (informally, of course). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My experience of getting the human centipede to FA seemed to show that you basically have to find a load of high quality sources, milk everything possible out of them in a well written article, and then keep bashing it up at FAC until someone takes notice and either supports it, or tells you what you need to do to improve the article. You also need a fair bit of resilience as it will be very depressing when everyone ignores your nomination. If you feel able try and write some constructive comments on other peoples FACs and give support where it's due. The more people active in FAC, the more likely it is that you'll get some good constructive comments. Good luck! Coolug (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the signpost says I "heavily expanded" the article... I was there from the start! Coolug (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that. I've fixed it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Vanity! Vanity! (Of course papa november deserves a credit too, but I somehow doubt he would actually want his name up there in lights :)) Coolug (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Vanity and a rather empty page for yelling at you... guess nobody really wanted to complain at your userpage. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Stamp of USSR 2341 resized 111011.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Stamp of USSR 2341 resized 111011.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stamp of USSR 2341 resized 111011.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Stamp of USSR 2341 resized 111011.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Images
I've sorted out most of the issues with your FAC images. Copyright status of the Stakhanov photo isn't 100% clear, but I think it's good enough. Papa November (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll pour you a nice glass of Porto next time I see you! Coolug (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the Porto has now been drunk so I will have to withdraw my previous offer. Coolug (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You've still got the leftovers of my Isla Negra. You can bring that round tomorrow instead. Papa November (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962
I must say, thats a well written article - I was planning to write an article about the topic, but I see you have beaten me.. Probably for the best, you are a better writer than me. --TIAYN (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your kind comments! Unfortunately not everyone agrees with you about the article, and it recently failed to become a featured article. Still, life goes on. Cya! Coolug (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

wage reform article
It was a little brusque of me: sorry. Tony  (talk)  15:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this wasn't promoted. If I'm able to edit productively in future, I will be happy to support it when renominated. It seems that prose issues were a holding issue, you might want to ask a Guild of Copyeditors member for help. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey. Thanks for your help and support. I'm not sure if I'll bother with those copyeditor people as to be perfectly frank, whilst I attempted to write an article that would be accessible for the layman, I don't want this to turn into some simple english BS where terms like "incentivise" are seen as too complicated. It's still an economics article. I'm a little bit annoyed about certain things about that whole nomination process but ultimately I suppose it doesn't really matter. I wanted the gold star (like a lot of editors I suspect) for vanity purposes and really being promoted wouldn't have made any difference to the article. Thanks again for your help. cya! Coolug (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I moved the article from the "normal" review queue at the Guild to the FAC review queue; if this is a problem, feel free to move it back. (BTW, did the soviets try incentivizing later on also? That's when I seem to recall them trying, and failing due to a lack of higher-quality or higher-quantity-desired consumer goods to be purchased.) Allens (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for this. I have no problem with you moving this, in fact you can do anything you like with it. However, it is not at FAC any longer, so is it suitable to go here? As for your second question I'm afraid I have no idea. cya! Coolug (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Coolug. Allens should not have been moving articles around and has been asked to stop. If you are hoping to take it to FAC again in the reasonably near future, even though it isn't one at the moment, it is entirely welcome on our FAC requests page. It's entirely up to you: fewer inexperienced copy editors service the FAC-level requests, but turnover is slower. I'll be happy to move it again if you'd like. Whichever you choose, you will not be pushed back in the queue. Best wishes, --Stfg (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that... Allens (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ok, in fact, I would much prefer it receives a ce from the FAC chaps, so please feel free to move it back. Cya! Coolug (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Stfg (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wage article
An idea: I'd strongly recommend finding images, graphics, or tables for that article. I'm not suggesting, of course, that arbitrary graphics be added just for the sake of graphics. but there must be some images of the USSR workers during that era. If not photos: are there any statistics? You could tabulate relevant statistics into a table ... that is generally not Original Research, provided the stats are from Reliable Sources. Just a thought. --Noleander (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It'll be a day or two, since my own current FAC needs a bit of tweaking, but I won't forget  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm making some copyedits on the article and will leave some suggestions at the FAC. I'm not always 100% sure about things, so feel free to revert me or disregard my advice if you disagree. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment about TFA
This is quite informative, especially when taken in context with recent unwarranted controversies. ;) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962

 * Thanks! Coolug (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962
This is a note to let the main editors of Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 23, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 23, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



Broad-sweeping wage reforms were instituted in the Soviet Union during the Khrushchev era, from 1956 through 1962. These were intended to move Soviet industrial workers away from the mindset of overfulfilling quotas that had characterised the Soviet economy during the preceding Stalinist period, and toward a more efficient financial incentive. Throughout the Stalinist period, most Soviet workers had been paid for their work based on a piece-rate system. Thus their individual wages were directly tied to the amount of work they achieved. This policy was intended to encourage workers to toil and therefore increase production as much as possible. The piece-rate system led to an enormous level of bureaucracy and contributed to huge inefficiencies in Soviet industry. Additionally, factory managers frequently manipulated the personal production quotas given to workers to prevent workers' wages from falling too low. The wage reforms sought to remove these wage practices and offer an efficient financial incentive to Soviet workers by standardising their wages and reducing their dependence on overtime or bonus payments. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope this TFA kicks up less controversy than your last one :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey this is very cool! And totally unexpected too. Somehow however I don't think this one will have quite the impact of the last one though.... :) cya! Coolug (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962
Hi Coolug. Congratulations on getting Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962 to Featured Article. I've removed your GOCE request for it because you've already succeeded. Sorry we didn't get there in time. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey. Thanks for getting back to me. I'd totally forgotten about that GOCE request. Cya Coolug (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Randall Flagg
Hi I've been trying to get this as FA for years. Since you've been successful with two articles you worked on, do you have any specific suggestions or people to contact for copyediting?--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey. I don't really think I have any special insider knowledge on FAC or anything, but from my two experiences of getting an article to FA the most important thing I can think of is just to try and have a thick skin and even more importantly to be patient. I think both of my FAs have been quite hard, the human centipede was difficult because a lot of people frankly didn't want an article on some gross horror film to be an FA, and for the wage reform most people basically didn't give a damn. So in both cases it was important to just stick the articles up on FAC and see what happens. Then when people inevitably shot the nominations down I had to suck it up and try and act on the comments.


 * If you look at the 1st wage reform FAC you will probably see that I was starting to get pretty pissed off with the FAC process, as a lot of the time in FAC you can feel like you are on your own and everyone else wants you to fail because you haven't done exactly as they wish, most often because deep down you think that their comments are total BS. It's also a pain in the behind how no-one on FAC ever helps you out with anything, ie they'll say "oh yeah you need a comma here rather than a colon" or whatever, and all you want to do is scream "make the damn change yourself! agh!"


 * Here is where being really patient will serve you well. I know FAC isn't supposed to be Peer Review, but frankly it's the only place on this project where you are ever guaranteed any proper feedback. So if you think your article is FAC ready then just stick the thing in and see what happens. When people suggest useful stuff do it, even if it means spending 2 hours re-watching a film with the directors commentary in order to add times to the references, just do it. Even if you have to re-read the whole chapter in some book you read to check the source, just get on a do it.


 * As for copyediting? Well you can probably see that my reply here has turned into something of an incoherent rant, demonstrating the flaws in my overall writing ability. Fortunately there are lots of people on Wikipedia who are good at writing stuff. They can be found in various wikiprojects, in GOCE (although anyone can join that so don't assume they'll all be amazingly gifted writers) and god knows where else. Find the appropriate areas and ask if anyone wants to help out, then wait, wait and wait some more. Eventually someone will come along.


 * I hope this helps, even if it is more a random collection of thoughts than an actual solid "do this!" advice. Good luck with it all. Coolug (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Sorry it took me so long to reply, I just checked out your talk page now.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * These are some rather fascinating views on the process. Very interesting insight. lol Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green
I'm leaving you this note to let you know that I've revision-deleted your edits to the McAlpine article regarding allegations against him. Even if accusations against a person appear to be legitimate, WP:BLPCRIME suggests not including them until a conviction is made. There has not yet been a conviction against McAlpine, and furthermore, the allegations appear to be unsubstatiated. Therefore, I have removed them from the article to avoid violation of the BLP policy. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey fair enough, if that's the policy. I'd rather you hadn't removed my edit summary though as to the casual observer it looks now like I had deliberately libeled the guy rather than made a good faith edit. I purposely left out any description of what I had added anticipating that the edit might be deleted in future. Cya Coolug (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for letting me know. I've logged in to make an edit on a talk page about something and thus saw the message. I was a bit disappointed that the entry on the list doesn't mention the infamous thing I did :)
 * cya Coolug (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:ShootinghistorySnowbookcover.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ShootinghistorySnowbookcover.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. January ( talk ) 10:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)