User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 32

Thank you for your participation in GA Sweeps
Thus far, you have 131 listed reviews. For this very impressive and appreciated work, I hope you enjoy this award and display it proudly. Lara ☁ 17:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Singapore Dreaming
Thanks for the heads-up on the GAR for Singapore Dreaming, and for your alerting editors to the various flaws of the article in Talk:Singapore_Dreaming/GA1. I agree with your comments, but I'm sorry to say that I don't think I'll have the time to work on the article. But thanks for your notification! &mdash;Goh wz 12:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wario
What sparked your decision to change the image? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Riven article
I just want to adress your reasons for reverting the recent Riven edits: Poor rewording - I found the part about the gameplay to be too long and unnecessarily academic in tone. I tried to make it more compact, with simpler sentence structures. All in all, I think the part describing exactly how the interface works doesn't add much to the article - it should really be cut down even more than what I did. I should mention that English isn't my first language, so it's possible that something I wrote sounded funny. Unsourced content - Almost everything I wrote had references, except for one or two things. I'm not completely sure how the reference tags work, so I had hoped someone else would fix the reference I added. By the way, is it necessary to put a reference after each and every sentence, even when the source is the same for several consecutive sentences? Partial tone - What? "Highly realistic"? What else was even remotely partial?

I find it strange to simply revert these edits without any comment, as you did at first. It should have been easy to adress the things you mention with a few simple edits. Isn't the point of Wikipedia to incrementally make articles better? What I saw was that the article was in dire need of more info on the design and graphics of the game, since that is one of the things the game is most recognized for. Describing the interface and plot at great lengths is hardly that important. I just want to make the article better and thought I had brought it one step in the right direction. If you want to respond, please do so here, as I don't have a permanent ip. Thank you! 90.233.45.85 (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Riven
It's hardly "your job" to do anything but to help improve the article, and right now you're not being very helpful. I'm very much a newbie here, and I'm trying to do my best, but of course I will make mistakes (technical or other). I was honestly expecting that the community would help out with whatever mistakes I might do, as long as I add something useful. Is it really that much to ask that you delete the parts you find problematic rather than completely revert everything, without giving a clue as to what went wrong?

By the way, you just put back a statement that had no source, that I had tried to remove.90.233.45.85 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fluke
Hi. Regarding your edit of Fluke (band). Please read differences in UK/US collective nouns. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cope
Letting you know that I've formatted what you've added. Thanks for the additional content :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the gentle reminder. I'm ready to support this article's FAC. It looks really great. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot copyedit
* PING* (gah, no decent pics of Sonar to put up) As requested, a little reminder to copyedit the plot section over at Tales of Monkey Island! -- Sabre (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether you're done or not yet, but thanks. The help is very much appreciated. Around 750 words is a much more comfortable amount to deal with. -- Sabre (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

E-mail question
Did you get my e-mail yet? I finally figured it out and I really want Escape from Butcher Bay to be FA status. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry David, but while the references are great, I can't find the links of the references. I hope you understand. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never done that before and don't know how to. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


Connormah (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Halo Legends and the FT
I've added Halo Legends retentions for the FT - see here. Also Halo: Reach should be PRed and added ASAP - rst20xx (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a Wikiproject Peer Review, not a general Peer Review - rst20xx (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also it may be a pain but you'll still need to bring a supplementary nomination to have the article added to the topic, once the PR is done. Maybe it'd be easier now to PR both articles and then bring one sup nom to have them both added :) rst20xx (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that's one PR down, now the other? :) rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of wondering why you chose to convert the body of the article into Episode List seen on most other anime series articles. I think the template doesn't fit in this case, as that usually seems more appropriate for TV series, rather than a video with a collection of short stories.  I thought the normal prose format of the paragraphs was fine.  Give me your feedback, thanks. --ShortShadow (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You kind of have to bring the sup nom as well... :P :) rst20xx (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Also, I updated the retention - Halo Legends needs to be GA by June 16 - rst20xx (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

FA-Team revival
I've made a proposal to bring the FA-Team out of inactivity—with a mission a bit different than we're used to. This is just a generic note I'm sending to members asking for their input. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert
I see you have nominated Stephen Colbert for WP:GAR, but you have not notified any of the projects on its talk page or any of its main editors. How do you expect anyone to know it needs to be cleaned up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that was the plan all along. When it comes down to it, who better than the almighty David Fuchs, contributor of a godly amount of video game articles, to dethrone Stephen Colbert from GA status. Perhaps he opposes the Nation and is wikilobbying under the banner of doing "GA Sweeps". What is your motivation David? Cause clearly anyone with a signature that is hard to pronounce by the general public cannot be trusted.  « ₣M₣ »  04:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing, have a Happy New Year. :)  « ₣M₣ »  04:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What did you mean by first thing in the morning on my talk page. You seem to have been quite active this morning.  Please give this article a fair shot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did it myself. I hoep someone comes to the rescue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweeps
I was actually planning on doing that today. I'll send a message out later, I'm about to head out the door. I'm planning on upping the ante as well with a bribe. Anything to get this done. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that yesterday. I'm busy today but I'll mostly get it done by the weekend. Thanks for the heads up. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Sacrifice (video game)/archive1
Hey David, if you have the time, I hope you can go through the article again ("It'll take me some time to get through the entire article"), judging by FA criteria. Tally-ho, pip-pip, and all that! Jappalang (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I have replied to your comment about number of cited sources. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave, sorry I am a bit delayed (workload is getting heavier), but I have made changes in response to your comments. Please take a look when you have the time.  Thank you.  Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy Walsh has also expressed concern over "the industry"'s acknowledge of the poor sales of this game; thus, it seems the statement (with your concern over it) is more troubling than I had thought. You might like to know that I have make refinements to address this.  Jappalang (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I caved. I have replaced the monster cast image with a smaller one, and replaced the tornado picture with one of Bosch's monster drawings.  Please take a look and consider if the article has nothing that would prevent your support.  Thank you.  Jappalang (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Tchaikovsky and the Five/archive1
Hi David, if you have the time, could you possibly look again at the images in Tchaikovsky and the Five? All issues regarding them have been addressed. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q4 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  21:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey David...
...when you thought you had it worst: Argélico Fucks. ;-) -- Menti  fisto  17:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to think about this innuendo for a second - Fuchs is such a nice name in German. I actually wanted to stop by to complement you on your signature, does the "wohltemperierte" have a deeper meaning? Do you play piano? Just curious. Best Hekerui (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I grabbed the name from Bach's Das Wohltemperierte Klavier... just seemed a more festive pick for a sig :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Kiss (band)/GA1
Hi, I started fixing up Kiss (band) but haven't gotten nearly as far as I would have liked. I would appreciate it if you allowed another week for me to get on it. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

343 Industries
The source (OneLastContinue) is known as a reputable site on the Internet and has broken many previous stories such as FF7 coming to PSN (Kotaku has cited it as a source on many occassions).

Basically the ground work on the story was done by the site so there is no real reason to refuse the inclusion of information. In raising awareness of this new Halo title underdevelopment the original source should be referenced instead of a site such as IGN just because it's 'bigger'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunomacx (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The search for Spock - copyedit
I would like if possible to convert the bullet-pointed Cast section to proper prose. Take a look here, where I have posted the first couple of paragraphs, to give you the idea? What do you think? I don't want to take it too far if you think it's a bad idea. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The complete prose version of the Spock cast is here. I believe it reads well (but I would, wouldn't I?) The main problem is that it looks such a slab of prose. Could it be broken with an image? Another thing you could consider is a summary cast list box. Let me know what you think; could you post your reply here to avoid a broken conversation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The straight prose looks fine to me; I'll have to see about what images I can place in the section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved the prose version to the article page. Do you think a summary cast list is advisable? People may expect one. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan, really. If it comes up in a FAC, I suppose I could consider it (recent film FA's I've seen generally haven't included them.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. By the way, I am noting on the talkpage things which I don't understand, as I work through the article. Perhaps you'd keep an eye on that. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI
See here. –xenotalk 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette notification
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rapier1 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Dido and Aeneas/GA1
Can you help me list the problems with the article. I'm getting killed there and may need some assistance. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS and history check of File:Thomas S Monson.jpg
David, this is for the Marriott School of Management article. Could you check if the OTRS is valid for this image? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update explains the addition of the CC (forced by the majority). If the foundation deems such move to be valid, then so be it.  Since the OTRS is clear, I will clear this image in the FAC.  Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock: copyediting
I am sorry this has taken so long, but I've had to fit it around other commitments. I've copyedited, and left further comments on the talkpage where I was unclear as to meaning.

As to my general view of the article (which you've not asked for but may be interested to hear), when I started reading it I was a bit put off by the seeming preponderence of technical detail. After a while, however, I found myself thinking "Hey, this is quite interesting"; unlike most film articles which deal routinely with plot, production history and reception, this one goes behind the scenes and provides details of how the film was actually made. Then, a little later, brain fatigue set in; too much detail, too many phrases I couldn't understand, too much clicking on links – this occurred about the middle of the Special effects section. So, overall, I think some surgery on the latter part of the article might be helpful for the wider readership, beyond the film buffs and the Star Trek enthusiasts. I hope you find these comments helpful, and I will watch the article's progress with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Raptor Red.
Congrats, glad to see you made it. :) · AndonicO  Engage. 13:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Akira Kitamura
"unsourced claim to notability appears untrue"

Can you explain this? According to the game credits, this person created Megaman. 200.73.226.193 (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Stephens (programmer) - article deleted
Can you reinstate this article so I can add references? Article was a short but purposeful article about one of the early video game designers who has gone on to found companies which are still relevant. It had links to it and if the only problem was lack of secondary sources, this can easily be solved. Retro junkie (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Fray
Following your suggestions on improving the article "The Fray", I have made some changes, alongwith adding a "musical style and influences" section. I would be grateful if you could point out what other parts of the article seem to be un-encyclopedic or silly and I would be happy to edit those parts.Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review request
If you can spare the time, I would appreciate any review comments you can make here. The article is Voyage of the Karluk, an account of an Arctic expedition that went disastrously wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

halo legends dub
I am not really sure about how this wikipedia thing works sorry. Since you edited my wiki update I guess I need to respond here? Sorry if this is the wrong place. sxanimedia is reliable since that is the news site that originally announced the news of halo dub studio and cast involvement in november. The other site linked in the story ANN sources sxanimedia and confirmed the story. sxanimedia is a site that focuses on adv films and the dub studio that did the halo legends dub. A lot of anime fans and news sites source it like Anime News Network, Aint it Cool News, and even the TV company website Anime Network ( http://www.theanimenetwork.com/myblog/163-Right-Stufs-Nozomi-Entertainment-Unveils-Clannad-Lithograph-Plans ) has a story on sxanimedia If they aren't I think Warner Brothers would not allow them to post all these halo press releases that they get form Warner Brothers.

Artyou (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

halo legends dub more information
Since you have not made a decision yet I found on the voice actors fan pages on facebook that the voice actors Christopher Ayres and Josh Grelle  have confirmed on their facebook that the story is true and they even linked to it.

Image capture from facebook announcement- 

Facebook links - will need to request to friend first to be able to read it 

Or you can email Christopher Ayres on his website link that is linked on Wikipedia. I think that is reliable enough.

Can I put back the information on the cast?

Artyou (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Switchfoot
FYI. If you'll be putting Switchfoot "on hold" instead of straight delisting (as part of the GA Sweeps), I might be able to offer a hand and make a few improvements to the article. Jamie  S93  20:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) It needs a considerable amount of cleanup and research/culling wrt verification, so I can't promise anything great, but I might help out if I can. Jamie  S93  20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

List or Article question
Hey David, I not sure or not if Species of Psittacosaurus is either a article or a list. What do you think? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're probably right. I guess that since its a Good Article, I have to quick-fail it. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

George Koval
I beg your pardon, but the reason I edited the George Koval article is that it contained garbled information. I was taken aback to see that it was a Featured Article, given the number of inaccuracies it contained (and contains again, after you reverted my changes).

If you think that the article accurately communicates that content of the sources, that is probably because you have the misconception (also held by some of the news media) that "Oak Ridge" in the Manhattan Project context is synonymous with "Oak Ridge National Laboratory."

The sources I checked did not say that he worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They say he worked "at Oak Ridge". There's a large difference between "Oak Ridge" and "Oak Ridge National Laboratory". For one thing, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) did not actually exist during the Manhattan Project, so it's impossible for him to have worked at ORNL. During the Manhattan Project, Oak Ridge was the site of four different major Manhattan Project production facilities, plus Manhattan Project headquarters offices. (After the war, one of the four facilities became ORNL, and the other facilities also got new missions.) The sources indicate that Koval's job gave him access to multiple facilities in Oak Ridge (that's also what the article wording "free access to much of Oak Ridge" indicates). Nothing that I've read clearly indicates which parts of Oak Ridge he had access to. It's probable that his primary assignment was the X-10 site (the facility that is now ORNL). Not only did one of the sources refer to X-10, but X-10 is where polonium would have been produced and where plutonium-related work was occurring. However, the wording "much of Oak Ridge" indicates that he also had access to some other Oak Ridge sites (the most likely candidates are Y-12, where electromagnetic separation of uranium isotopes was being done, and the headquarters operation in the "townsite"; the other two Oak Ridge production facilities were K-25 and S-50). I corrected the information in the article to conform with my understanding of what the sources say; my understanding is affected by my knowledge that "Oak Ridge" is not the same as "Oak Ridge National Laboratory," as well as my knowledge regarding the Manhattan Project work that occurred in Oak Ridge.

Additionally, I corrected the caption on the image in the article. That image is from Y-12, so if you want to insist that he worked at ORNL, that image does not belong in the article. However, since he had access to "much of Oak Ridge," the image is relevant. I have never before seen that image (which is one that is widely reproduced) described as having anything to do with operating mass spectrometers -- where did you get that information for the caption? I do know that the women were operating controls on the calutrons in which the electromagnetic separation process was carried out for the separation of uranium isotopes (to produce enriched uranium).

If you feel strongly that this article is accurate, I will have to nominate it to have its FA status stripped. (As it is, I am concerned that there might be other inaccuracies in it.) --Orlady (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for changing the "Oak Ridge National Laboratory" reference in the article to "Oak Ridge". Thanks also for explaining why the image of the "calutron girls" says that they were operating "mass spectrometers". I have concerns about Wikipedia's use of that terminology to define "calutron" -- although calutrons have been described as being "essentially mass spectrographs", that's not entirely the same thing as a mass spectrometer, which is an analytical (measuring) instrument that uses mass spectrography. Furthermore (but a minor point), the young women in the photo had no idea what they were operating -- the functional part of the operation was not inside the units they were touching, but was located in another room.


 * The current article may faithfully represent your understanding of the sources, but those are relatively lightweight articles by journalists, and I still see multiple errors regarding the contextual details of the work that was going on at Oak Ridge, and possibly at other sites. I do think it likely that I will take this article to FAR for discussion, but I have too many things on my plate to do that right now. --Orlady (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Kiss (band)/GA1
I'm sorry I totally dropped the ball on this, it should be delisted. So much junk gets added to it everyday I haven't even been keeping up with that never mind making the improvements that you suggested. Sorry that I wasted your time. J04n(talk page) 20:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

halo legends voice update
Wanted to let you know added new info about the halo legends voice cast info since there was an update at sxanimedia that they got the dvd from warner. ANN confirmed the news sourcing sxanimedia at  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artyou (talk • contribs) 04:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

*snark*
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&curid=252388&diff=342336799&oldid=342249726 Ha! ahahaah!]

Lulz. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Malleus' block
I think you have not handled this particular problem well or even-handedly. Both parties were just as guilty yet only one of them got blocked. You should either block both, or neither. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did block both. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case I unreservedly apologise. Only Malleus' showed up on the block log entry on my watchlist (although I have no idea why it appears). --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you see it because his talk page is on your watchlist? (If that's true, it's still rather odd for people to get notified of that, but I'm afraid the mysteries of mediawiki elude me.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it's best to notify both editors of their blocks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I dunno; I found it funny. Granted, I'd feel the same level of amusement if Malleus were on fire, so... Half  Shadow  18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Goddamn. What an uncivil thing to say. You would enjoy watching another human burn alive. Because what? He doused you in gasoline and flicked lit matches at you? Or just because he forceful in his statements? What will be done with such a comment? --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably acceptable because he didn't say "on fucking fire". --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You would find Wikipedia less of a festering cesspit if you and the rest of the admin corps would stop blaming victims, and deal with root causes---e.g. editors who show up out of nowhere to attack for no reason. → ROUX   ₪  18:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you consider the wisdom of treading very carefully, else I will be initiating a case against you. In fact I have the sixth highest number of edits to the Nick Griffin article, the source of all this bother, and Parrot of Doom's talk page is on my watchlist, as we have worked on many other articles together as well. To suggest that I "showed up out of nowhere" is therefore a blatant lie. I do not see your name in the list of contributors to Nick Griffin on the oher hand, so I can only suppose that you were just hanging around the cesspit that is ANI waiting for the opportunity to unload a few more gallons of your bile. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Utterly piss poor block David. Clueless at best. Sorry, but it is what it is. Had it not expired I'd have undone it. Try to do more research next time. Pedro : Chat

Request
Malleus Fatuorum has been very helpful in the Nokian Tyres article, helping me get it from stub to good article. I see he is blocked for 1 hour. If you intend to block longer, please allow discussion because I need Malleus' help in getting the Nokian article to FA. In other words, don't indefinitely block him or block him for long periods of time. Try not to make him mad and leave. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

House of too many Shakespeare quotes
David, are you planning to work on all of the Star Trek films to FA status? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. I wouldn't mind lending a hand hither and thither. I'm keen to see the improbably one about humpback whales make it. "Name... Pavel Chekov. Rank... Admiral." -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. Not sure on the ILL. They've been cold to me at the library ever since I smudged their first edition of Lady Chatterley's Lover. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  01:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bungie
Looks like there's been persistent vandalism in the last couple of days. Should we pursue page protection? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the Flower print references!
-- Pres N  19:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)/GA1
David, I am disappointed by your comments that "no major progress has been made". I have addressed many of the points you made in my considerable amendments at the weekend. I am not claiming that the article is perfect by any means, but I'm surprised at your failure to recognise the work that has been undertaken in response to your review. Even if you found the progress to be inadequate, it would have been more polite to use the 'sandwich approach' in your feedback; that is, mix the achievements with positive criticism ("Although there has been some attempt to remove the OR and trivia, some OR remians; for example...") The JPS talk to me  22:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cast List for TWoK
Hi there...just curious about your changes to the cast listing for Wrath of Khan...my understanding is "Actor as Character" is the standard per MOS...converting to prose would seem to go against MOS at that point. Thanks for your help! Doniago (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol in the Bible community reassessment proposal
Thank you for your reply on my talk page and your mention of the Alcohol in the Bible article, which was put back up for another editor to review. What do you think about putting it up for community reassessment? As you mentioned it is a dense article with a lot of controversial "land mines" and I think that community consensus would lend more credibility to an decision regarding its GA status (especially if it was delisted). Your thoughts? H1nkles (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Images of Halo
I noticed your image in the Master Chief article and I have a few questions. So far you are the only user (let alone administrator) with this sort of expertise.--CornfieldMannequin (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you render (cut out) the image yourself? The source of the image links to a picture with a background, and yours is transparent. Very professionally cut too.
 * If you did render the image, how did you do it? I'm looking into making similar transparent images for Wikipedia, and I would like a few pointers.
 * Are you willing to make transparent images suggested by other people?
 * Another section in your talk page talks about Bungie's article and how it is frequently vandalised. How does a page qualify or enable this "page protection"?

Your edits to Machinarium
Hi David,

Thank you for also contributing to the article! However, I don't understand why you decided to remove the Oyungezer award from the article, calling it unimportant. The magazine has had a wiki article since feb 2008 and seems credible enough, so I put it back in the article with a cn. All the best, Anarkitekt (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

File:KodaguGowdas1.JPG
Herr Fuchs, might I impose upon you to wield the tools for me? Could you view deleted for File:KodaguGowdas1.JPG (log) and tell me whether it's the same as File:KodaguGowdas1.png? If memory serves, I once flagged this as a copyvio, but I can't remember the source site to confirm. I'm trying to determine whether this is (yet another) recreation of deleted content. Danke im Voraus, Эlcobbola  talk 16:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Free-Use Halo
(Thanks for the tip earlier.) I had just set out to make a Halo-related image with your advice, when I came across something called Microsoft Game Content Usage Rules, which allows anybody to make Halo-related stuff without copyright infringement. For example, would qualify for Free-Use under MGCUR. Wikipedia says something about that. ("The work of someone else, who has given permission to release it under a free license or it is already under a free license") Should all Halo images therefore be Free-Use?--CornfieldMannequin (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "...strictly for noncommercial and personal use..." –xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 22:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What Xeno said. Basically we'd get away with a lot more content, except that Wikipedia allows for-profit uses of its content, so no dice. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

343 Industries
Noticed you reversed my edit where I created a page from 343 Industries and changed it back to the redirection to the Halo series page. If the page does not have enough content to allow its existence then shouldnt it be deleted entirely rather than have a redirection?

KP-TheSpectre (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol in the Bible GAR delist
Hello, after a brief discussion with a fellow reviewer in the community reassessment for this article I am confident that the article can be delisted. If you don't mind I will delist. Would you care if I placed the article under my name in the running total? It's not a big deal so if you'd prefer to keep it I don't mind. H1nkles (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

citing TV episodes as "original research"
This is in reference to your "undo" of my contribution to the page on Klingons. You justified it as OR, despite my citation of a specific episode as a primary source. I know that Wikipedia guidelines on using primary sources are tricky, so if you want to challenge my edit based on the policy that "A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge" -- in other words, arguing that my edit is interpretive rather than a purely objective descriptive statement of the episode in question -- that would seem more valid, albeit, in my opinion, inaccurate. However, if you challenge my citation of an episode as OR, that seems to be a misapplication of OR -- or at the very least, an unfairly arbitrary and inconsistent application of rules, considering how much of this article is based on citation of episodes and other primary sources. Minaker (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be argumentative, but in response to your comment "Correct me if I'm wrong, but virtually everything in the Klingon article is cited to secondary sources" -- bluntly, you're wrong. I think you need to read the article again to see how many facts are derived from observations directly from the TV show -- although arguing over this point ignores my assertion that this is a valid use of primary sources. You do address that assertion when you argue that I'm drawing a conclusion. I agree I'm drawing a conclusion, but I thought the conclusion was a "descriptive statement that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge," to quote the appropriate Wikipedia policy. In other words, I didn't consider it an interpretation on my part, and thought it a fairly obvious, even explicit conclusion, as the ridges are clearly shown as a part of the devolved Worf's exoskeleton. However, the mere fact that we're arguing over the point might imply there was more interpretation on my part than I'd realized, so I can disagree with your reasoning and still respect and understand the validity of it. Anyway, it's a moot point; if I understand the three revert rule correctly, I couldn't restore it even if I was so inclined. (Anyway, that other editor seems to agree with you, so I'll bow to the majority.) Minaker (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I already more or less said you've won the argument, so if you want to keep arguing, you're on your own. Minaker (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Bert Jansch
Hi David. I've been working on your proposed improvements on the Bert Jansch article. Lots of people contributed to the the article at the time when the bulk of the writing was done, but I seem to be on my own at the moment! I think I'm well on the way to meeting the "letter of the law" as far as your points are concerned. However, the removal of problems that would cause an article to fail the GA assessment, whilst necessary, are not the same as creating a really good article. I would welcome your views on how things are progressing. Thanks! Bluewave (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WHY?
why did you delete my entire page on Halo ActionClix?Edude7 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)