User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 38

The Signpost: 7 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please add finding of fact about unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry
Hello David, could you please add the finding of fact from the Workshop page which says that Kehrli has been disrupting the arbitration by accusing others of sockpuppetry to the proposed decision? PaoloNapolitano (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming Dota (genre)
Hey, I've made a new motion to rename Dota (genre) to Action RTS right here. Since you previously stated your opinion on this matter, would you be able to again, in order to get a consensus on the subject? D arth B otto talk•cont 23:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yo
Oh good, you're online. I can't watch Satoshi Tajiri all day. :p I did a WP:RPP, but that's taking too long.  « ₣M₣ »  19:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! lol Thanks.  « ₣M₣ »  19:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're still there delete StarCraft: Motion Overdrive.  « ₣M₣ »  19:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congrats on getting yet another article to FA. Link's Awakening has always fascinated me, and I learned a lot about its creation and reception while copyediting the article. Great job, as usual. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks; I have fun doing it. I thought I'd let you know, though, that I sadly won't be able to take any more copyediting requests for quite awhile. Real life's gotten busy, and I've refocused my limited Wikipedia time on my Looking Glass Studios topic. Hopefully, this won't make it too hard for the VG project to find copyeditors; I remember what a nightmare that used to be. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Quest FAC
I moved the common elements to the front. I was wondering if you were going to do a more thorough review? Thanks. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite web and cite news
Hi. Further to your earlier post on the thread I started at WP:citing sources it would be useful if you could look at my latest comment as I want to try and take forward improved wording for the template. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Factions of Halo, the last non GA
I am itching to say we worked on the only all GA+ wikiproject ever, so do we need to get this one to GA status? Judgesurreal777 06:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Replacing
Hi David, I will immediately move on to the point. It is that I want to replace the existing poster arts that you have uploaded to the next Star Trek films: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Star Trek: First Contact and upload theatrical versions with credits (this, this, this, this, this, this). Now, I would not have anything about it if you want to upload those posters, but as a big fan of Star Trek, I would like to do that by myself, so I ask you because I don't want that later be some problems. Do you want to upload or me, or simply to leave the way it is? Thank you in advance. InfamousPrince 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sonic Colors
Hey David. How's the review coming along? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. Making sure that's all. I don't want this to longer than it already is. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Didn't see his userpage until you mentioned it. Also, can you review this? It just got restarted and it just needs to be over with. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks man. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Halo Waypoint
Hi David, there's a request to change the target of that redirect on the talk page. Since you seem to be more familiar with it than I, perhaps you could comment? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Interview
Wow! Didn't expect myself to be interviewed at all! I would like to be interviewed. but I wanna first see if Gary King is gonna accept an interview this time. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got confused about the thread at the VG talk page. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Did the first three questions. Hope you enjoy them. And I hope you give me more great questions so I can give out great answers. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "who's so cool he doesn't have a user page." I love that! GamerPro64 (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * David- You mind if I ask a few extra questions for the interview? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Hey David. Are you planning on asking me more questions or is that all? GamerPro64 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reassesement
There's a reassesement of iPad Awsome  EBE123  talkContribs 22:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed
I seek advice only, not direct intervention.

The situation as I see it: Some editors of the Astrology page appear to be continually challenging the validity of the word 'pseudoscience' to describe astrology. The use of that word was unequivocally supported by an arbitration in December 2006 actually mentioned in a banner at the start of the talk page. The 'debate' about the validity of the word, (and a more recent quibble that the bans placed on some editors amounts to censorship or POV dictate), is bogging down any real effort or chance of creating a worthy encyclopedia article there, and has done so for three-and-a-bit years. My (very) recent efforts have been directed at pointing those editors to the administrator pages concerned with challenging or undoing editor bans and the pseudoscience arbitration.

My questions: 1.) am I being reasonable in asserting that debate on the astrology talk page cannot undo arbitrations or bans, and should therefore not be conducted there; 2.) that disputes about the scientific status of astrology that bypass the arbitration are not the proper subjects for debate on the astrology talk page; and 3.) what are the appropriate pages to address a.)the 2006 arbitration and b) the editor bans?

Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   06:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)



Danke fuer den Rat. So hatte Ich's mir auch vorgestellt. Gruesse Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   14:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

AMX FAC
We have renominated The Autobiography of Malcolm X for FAC. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the AMX FAC will likely be archived soon, so please do indicate whether you support or oppose promotion. Thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

200 (Stargate SG-1)
Hello David. I'm preparing to create a spoken version of "200", and I wanted to message you personally because you nominated it for FA status. I've added a bit to the article recently. If you could look over the changes and give your approval, I'd appreciate it! I've also left a note on the 200 talk page. Thank you! --Fang Aili talk 06:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Main page appearance
Thank you! Heads up! I would likely be coming to you to review an article (to attempt for FA) several weeks or a few months later (if Arb-ing is not taking up too much of your time). I am branching out, so it is not a medieval battle, video game, comics, or bridges (heh). Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on Star Trek (film)
David- I know you're busy but, if you have a couple of minutes, I'd really appreciate anything you'd care to share with me regarding your critique of my comments on Talk:Star Trek (film). Nobody can know everything and I'm always looking for honest feedback. (I may not like it but I always want to hear it...)

If you have time to respond, please do so here; I prefer to keep conversation threads together.

If you choose not to reply--for whatever reason--no hard feelings. Either way, thanks! &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, to use the old adage. Unfortunately we get a lot of people who don't understand Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are somewhat faulty indicators of aggregate reception, not actually how the film was received. I can't guarantee quoting policy and common sense will win over the other editors, but at the very least you look better for it. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the Book
Trust me, the pterosaurs with white wings in Raptor Red were Ornithocheirus. Buy the book online and read it and you'll see that I'm telling the truth.Raptor Red (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense and poppycock. David is the reincarnation of the bungie staff! Protonk (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hadn't seen that PA Protonk, nice find :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Gullibility
Hi David, you protected Gullibility...
 * 00:55, 30 November 2008 David Fuchs (talk | contribs | block) protected Gullibility [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (hit by Diggers)

Could you please lift the protection or change it to semi-protected? I'd like to make it a stub; see Talk:Gullibility. (I could unprotect or edit the article myself, but I'd prefer not to.) Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Merci! Melchoir (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 10, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 10, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 06:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 

Populous: The Beginning is the third game in the PC strategy god games of the Populous series, developed by Bullfrog Productions in 1998. The PC version of the game was released November 30, 1998; a PlayStation version was later developed and released on April 2, 1999, later emulated on the PlayStation Network. Unlike earlier games in the series, which cast the player in the role of a god influencing loyal followers, The Beginning took a radical departure from the earlier games and placed the player in the role of a shaman, who directly leads her tribe against opponents. Throughout the twenty-five missions of the campaign, the player leads their tribe across a solar system, dominating enemy tribes and tapping new sources of magic, with the ultimate goal of the shaman attaining godhood herself. Populous: The Beginning was the first entry in the series to use true 3D graphics; Bullfrog waited four years to develop the sequel to Populous II so that the graphics technology could catch up to their vision for a new and different game in the series. Populous: The Beginning plays very different from earlier titles, and was welcomed to mixed reviews. Reviewers positively noted the excellent graphics; complaints were directed at the artificial intelligence and the inability of the game to decide between being a real time strategy title or god game. (more...)

Your GA nomination of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
The article Star Trek V: The Final Frontier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Star Trek V: The Final Frontier for eventual comments about the article. Well done! GRAPPLE  X  20:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2011
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 02:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dominion War
Hello David Fuchs, thank you for reviewing the Dominion War Good article nomination. If I understand correctly, the issues that need to be addressed are: Do I have this correctly? Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Synopsis section needs further copyediting and redundant sentences need to be removed.
 * File:STDS9Ep226.jpg, and File:USS Sitak and USS Majestic.png need to be removed and File:USS Majestic hit.jpg needs stronger Fair use rationale.
 * The sources Television Heaven, TrekPlace.com, Twiztv need to be replaced because they do not meet the guidelines for reliable sources.

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut's ban
Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use reminders Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please check for yourself, pl. don't assume
''There are two Indian guys arguing one side, and then there's a bunch of casual editors from the United States and Europe arguing the other," says Gardner. "And it's interesting because there's this tiny number of Indians who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view, and then there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side.

Llywrch had perhaps the likes of Zuggernaut in mind when he wrote, "...& woe to anyone who doesn't turn the other cheek & is as warm & kind as a therapist",, Zuggernaut's sin is that he brooked no quarter, and exchanged blow for blow, a pity they seem to have counted only the punches he threw. I have the largest edits at the Ganges x Ganga debate Sue refers to in the quotation above, 241,, and so I think Sue is refering to me. At Ganga, I know how many threats of being declared disruptive and tendentious I faced and how many insults did I swallow.

I request the arbitrators who have declined, please take a hard look at Zuggernaut's ban. Wikipedia calls itself The free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit Zuggernaut's ban seriously curtails this previlege of his. Is this indefinite ban justified, considering that the facts may have been mis-represented, and editors who were a part of the consensus too eager to accept them. Arbitrators please open this can of worms.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy Note
I wouldn't normally make such a note, as I expect people to have discussions on their watchlist, and to accept a decision or follow process if they don't. However as it's you and you're general hatred of me is well known, I'm informing you that I've closed Articles for deletion/Project Cafe - where you commented delete - as a keep. New information from very reliable sources has been presented subsequent to your comment "(but it cannot be the backing source justifying an article itself)". The number of recent keep comments made it clear that the article, in one way or another, should be kept. Again, only remarking here so you know that whilst I noted your commentary, it has nothing to do with the bad blood between us that I went against your verdict but was a decision based on the merit of the debate and likely further input. Pedro : Chat  20:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have an account on Wikipedia review and have never had one. To what spat there you refer I have no idea. You minimial level of research and assumption that I do have such an account speaks volumes. Pedro : Chat  20:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup: May 7 @ Tenleytown Library
The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.

This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.

Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Meetup/DC page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon Black and White setting image
I know that you probably aren't terribly interested in the dispute, but I would like it if you could give further input. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dominion War Review
Hey David. How is the review for Dominion War coming along? GamerPro64 17:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April newsletter
sorry i have sources to show you guys but i don´t know how to put them into the article ... and in the help section i dont understand how to do it. can you give me a hand plz ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazm1bico (talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)