User talk:Laser brain/Archive 2

Kannada literature FAC
Will do. Soon. Thanks for writing! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into the article closely. Sometimes, sentences get changed during copyedits and such. If you need any assistance from my side, feel free to ask. Thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One easy place to look for English translations of Kannada novels are in wiki itself. S. L. Bhyrappa is famous now-a-days. May even get the Jnanpith award some day. At the bottom of his page, his novels and the languages they have been translated to are given. Modern Kannada literature gives the names of some of the famous writers in the last 50 years. The wiki pages of the linked writers will take you further. Hope this helps.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the Kannada literature FAC
Hi Laser brain, Sorry it took so long. I felt I had to make the more detailed points in the FAC itself before I could make their more succinct versions here. Here, in my view, are the significant problems with the article:
 * 1) Synthesis of secondary sources is involved in the inclusion of many topics&mdash;most notably Sarvajna and Yakshagana&mdash;in the topic of literature in the Kingdom of Mysore. For example, Mysore, even in the mid-18th century, occupied less than a third of the Kannada-speaking region of southern India (see map: File:SouthIndia1704SubrahCIA2001.jpg) and in Sarvajna's time, the seventeenth (perhaps even the 16th century), it was less than a tenth.  Sarvajna, moreover, was born at the other (northern) end of the Kannada-speaking region of Karnataka. user:DK has asserted that Sarvajna was a wanderer.  True, but in order to include him in an article on literature in the Kingdom of Mysore, some connection with that Kingdom has to be established.  The biographical evidence on Sarvajna is so sparse that there is no evidence that he even traveled through the Kingdom of Mysore.  After all, in our time, the Beatles have been wanderers, but Edinburgh doesn't get to include them in its music, only Liverpool, their birthplace, does.
 * 2) Undue emphasis is involved in the inclusion of Yakshagana in the article. The article uses five surveys of Kannada literature, each footnoted over 20 times; of these three (the modern ones published by India's National Academy of Letters) say nothing about Yakshagana.  The remaining two, Rice (1921) and Narasimhacharya (1934, incorrectly dated as 1988) mention them perfunctorily with the latter making uncharitable remarks that I have quoted in the FAC.  Although, user:DK has liberally used these surveys, he uses other, obscure, sources for the Yakshagana sections.
 * 3) Unreliable sourcing is involved in portions of the article that talk about literature produced by the Mysore royals. In particular two sources, a music dissertation by Pranesh, titled Musical composers under the Wodeyar dynasty, published locally in Bangalore, and without any ISBN information and a local Karnataka college history text by Kamath also without ISBN information, have been footnoted 37 times and 27 times respectively in the article.  I have challenged user:DK to find any scholarly article on Kannada literature that references these sources.
 * 4) Drastically incorrect paraphrasing of the secondary sources.  The distorted overly optimistic readings of the sources, for me, remains a major problem in the article.  I have given one example in the FAC (related to Yakshagana); however, so confident do I feel about this, that I am happy to do that exercise for any paragraph of your choosing in the article.
 * 5) Poor writing. For a literature article, KLKM remains poorly written, as Tony1 has observed in the FAC. My points in the explanation of the tags on the article's talk page, which still have not been responded to, include some of the points that Tony1 makes about the lead.  The problem is that it is not just the lead.  Pretty much every paragraph has similar problems.
 * 6) Finally, the page name. The article was originally written as "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore."  My guess is that towards the end of the writing the author realized that there simply wasn't enough material for such an article, so an unsuccessful attempt was made to change the name of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900," and the article continues to retain the contents of the latter title.  The problem with that title is that it corresponds to no known periodization of Kannada literature, as I have explained in the FAC.

My recomendation: withdraw the article from FAC; rewrite it as "Late-medieval Kannada literature" or "Early-modern Kannada literature" with scope 1600 to 1800, paying especial attention to accurate paraphrasing and writing. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your nice words on my talk page. Please also see: Accuracy of sourcing in Kannada literature in KM FAC.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC: Premiere (The O.C.)
Hi. Per your original oppose at the FAC, I have replaced the whole "Filming" section eliminating any seeing-stars sources. Is there any chance you could revisit the article and let me know what you think. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Thank you for accepting criticism so gracefully. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It is amazing how a nights sleep can help and I'm sorry if I seemed stubborn at times. I do appreciate all comments, regardless of whether or not I show it at the time. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  16:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uru: Ages Beyond Myst
Given the backlog I'm trying to review more and keep my own noms off the page for the while, but I was wondering if you had any extra time if you could run through Uru: Ages Beyond Myst and see if you still have concerns (if you do, just post them to the talk.) As I remember we were close, and since it's going to be a while before I want to copyedit the monster of an article that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is, I figured I'd get this one out of the way. :) -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I will check it out today. Looking forward to V-ger. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assistance. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA?
wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add. Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC) PS Do you still want reminded on the 13th of each month?
 * Thanks! How often do you wanted to be pinged? Once a month? twice? once a week? once a day? ;-) Or are there topics you'd like to be pinged on? Part of the impetus for the PR backlog box was also so that people could watch and see articles they might want to review (much like the urgent FAC box). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You noticed ?
It's really discouraging. Drama fest, whining, complaints everywhere, and no real article work or review anymore. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm trying not to let it get to me. It's cyclical, perhaps? I've only been around for.. yeesh it's been more than a year.. but it seems like many people who always came around with quality content or quality reviews are just gone. Or they're playing in sandboxes I don't visit. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they're gone ... or discouraged. (Imagine what it's like to spend up to 12 hours at a sitting getting through FAC, not to be able to close hardly any because there are no reviews, and then to get nothing but a stream of complaints about those I do close.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the many things I credit you for is not letting FAC lapse into a "no feedback means support" mindset. This is all too pervasive in other circles. It just seems like there is a whole wing of this building dedicated to bureaucracy and not at all what attracts me to this project. :( -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a bigger problem, one that I've been sounding the alarm over to no avail for a long time; the children's social networking site has replaced any a lot of serious editing that may have once existed. The caliber of articles and editors we used to work with has changed, and dramafest has taken over.  People would rather argue endlessly over trivial matters that don't affect articles than create quality articles. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey now! Insert a "most" or "almost all" ... I'm trying! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well ... you're among those rare exceptions, a true gem :)))) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Second that comment! Anyway, despite be an unconscionable cynic in most areas of life, I believe there must be a solution. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. There are editors out there who want to uphold standards at FAC and who want to bring quality content to FAC. We need to do our best to support and encourage them. The editors that are just here to bandy words and leave messages for each other, well... -- Laser brain   (talk)  17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly won't be contributing here again until I see a serious effort to purge wikipedia of these schoolkid administrators. Which means that I won't be contributing here again, as it ain't gonna happen. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review reminder
Hi Laser brain, it's the 13th! Cheers and thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Posting system, a quick look-over?
Hey there Laser Brain! I first encountered you when nominating Star Wars: Rogue Squadron at FAC where you were rightfully criticized my article's prose. I've been thinking about possibly nominating posting system at FAC now, but I wanted to get your opinion on the prose before I did. I've gotten all the help I can from PR, it seems, and now I need to branch out, which is why I'm running this past you. If you could possibly look through the article briefly and give me your impressions, I'd be very grateful. Thanks! --TorsodogTalk 20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Can I have until Monday? I'm pretty short on time for the rest of the weekend. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem! I'm not on any time line here. This article has been a project of mine for the past year or so, so a couple extra days are no problem at all. I appreciate it! --TorsodogTalk 05:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review/Billie Jean/archive1
I agree that the composition section may need a big overhaul, I don't know a thing about composition. I see that your a member of WP:MusInst; do you know any editors that could copy-edit the section? The book I'm using for the referencing of it can be viewed here.  Pyrrhus 16 ''' 09:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Musical Instruments project isn't very active. I'd recommend looking at Peer review/volunteers for musicians and ask someone for a targeted copy edit of that section. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do that, thanks. :)  Pyrrhus 16 ''' 16:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Review a battle?
Hi, Laser brain, do you have time to review the Battle of Barnet, one of the battles in the Wars of the Roses? Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, was killed in the fighting, and his former protege, Edward IV of England, secured the English throne with this victory. If you doth take the plunge into reviewing this article, please leave your comments and suggestions at Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I will get to it today or tomorrow (Monday). Thanks! -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, um - NY 319
I posted ten days ago that I was getting a copyeditor, who copyedited today, and I also fixed the problems you listed. A lot of the project got a laugh of one comment. Could you check? Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What comment? I will check back today. -- Laser brain  (talk)  23:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

+O at Featured article candidates/Vasil Levski

 * Please consider my +O at Featured article candidates/Vasil Levski. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Birkett
Laser, how are you doing at Featured article candidates/Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see this in time for your work yesterday! I will revisit today. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Laser !! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
I read through a lot of the FACs today and noticed your name all over the place. Thank you!! I was surprised to see just how many reviews you've done lately, and I wanted you to know that it is really, really appreciated :) Karanacs (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I very much appreciate your work as well—you are wearing many hats these days! -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting
Hi. I noticed your copyediting work on the recently-featured Sam & Max: Freelance Police and The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-Earth II, and I wondered if you wouldn't mind giving me a hand. I've been working extensively on Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, but it's been solo work, so it's only had one pair of eyes. I've tried to copyedit it as best I can, but I can tell it isn't 1a material. If you have the time, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! I'm afraid I must decline, as I have an awful lot on my plate and seem to be running short on time. Have you checked the peer review volunteers list for editors interested in copyediting or reviewing game articles? -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. And yes, I did find someone through WP:PRV, so the article should be okay. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So there I am, blithely telling someone that an article I've written is "pretty much ready" for my first FAC nomination, when I notice this comment, indicating your distaste for starting sentences with an ambiguous "This" in reference to something prior. On a whim I check "my" article, supremely confident I've avoided all such issues—only to find twelve of the buggers. Just so you know... I blame you entirely. All the best, Steve  T • C 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ah ha ... so some nominators still check their FACs for readiness? :))  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If by "check for readiness" you mean bug Laser to run through our articles and savage us before Tony gets a hold of it, yes :) -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Laser? Savage?  harumphhh ... 20:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered that one of my comments managed to transcend an individual FAC—I might someday aspire to be 1/10th the editor Tony is! -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See how I expertly broke the ice with that comment above? That gives me an "in" so I can ask you what I originally intended to. :) Your prose reviews at FAC are very thorough, and since reading them I've picked up on things I wouldn't otherwise have noticed ("This what?" etc), so I was hoping you'd be able to give me some advice. I've always peppered my prose with conjunctions such as "that" and "that was"; I come from a background in writing technical manuals, a field in which precision is preferred to elegance. In Wikipedia articles, that precision can come across as stilted, and I've noticed many writers' omitting "that" when used as a conjunction. I've gone through articles I've written to omit the same, but to my eyes it just doesn't look right. For example, I much prefer "...a kidnapping and murder case that was uncovered in 1928" to "...a kidnapping and murder case uncovered in 1928". Do you have an opinion on this? Many thanks, Steve  T • C 11:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So I guess the short version is... it's a judgement call. :) I thought as much (though I agree that "The group commented CT scans..." is hideous without the conjunction). Thanks for the reply. All the best, Steve  T • C 22:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Military copy-editor
Saw your comment at Tony's talk page, he was referring to User:Eurocopter, see Featured article candidates/Operation Cobra. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * YES, thank you. That was driving me up a wall. -- Laser brain  (talk)  23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Jones
Actually, I left a message on the talk that was more or less "More specific complaints please". Wily D 14:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit
As per your comments about Operation Deny Flight, you seem to be a pretty good copyeditor yourself. I don't suppose there's any chance I could persuade you to undertake the copyedit yourself? Cool3 (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Long article is long
Well I'm not sure if that blasted Cinefantastique is ever going to come my way via interlibrary loan, but aside from some referencing in the music section and some more to add to the home video bit, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is more or less complete and good enough to run through. Any prose help or any comments would be welcome :) -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is odd, that magazine doesn't seem to be indexed anywhere that I can find. Anyway, excellent. I'll take a look-see tomorrow. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've gotten through some of his concerns already but I might not be able to finish them until next week after department portfolio review for my school, so I'll ping you when I finish. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've finished off everything (more or less) save for the Audio section (and a few scraps in cast I may or may not merge depending on whether I can find some info on them). The rest of it is more or less gelled. I believe I addressed all of Jappa's comments as you prescribed. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

MilHist article needs help?
Hi there. Long time no see. Which article is it you were referrring to on my talk page? Tony  (talk)  11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Ah, I see above that it's no longer an issue. Ta. Tony  (talk)  11:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ball-breaking client? Intriguing. And has a sense of humour or doesn't go near WP talk pages! Tony   (talk)  12:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, somehow a commitment to spend 10 hours a week "proofreading" chapters of a dissertation has morphed into 40 hours a week of practically rewriting a dissertation. Apparently, we're issuing terminal degrees in education to people who never made it out of diapers. Tell me, how can we fix our educational system when the pants are lacking? -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks Dave! -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of Time
You are a professional writer. Fountain of Time is perhaps wikipedias finest peace memorial and it is up at FAC. It needs a copy edit and is not that long an article. In the name of peace, would you consider giving a look at it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say it, but your style of collaboration and discussion is completely incompatible with mine. I think it's best that I avoid things you are working on. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

1964 Brinks Hotel bombing
Hi Laser brain. I've ce-ed it.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tired to clairfy  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 01:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I never thought that you would approve an article's prose and someone else would object, but I guess it's good to see standards improving. I do need a hand with the prose then I guess...  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC review
You recently left comments at Featured article candidates/Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. If you can, please revisit the page and let us know if there are any updates on your opinion. The article has been a candidate for over a month now, so I would appreciate it. I'm not trying to rush you or anything, just wanted to remind you in case you forgot. Thank you for your time. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Easily entertained
You gotta stop ! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, you still have time to review shit? I think I pinged you earlier about addressing at least Jappa's concerns. I'm taking a break from it to rest my eyes and hopefully get some distance for a later copyedit, but if you have comments I'd like to hear 'em :) -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As always, glad to entertain. I'm here all week—remember to tip your waitstaff! To David: That was next on my to-do list... will take a look tonight. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Progress is progress (I only wanna' get it done sometime before the 10th anniversary :P) I'll take a look, and yeah the sound effects guy was going into some pretty technobabble stuff, I will look at that and anything else sometime soon. Thanks, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of Bale Out
recommended you as a good peer reviewer - I have nominated the article Bale Out for a peer review, and if you have time I'd most appreciate comments at the subpage, Peer review/Bale Out/archive1. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can get to it tomorrow. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! ;) Cirt (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Yukon Quest
If you have a chance, I've addressed some of your comments and commented on some others. Thanks for taking the time to look at it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up comments have been/are being addressed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: FAC?
Well, it's already been archived anyways. I don't have access to any contemporary reviews so I can't really do much more to improve the article. Gary King ( talk ) 16:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

USAD copy edit request
Hey there. I have been working on the article "United States Academic Decathlon" for a while now, with the intention of taking it from where I found it to FA status. (This is the article as of now). has already graciously helped with a review of the article, which can be seen at the talk page. She mentioned you as another reviewer to look over the article before I submitted it to FAC. I would very grateful if you could do so; I would rather not waste reviewers' time and try to put the article on the FAC list only when I feel the article is truly ready. If you could do this whenever you have time, I would appreciate it deeply. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking! I think I can get to it within the next 1-2 days. Interesting topic to boot. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. If you have children or know of some high school children, consider encouraging them to join Academic Decathlon ;). NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 18:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey there. I know you are busy (especially with that upcoming RfA soon, good luck), but I just wanted to know if you finished with your copyedit (unlikely) or when you predict you will be done. I wanted to launch the FAC relatively soon, because I forsee myself being busy in around three to four weeks, so the more quickly I can get it done, the better. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 22:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm slow.. just ask David Fuchs. :) I will try to wrap it up tonight and post any follow-up questions on the article Talk page. It is good—I'm honestly not finding much. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tonight sounds lovely; I honestly didn't expect it to go that quickly. As for the not-finding-much part, well, you can probably thank Awadewit more than you can thank Yohhans and my writing :) NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 22:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA
 SandyGeorgia would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact SandyGeorgia to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Laser brain . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Laser, I set up a page to nominate you for adminship, but I haven't yet added my statement; I'll work on it tomorrow. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will look at it tomorrow as well. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall I transclude it now, or do you want to? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: TMP
I've just been kinda shiftless with the end of term and all. I'm not sure about the sound effects south (so basically if you can run through that and the release section, I think we're in good shape). I'm going to try a full print and copyedit off the inky pages before I submit to FAC. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if I may congratulate you very prematurely on your RfA :P -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've copyedited down to filming, and will finish up this week. I started a thread on the talk about the dispute over budget, since the user in question apparently has acquiesced that the figures were wrong but is continually adding the figures to the infobox (and apparently thinks this is all an elaborate plot by me: he'ss called you a meatpuppet or sock of me on my talk page.) I figure a more public space will cut down on the wild accusations. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have the same issue with editing too much. I'll go through postproduction one more time and then I'll see you at FAC :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:100
You make this look really easy, Laser! Congratulations on hitting 100 support votes without a single opposition so far. Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, credit is due to my two awesome nominators. :) -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA
So unless you go nuts within the next few days, looks like you'll be pushing a mop come Monday. Congrats! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's bedtime in England, but clearly your RfA will be successfully closed before I wakeup, so may I offer my sincere congratulations to you. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, gentlemen. My work has only been made more enjoyable by working alongside editors like yourselves. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations…
…you are now an administrator. WP:Afd is over thatway -- Avi (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. seresin ( ¡? )  00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whee! - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats! I hope admin duties doesn't take away too much time from your other work. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done, well done. Another scholarly admin  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi
If you had actually looked at the article, you would see that effort has been put into it, and that it is ready for FA. The previous reviewer was stubborn, while you are being lazy. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm okay with being accused of being both stubborn and lazy, so please don't hold back on my account. However, please keep discussion of the article's merits at the FAC page where they belong. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been copyedited by HJ and Malleus Fatuorum, and is awaiting further copyediting. Would you reconsider your view? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC))


 * The article has received extensive copyediting. If you had actually looked at the article, you would see that the text is up to standard. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Diem in Oz
Done!  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they worked on Preity Zinta and a needless fracas developed out of Kareena Kapoor's FAC drive :(  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance required
I plan to work on improving an article that was deleted last year; would you be able to restore the contents of the article and move them to a user subpage? Prior to deletion, the article was located here. Congrats on your new role.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooo! Is there a category of Wikipedians who have inspired hate speech? Thanks Fat Man, for your robust support. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Restless (1998 film)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Restless (1998 film), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I liked what I heard in what you said here. I believe I have also felt similarly to you. I believe I am more of an inclustionist than a deletionist. I offer to assist in collaborating on articles, finding RS, expanding, etc. v. tagging for deletion. Please keep me in mind if you find articles that are at risk of deletion that you would like assistance in expanding. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yukon Quest FAC 2
I've resubmitted an FAC for Yukon Quest, and since you were the only person to oppose, I'd love to have your input. If you've got the time to take a look at it again and offer your support or comments at the second review, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks as if you were right. :) I asked Magicpiano to do a copy edit, which he was gracious enough to do. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Contest proposal
A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We need to know how this contest should be run, and what problems to look out for.

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert Hues
Robert Hues is up for FAC again. As you reviewed it last time it was up for FAC (it failed due to a lack of reviewers - something that is happening far too often for my taste), I thought you might like to review it again. Awadewit (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamence in 1948
Replied  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: TMP sources
The sources DocKino listed are the following books: I was able to grab enough off of Google Books to start the section at Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but I'd need access to the books to make sure it's thorough. I'm not sure if you've really got the chops or access to get all of those :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jungian Reflections Within the Cinema: A Psychological Analysis of Sci-Fi and Fantasy Archetypes, by James F. Iaccino
 * Space and Beyond: The Frontier Theme in Science Fiction‎, by Gary Westfahl
 * Star Trek and Sacred Ground: Explorations of Star Trek, Religion, and American Culture, by Jennifer E. Porter and Darcee L. McLaren
 * Religions of Star Trek, by Ross Shepard Kraemer, William Cassidy, and Susan L. Schwartz
 * Matters of Gravity: Special Effects and Supermen in the 20th Century, by Scott Bukatman
 * also, Doc says he's willing to let it slide, so I wouldn't worry about it since it's not a requirement for passing at this time. Scout's honor I'll get around to it at the beginning of the term. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're really itching for something to do, thought, Star Trek: First Contact needs a good reference trawl (I guess I'm going to start working on reception soon) and Halo Wars is in need of a copyedit :P -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I can just hit up LexisNexis easy for news stuff, but more scholarly things are a bit harder. It doesn't help that my library doesn't let me search all of them at once, so I usually end up defaulting to Google Scholar and then cross-referencing with our database. They've got JSTOR, MUSE and the like, but most of the complete full-text are more liberal arts and less media-oriented. Next term I'm definitely going to have to get better acquainted... -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional Frankenstein books
We need to divide up that additional list of sources that I got from my professor. She thinks that with that list of basic sources, we can write a good Frankenstein article. Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will look at it today. Unfortunately my grand plans for finishing my reading have gone amiss due to work pressures. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why it is so wonderful that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. :) Well, I took the top six and moved them to my list. I hope my library can get most of these! -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can always mail them to you. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I will take you up on that, if you're offering. When I get to that point, I'll e-mail you my contact info and we'll work something out. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Captive portal
Hello,

Can You tell me why did You removed software list from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_portal

There are not allowed any of commercial software to be listed? How can there be articles about Microsoft products? Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdzidic (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good morning. Some wikilinks may be provided to notable software applications that have Wikipedia articles. In addition, select external links may be provided in articles to aid reader understanding, but generally, commercial links are not allowed. The article about your software application was deleted as being an advert/promotion, so it should not be linked or listed anywhere. Please note that Wikipedia is not the proper venue to promote your software. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I do not promote any software and I don't have anything with it, just tried to help people to let them know about all solutions that they can use. Anyway thank You.

And can You tell me why I can't promote open source software, and there is already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SweetSpot thank You. Mdzidic (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

About image deletion
Hello Laser brain. you have sent me a deletion note for my Ethnological.jpg and Greeks in Bulgaria.JPG pictures.

Both images are of a century old (Balkan wars of 1912-3) and I never thought that they could had copyright (unlike what had been said to you). Anyway you guys must know better. For me this is not an issue. The point of interest is how things came to the deletion. I believe that my case could be of interest to many fellow users, since what was happened was uncommon: an uknown to me administrator of the greek wikipedia intercepted a dialog between me and another greek user about the source of the pictures and transfered the dialog to the english wikipedia administrators (the pictures were there). Although intercepting and communicating personal dialogs is not "illegal" (since they are open to anyone), to me it's a moral issue or at least a must-know history for the user's community. I don't know if that kind of actions is an official policy or just incidental but I do know that many fellow editors would like to know this story. Which is the best way to inform them about ? Since this is a shocking incident to me (and maybe for others-to-know users) my initial idea was to make an internal-wiki dialog about that, but I don't know how. My intentions is not to attack anyone and I've sent a polite and non-aggresive msg to the administrator just to express my shock out of his action and I closed the dialog between us in a very polite manner. I only want to inform about the incident the community, nothing more. Regards --Factuarius (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thanks for the note. I realize your situation may come as a bit of a surprise, but I assure you it is quite normal for a wiki community. As you said, all communications are open. It is normal for an administrator to notice something amiss, even if he or she is not involved, and take action. That is what administrators are for. I'm glad to hear your correspondence with this individual was polite, because that is also important. If you do feel that an administrator has abused their tools, and you feel that your dialog did not solve the issue, you can file a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As for the images, someone requested that they be deleted outright. I declined to delete them and instead decided to ask for their source so we can determine the copyright status. We cannot take your word for it, with all due respect. If the copyright status cannot be verified, the images will be deleted. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Starvin' Marvin (South Park)
Hey, thanks for your feedback and advice on the Starvin' Marvin (South Park) FAC. I've addressed your individual comments, and am willing to hear more if you are willing to give any. I know you had said you feel it's far from ready, but I'm hopeful that any issues with the article can be worked out through the FAC process. As I said in my response, I didn't put in for a peer review because I thought that GAN process would take care of any such issues. I'm hoping you're willing to keep going with the FAC process. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn  ( contribs )  02:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Necrid...again.
Addressed everything you mentioned, and I actually had addressed what you'd mentioned last time as well. Too much of this article was written too early in the morning. I changed "most of" to "several" regarding Necrid's attacks being copied from other characters, the IGN article does go blow-by-blow regarding which ones. Tackled the prose bit too, and added a GameNOW issue number.

Peer review just sucks for getting these issues fixed. Thanks for the advice on fixing the article, I know it's like pulling teeth sometimes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR
I was just about to reply to that....  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I am sorry YM. The more I thought about it, the more I thought there was probably a good reason for what was going on over there and I probably should learn more about it before I comment. Feel free to revert me if you still want to reply publicly. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem I hadn't started writing yet, but the thing about nominators having to help hasn't been enforced for at least 2.5 years before I even followed FAR. In those days personal websites were [de facto] allowed as refs and I saw a lot of FARs where they got an old FA with no refs, and reffed about 15% of it and let it pass just to make sure there were some refs. These days I think fixing a FAR might take a lot more hours, depending on if the whole content and strucutre has to be redone as well. If nominators had to fix it themselves I think some way out of date FAs would just sit there because the author wouldn't have to do anything to not lose a trophy. And judging by how angry some authors/owners get over completely unsourced and ad hoc articles being questioned, the trophy thing is a big part of the psyche  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I just get frustrated when I see an area suffering for lack of participation. The FA star, to me, represents a "certification" that the article is the best we can make it. To see articles losing it that maybe could have been fixed is saddening. But, as you say, it would take a lot more effort these days, especially when people use sources without easy access and the primary author is no longer around or willing to help. I wish there were more hours in the day to help out on things like that. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!
LB, you are very kind to put that bstar on my page. Much appreciated! Tony  (talk)  12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: US 41
Please see the FAC at Featured_article_candidates/U.S._Route_41_in_Michigan/archive2 for followup comments on your review. Your feedback would be appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony1 replied that he's willing to support the article on 1a grounds if you are. I added the Military Road history to the article, so maybe that just needs some polishing there. Please let us know. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the reviews. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of skin-related conditions
I replied to your comments there, and really appreciate the feedback. ---kilbad (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Musical instrument
I changed the reflist in this edit because three-column reflists break in some browsers. Hope I didn't surprise you too much. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Good work on the article so far. It's finally getting the attention it deserves (I've been quietly watching it for a couple months now). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. I was unaware about the cross-browser problem. Thanks—I'll be hitting it more heavily in the next couple weeks. I hope to get the History section completed. -- Laser brain  (talk)  05:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Minas Geraes
Hi Laser. I have renominated BRAZILIAN BATTLESHIP Minas Geraes at FAC again here. Could you take a look at it like you did the first time around? Many thanks and cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Will be sifting through the list today and hopefully I can get to it. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry if you don't get to it right away; I'm sure it'll be there in two weeks still. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

New York State Route 319
Remember this from FAC? Well, after several weeks to a couple months, me and another have given it a complete rewrite. You think the article may stand close to FA now? I could value your opinion.<i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 12:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Starvin' Marvin peer review
Hey, it's Hunter Kahn. I've nominated Starvin' Marvin (South Park) for a peer review. If you have the time and wouldn't mind helping, out, any feedback or help you could provide would be very much appreciated! I've already addressed the specific problems brought up at the FAC as well as a few others... — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  05:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Harry
Blocked him  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Otto Becher FAC
Hi Laser brain, thank you very much for your comments during the FAC of Otto Becher. I would just like to note that EyeSerene has now completed a thorough and much appreciated copyedit of the article, and as your comments were primarily based on the prose, I was hoping you would be able/willing to have another look over the article to examine whether it is now of a high standard? However, I will understand if you are too busy or would rather not. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for checking back in and taking the time to review the article; it is much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
<font color="#000033">Aditya  <font color="#000033">α <font color="#000033">ß 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks, Ed! -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:The Beautiful People
I was aware of the GA status. But I read the FA critera, and I felt it met it. Was there something the article missed? --<font style="background:#000000;color:#FF0000">KMFDM FAN (talk!) 22:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Mariano Rivera
Hey, I'm going through a 2nd FAC nomination for the article Mariano Rivera because it seems that most of the items from the first nomination have been fixed. I wanted to make sure the items you brought to my attention were adequately addressed. If you could review the issues you pointed out in the first FAC nomination, confirm I fixed them, and comment on the second FAC nomination, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR
nominated The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you needed the above, you were on the article quite a bit in the end but not part of the nom. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Were your striking of the FAR comments due to the one-line nomination statements? At FAR, articles that have clear issues such as multiple paragraphs with no source, people will usually just put that down, and unless someone references it to contemporary norms, people will not attempt a full review of the article for subtle things like MOS and (1a) as it is pointless if no sourcing at all is done. Sandy has done one line FAR noms as well (eg Featured_article_review/J._R._R._Tolkien, Featured_article_review/French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools/archive1, Featured_article_review/Asthma/archive1 are the three most recent SG ones I found), so even the most serious of reviewers don't look carefully at every single thing until the basics are in order, as in most cases, people will not do anything to bring the article up to date. The main cases where FAR is weak are those where citations are added to old articles, and as most noms are made for cites, nobody checks it for MOS/1a after the cites are added. Once upon a time, pre-2007, there used to be a lot of people working on FAR, a lot of people would nom articles and fix them up as well, but there was a succession of anti-FAR riots (including one FAR stack with about 30 votes) by people who objected to their old articles being taken to FAR; some of them were and still are of the view that FAR should be deleted and their articles given immunity (see WT:FAR archives). Since then, mainly only a few people from a few WikiProjects try to save their own articles, whereas before, lots of random people chipped in. This is especially harder now for an outsider to do work other than MOS/prose now that standards have risen and textbooks are needed more and more, whereas in early 2007, lots of FAs passed with random home made websites. To be frank, the header would be more accurate if it said that the process was to make FAs accountable (or removing bad ones) (like GA sweeps), rather than improve them communally (Ask Sandy about the riots). I've been unilaterally improving old cricket and Australia FAs like Bodyline and History of the ACT (full list for monitoring). I think the only realistic way of getting articles up to standard is for people from the wikiprojects to do the content and references because they know what is/might be missing and where to get the best references easily, especially with the new 1c; other Australian/cricket people have found that a lot of old articles have unusual blackouts in coverage, and on many other FARs, topic enthusiasts have found the same in the content of many old articles. Yes, it is inherently a bit negative to FAR stuff without helping, but without anyone from the relevant topic to work on content/sources, it is somewhat futile for an outsider to try and clean it up for MOS/prose in detail. Personally I think the only practical way is for people to work on old FAs in their field and nominate the others if nobody appears interested. I think you should stay at FAR, although if you are concerned that people are ignoring you, it isn't anything personal, it's just that there isn't a need to do any serious review unless there is serious work to get the basics in order (usually lack of refs) as many of the articles would just get quick-failed at GA due to heavy lack of refs. But there is a sore need to check that improved articles are looked over carefully; because most FARs end with an obvious delist (2 minute review) due to large swathes of unsourced content, many are not prepared to check for subtleties once the basics are fixed. You would be good at that. I hope you haven't made up your mind never to return.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bug, bug
Hey, remember that time you said you could help copyedit Halo Wars at some point? Well could it be moderately soon? :P (No real hurry, I mean we're talking about the interwebs, but if you aren't busy and have this sudden desire to copyedit yet another video game, all I'm saying is I won't stop you.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in re: to this, who's to say I didn't deviously plan it that way :P -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, TKD ran through it, but both he and I know that we're both somewhat deficient in catching issues :P -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Beckett FAR
My apologies for not getting to your comment sooner, at Featured article review/Samuel Beckett/archive1. I see you struck out your question. Would you still like a response? Would it be helpful/alright to tag the problem areas of the article with fact tags? Some editors truly appreciate this as being helpful, however sometimes others do not :( . Cirt (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Um well okay. Again, just to reiterate I highly respect your input and I'm sorry I had not responded to it sooner. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Charles Carroll the Settler FA Nom
I've done some work to address your concerns about Charles Carroll the Settler. Does your opposition still stand? Geraldk (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will revisit today, sorry for the delay. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley lead image alignment
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Current Opera Project discussions
Hello from the Opera Project. I'm writing to all members on the active list to let them know that we could use your input on several issues currently under discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:
 * The use of italics in article titles
 * Possible changes to the article guidelines concerning "Selected Recordings"
 * Suggestions for the July Composer of the Month and Opera of the Month

Please drop by if you have the time. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Hurricane Kiko (1989)/archive1
I've copyedited the entire article, so you might want to revisit if you get a chance. The prose still isn't "brilliant", but given that it's a science article, it's acceptable I think. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, kind sir. I will revisit today. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/The Girl Is Mine/archive1
Thanks for your helpful comments. I've replied on the FAC page.  Pyrrhus <font color="#FF0000">16 ''' 16:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

List of skin-related conditions nominated as featured list candidate
I have continued to work on the list of skin-related conditions, and recently nominated it for FL status. If available, your comments would be greatly appreciated at the nomination page. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

First Phoenix meetup today!
--EdwardsBot (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for that. I've fixed up Lake Burley Griffin and it could do with a prose check I think. I have added the other fixed-up FARs [to the FAR urgents list] to see if there is are problems to be dealt with  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Overdue

 * Hey thanks! I would have got this last night but I was going for the high score on Galaga. Now.. what's your beef with Lynch? You must have at least liked Dune?? -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ehhhh... Dune falls into the category of "futuristic sci-fi films where everyone runs around with swords", which automatically docks points, IMO (I'll admit I've never given the novels a chance, but I've seen my share of the adaptations.) Blue Velvet had to be one of the most overhyped films I've seen, complete with a "worst monologue" award for Laura Dern talking about robins. Given my bad experience with that, I'm not much in the mood to try out Elephant Man or Mulholland Drive... I'll take Peter Weir's wacked-out Aussie movies over Lynch :P -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll give you that. But to be fair, you haven't listed his best films: Eraserhead and Lost Highway. Weir's good, although I haven't seen anything earlier than Witness. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I swear the same random Aborigine that runs around in The Last Wave pops up in Australia too. Weir's early stuff is plain funky, but I'm a fan of his later work (Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is definitely in my top ten best films list.) Which is why whenever I get done with the Star Trek films, I'll have to work on that one (by which time my head will have 'asploded.) I guess I just have a thing against what I consider overhyped directors who people fawn egregiously over (count Tim Burton in that column too.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Netflix'd. I'll be working on Eraserhead eventually. Right now I'm dealing with the possibility that I've been writing a major article for the last year from an outdated and anachronistic source. Talk about heads exploding. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Netflix'd which one? And what's the article, pray tell? I've got to hound Erik for database dumps before he loses access to the film stuff so I can toil away on the other 6 Star Trek film articles... :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Last Wave. And the article is musical instrument. Some dude casually strolled by and said Sachs is garbage, after I've had the bibliography posted for a year and been working on it. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're a fan of wacky stuff like that once you see it, definitely go back even early and grab Picnic at Hanging Rock. I guess Weir got his wacky urges out at an early age and then went more mainstream. I'll take a look at musical instrument, I doubt I can really add much, but hey. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Can you take a look at the Woody Guthrie FAR? The sole reason for the nom was prose. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can if you can give me about a week. I will be traveling until Thursday and won't have much time to edit. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Prose review req.
Hi, you probably remember me from way back when, when that GAN incident er, took place. Anyway, I think that was the last time I was here, so I hope you've forgiven my stupidity. 1968 Illinois earthquake was recently archived, on prose concerns primarily, could you look it over? I've given it my own eye in the last fifteen minutes and found some errors. I'm sure you can find plenty, if you are willing. Thanks either way, <font color="#2F4F4F" face="Century">ceran <font color="#2F4F4F" face="Century">thor 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm short on time now—would you mind pinging me in a week or so after I've had time to catch up? -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Just wanted to say thanks for the comments and kind words on my talk page. Regards, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope everything's alright on your end. Let me know if you need help with anything. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Take care  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 08:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel ye. The only way I could deal with trying to understand the self-absorbed one-upmanship and endless politicking--all for the benefit of the community doncha know--was to rewrite this: an extreme form of what I see here. It might help to accept that most editors really are here to create drama, despite what the professed community goals are. When that is recognized the rest of us can stfu and write. Come back soon. --Moni3 (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good article, and this is good advice. I also received some very good advice via e-mail. I think I need to do just that, stfu and write. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for prompt intervention.Lute88 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please
Please remember to assume good faith while dealing with other editors, which you do not to User talk:Impala2009. Thanks. WimpyKid (talk * sandbox) 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? His behavior was problematic, and I let him know. Good faith is reverting someone once. Reverting over and over and then reporting them for vandalism is just reckless. He wants to be an admin in the future, so he needs to learn to answer for his actions and take constructive criticism. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Laser brain's RfA passed with over 100 supports, he knows what he's doing. <font color="#2F4F4F" face="Century">ceran <font color="#2F4F4F" face="Century">thor 19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Laser brain, I am extremely sorry for my actions. My actions were inconsiderate (although I thought adding French references WAS vandalism), then I knew that I had a lot of other policies I haven't read yet. So, my goal is to check what I'm doing before I revert (as I didn't double-check my work at school sometimes when I was in school) and to increase my policy knowledge. Again, I am extremely sorry for my obscenity. And remember that I thought that adding French references was vandalism. Chevy  Impala   2009  02:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Review request
Hi again! I'm trying to get some fresh eyes on Yukon Quest before I submit it for another go at FAC. It's an article about sled dog racing, and I thought of you as someone who might not be familiar with the sport and could give me a good opinion on where it's unclear to an outside observer. If you can't do a full copy edit, even a quick readthrough would be appreciated if you have the time. As always, I'm more than willing to reciprocate with a review of my own for any article that needs one. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru
Hello, would you like to comment on this article, please? Thank you in advance.--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your asking, but I usually only review articles that are in stable and mature condition. Plus, the article is protected, so editing it is not even possible. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A request
Hi Laser brain. You opposed my RfA about a month and a half ago based on my careless work at AfD. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me an editor review if you have the time, so I can learn if I've met your expectations with regard to AfD participation. Your comments on other areas of my contributions would also be appreciated if you have time for it. Thanks. Tim meh  ( review me ) 03:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How long do those usually run? My time will be very short this week, but if it's still going the week of the 10th I can take a look. I appreciate your asking; engaging your critics in a positive way speaks highly of you. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They run for a month, so there's plenty of time. :) Tim  meh  ( review me ) 11:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

me computer klutz
Thanks for fixing. All adrift in my brain. 124.170.62.108 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) It's Tony—the site is screwing up.

Re: Steve
Hey, it's as much a joke on me as it is on, well, everyone else who would take that seriously :) I'll strike it before the final tallies, I have a feeling Steve will pass unopposed, and I bet that would-be opposers will be put off by being in my company, thus strengthening the support :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, edit fail @ Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Steve. :P -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Andy. I tried to keep a low profile today as I didn't want to make a big deal out of this (so I won't be making 115 editors sick by stuffing thankspam down their gullets.) Still, I did want to say cheers to you and Sandy for the faith you've shown; I was especially surprised at your offer to nominate, considering I didn't think we'd interacted that much outside of overlapping FAC reviews. Regardless, thanks for that trust; it won't be misused. All the best, Steve  T • C 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't get so much as a thank you for my riveting oppose *sniffle sniffle* :P -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, it was my pleasure. Trust me, I looked at your history for a long time before I offered. :) I'm glad Sandy joined in, since she is so well-known and respected. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Threat
No, no threat intended. I was just being incredibly arrogant. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

Wikivoices FAC review
Please sign up here if you can attend the recording session! Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Musical instrument
All right then, if you're sure, feel free to remove the GA nom. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you give me an idea of what you feel is lacking in the article / what needs to be done to ready it for GA? I'd like to help out with the process. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC
Thanks for the warm welcome. I've been a little MIA around these parts, but I'm starting to get back into things. As for when we'll see the next NIN article at FAC, howabout now? =) Drewcifer (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh. Let the flogging begin! Drewcifer (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I replied to you here, if you're interested. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm interested. I need to remember that there is featured stuff out there beyond articles and that the processes and criteria are not necessarily what I'm used to. Thanks for the pointers. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Starvin' Marvin (South Park)
Hey Laser Brain, you might remember me from the failed FAC review of Starvin' Marvin (South Park). At the time, most of the feedback I received was that the sourcing and content were good, but that the article was badly in need of a copy edit to address grammatical concerns. I've since addressed some of the specific problems that were pointed out (as well as some others that weren't) and made some fixes that came from a peer review I requested. I believe at the time of the review, you indiciated you'd be willing to look the article over again after the copy edits were done. Before I nominate it for FAC again, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look and letting me know if you think it's ready? Whenever you find some time. Thanks! — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I unfortunately don't have much time in the near future. What is your time frame? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft
Hello! Ravenloft (module) has been nominated for FAC again. As you commented in one or both of the previous FAC discussions, I'm inviting you to have another look. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

HarryAlffa
I think it is better to move the discussion to AN for better visibility, meanwhile HA continues ranting on his talk page. Ruslik_ Zero 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Excuse me? If you were to pay attention to the talk page, you would see that it is Grimmtrow that is refusing to discuss this. Furthermore, as I also mentioned on the talk page, extremely obvious statements do not actually need a citation. You would do well to actually pay attention to the issue next time so you don't go off on the wrong person.Farsight001 (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you even listening to me? I feel like I'm talking crazy pills here.  First of all, secondary sources are only preferred, not absolutely required.  Thus the primary citation in this case can be quite acceptable.  And, as I have said 3 or 4 times now - really obvious statements do NOT actually need a citation at all - Europe is a continent, 2+2=4, CC is preferred by the Church, etc.Farsight001 (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2+2=4 is known by anyone with a grade school education. The ins and outs of the Catholic Church are a great deal less "common knowledge" than geography and if contested should be sourced. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are seldom secondary sources for the simple. Who is going to study exactly how many times the Catholic Church has signed documents or refers to itself? It is obvious when primary sources are used to demonstrate how the CC refers to itself. Thus, the principle of the obvious not needing references applies to this situation. --<font color="01796F">Storm <font color="1C39BB">Rider  22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clear/unclear and obvious are subjective terms. WP:V states that anything likely to be challenged needs a reliable secondary source. Not only is that note likely to be challenged, it is being challenged. This is non-negotiable. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you liked Silent Alarm...
Hiya, I'd appreciate your help on my new FAC A Weekend in the City. One user wants a third party look at prose issues and I'd be grateful for your input. Cheers. Rafablu88 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

MFD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom
Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, Glass  Cobra  18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cato June FAC
I am notifying you that since you were a discussant for my last successful Michigan Wolverines football/National Football League player FAC (Tyrone Wheatley - see FAC here), you may want to comment at Featured article candidates/Cato June/archive1‎, which currently is in need of further commentary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Hello Laser brain, you provided some helpful comments at the peer review for the article Bale Out. The article is now at WP:FAC, and your input would be appreciated at the FAC subpage for the article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation! (reminder)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating.  iMatthew  talk  at 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Last chance to confirm your WikiCup participation!
Hi ! This is the last message that will go out to remind you that in order to participate in the 2010 WikiCup, you MUST remove your name from this list! Again, the reason for this reconfirmation is to ensure you've looked over the updated point values (which were different at the time you signed up) and to ensure that you are still interested in competing! If you don't have time to participate or no longer wish to, ignore this message and leave your name on the list. All names on the list will be removed from the contestants list before the Cup starts. Cheers!  iMatthew  talk  at 14:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
What a nice Christmas present, to see you become active again :) Hope your batteries are fully recharged.  We've missed you! Karanacs (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks! Yes, the feeling of having at least some free time again is good... why not use it building the world's greatest knowledge resource? :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So glad to see you back, Andy; the best New Year's present ever !! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just pining for Frankenstein! Ready to work!?! Awadewit (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes! I just settled in after moving—as soon as I find my external drive I'll get busy on those articles. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Noronhomys/archive1
I just replied to your comments at the Noronhomys FAC; I'm sorry for not getting back earlier. Ucucha 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again, but it's a bit disconcerting to see it move to the bottom of FAC with two "leaning to support" comments. Could you please consider whether or not to support fully? Thanks, Ucucha 08:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK
I took care of it. It would have been eventually reviewed before the week is over if you didn't notify me. Joe Chill (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 and Dermatology-related content
I noticed that you are participating in the 2010 WikiCup. I have been working on the Bolognia push which is a project to make sure Wikipedia has an article (or redirect) on every know cutaneous condition. With that being said, there are still many cutaneous condition stubs to be made, and Bolognia could be a source for a lot of DYK articles, etc. Therefore, I was thinking maybe we could help one another... a competative WikiCup that also serves to improve dermatologic content on Wikipedia. I could e-mail you the Bolognia login information if you have any interest? ---kilbad (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm game, definitely. I really enjoy creating new articles that are needed. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Sacrifice (video game)/archive1
Hi Andy! Thank you for the vote of confidence in this article. I have taken action to address your queries, so that any of your niggles can be resolved. Please take a look. Jappalang (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear... okay, I have changed the two images you and Dave found problematic with this article. Please take a look.  I was lucky I managed to destroy the disgruntled Flummox with Bovine Intervention before it attacked...  Jappalang (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We ARE annoying.
But that's the perk of the job. (Also I don't think anyone mentioned stupid.) RB88 (T) 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, duh! If we didnt get to be annoying, why would we spend hours looking at references??? Ealdgyth - Talk 05:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Valid points both! At least no one here tells me I have "the credibility of a gnat" like one of my ENG 102 students did. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  13:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well credit to him/her for undertaking peer reviewed scientific study to determine the credibility of a gnat and then correlating it with humans. Smart kid. What's he doing in English?? ;) RB88 (T) 15:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
Let me be the first to welcome you back officially. I see you've already returned (in style) to FAC. :)  ceran  thor 01:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/A Rugrats Chanukah/archive1
I have responded to your concerns; if you believe they are satisfied, I strongly urge you to rethink your opposition.  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Further responded.  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there; I noticed the strike of your 1a oppose at the above FAC. I hope you didn't feel any sense of ... obligation ... to do so just because I gave the prose the once-over. I know that in the past I've felt very uncomfortable opposing on prose grounds when editors I respect have either supported or struck their 1a, as if I'm indirectly criticising their review—or writing, if they've pitched in with a copy-edit. So I just wanted you to know that if there was any discomfort on your part, I would have been completely relaxed had you felt the prose still deficient. On a wider point—and sorry to digress—for me, the article itself is one I can't bring myself to either support or oppose on anything other than the technical aspects. The subject has easily received coverage enough for notability to be satisfied, but not enough IMO for us to give it a comprehensive treatment. To be clear: I'm sure the nominator has included every available source, but I just don't think those sources offer thorough enough coverage of subjects like this. See also: the recent FA nominee, The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. I helped the nominator out a couple of times pre-FAC to get the article into shape, but that's another I consciously avoided reviewing, solely because the gaps in coverage and relative weakness of some of the sources would have made it uncomfortable for me to offer support. (I know most other reviewers disagree, with the possible exception of Ling.Nut.) Anyway, I hope you're well and all that; it's good to see you back. Steve T • C 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Steve! Nice to hear from you. I did not feel pressed into striking my opposition, don't worry. I only opposed in the first place because I was finding really obvious issues, and I think you smoothed those over. I also feel wary sometimes about opposing in the circumstances you mention. I find myself scrutinizing articles less when certain people have been through them (like Brianboulton), which may not be the healthiest practice. I'm also not outright supporting for similar reasons: I'm not finding any glaring problems, but I'm not exactly moved to support. The same things happens with some of the storm and road articles. I kind of read it and go, "That's what we've got, huh?" It's not to impugn the author—I just can't get behind it. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

IP 71.145.180.157 Catholic v Roman Catholic
I noticed that you had previously blocked User:71.145.180.157, and warned him not to continue or an indef block would be forthcoming. So, I thought you'd be interested to know that he's back, and up to the same crap. I just reverted his edits to 12 church pages; all his edits removed "Roman", and most broke links and/or infoboxes. Block away! Wine Guy  Talk  07:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked again, thanks. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  07:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Message to all members of WikiProject Opera
Please see our project's talk page for a discussion of the possible changes to Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons and the implications this will have for many articles under the project's banner. This is especially important if you are looking after or have created unreferenced or minimally referenced opera-related biographies of living people. Voceditenore (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

L'ange
Glad to have been of help. I may contact you when my next opera article is ready for review (not even started yet, though). Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 World Series
Thanks for the review! I'll definitely put some work in tomorrow! Staxringold talkcontribs 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. Let me know if you find any promising articles that you can't access, because I might be able to get them for you and email them. Let's get this thing up to FA! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a "Series preview" section (still working), let me know what you think! I've got one ESPN Insider article I can't access, I've asked on a forum for the text of it. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why the step down from the Wikicup? I'd still love any help you can offer on this article (despite the FAC closure, I stuck it at GAN awaiting a review). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I would try it out to experience the environment of it, but it's just not for me. I realized that I'm not motivated by the competition at all, so I might as well recognize that. I would be happy to help on the article, but be advised that it's not really a topic of interest for me. I'm more of a hockey guy. However, if you would like help accessing articles from library databases, I can do that. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

*poke*
Hey, if you get a chance, could you check back at Featured article candidates/Hurricane Eloise/archive1? No rush. Thanks for the review! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Cyclone Gwenda/archive1
Can you take another look at the article please? Two other editors have copyedited the article since your comments. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do today—thanks for the reminder! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankenstein
Ok, so I've committed to taking notes on some sources every week. I can't promise every day (that kind of promise is for the dissertation), but I can promise every week. Awadewit (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a good proposition—I shall endeavor to live up to it. BTW, I intend to beg you to mail me some of those books eventually. :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind the slowness of book rate. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible FA category change for Elderly Instruments
You may want to take a look here. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Andy, thank you for taking the time to review the images for the Takalik Abaj FA nom. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: House of too many Shakespeare quotes
Aye, sir, 'tis my goal... four down, hopefully five relatively soon, then a break for some misc. articles I've been working on, then a push for IV and V this semester (not a chance of me getting anything done this summer, methinks...) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I sorta' started on beefing Star Trek IV up, and it's the next one on my docket :) If you've got good ILL you could try to hunt for some of those refs Erik posted on the talk, I've only grabbed a few. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

24 Waterfall salute!

 * Cool - check the park website before you go - right now the park is closed to regular hikers (need ice climbing gear). Wear good hiking shoes too and enjoy! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Petlyakov Pe-8
Auntieruth55 has been kind enough to clean up the text; I ask reviewers to reread the article to see if their objections have been met.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Image reviews
Thanks, Andy; I'm struggling to keep up, with a miserable cough left over from my cold, but appreciate your work there. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no problem at all. I need to remember to make that a regular part of my review anyway, so it's good practice. Get well soon! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I feel better, but am coughing something awful, which keeps me awake at night. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, I just noticed an image review request at Featured article candidates/HMS Calliope (1884)/archive1. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, will get to that one shortly. Remember your cool mist humidifier. :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for helping watch for premature noms! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy, are you still considering reviewing Calliope? It seems most reviewers won't go near the boats, so they fall to the bottom of the page; perhaps a look from you will help prevent this one adding to the backlog.  A content reviewer (Cla68) has been through.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh! Yes, on my to-do list for today. I've been buried in work lately so not doing my due diligence! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggesting withdrawal was harsh; it came to FAC in good shape. I didn't see a lot of MOS issues, and nominators have to deal with other reviewers and their edits and demands.  One sentence you criticized looked like this before other reviewers took to it:
 * The British Empire was the largest on earth, and to protect that empire and its trade routes Britain had the largest navy.
 * It changed because of the FAC, not the nominator. And several of the things you noticed were caused by other reviewers.  Also, "experienced FA writer".  Thanks for getting to it, though!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just suggested withdrawal because the nom stated they have no time to work on it. I didn't mean to imply Kablammo isn't an experienced writer, just that some of the normal ship editors could probably skate through it in half the time it would take me to figure out the standards. But, maybe it would be better for me to take a more proactive approach. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's troubling when an article comes to FAC with a consistent prose voice, then gets edited by four or five reviewers, then delays so long at FAC that nominators get busy and have to move on instead of going back and restoring the prose they brought to FAC to begin with. Thanks for looking again; I see this happen often, and usually just keep my mouth shut, but it causes excellent FA writers (like Yomangani) to give up on FAC.  It's just odd that, in the case, the very sentence you picked out was brought to FAC almost identical to what you suggested. And the problem with referring to/comparing to some of the experienced ship editors is that most reviewers won't review ship FACs because those articles are often so deficient in prose and hard to get through.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I think I need to be more sensitive to noms that have been hanging out there for a while. Thanks for prodding me. :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just curious
How are you determining "primary editor" as there seems to be some disagreement on WT:FAC. Kindest regards, — Mattisse (Talk) 03:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm... the short answer is: It's complicated. But, I normally start with the edit count tool in the toolbox. Then I examine individual edits, because sometimes people have a lot of edits but they are all vandalism reverts. I'm assuming you're referring to the Medvedev article. In that case, it's difficult to determine exactly who the primary editor is (the person with the most edits hasn't touched it in almost a year), but I know for sure it wasn't ShaneWq. He only made minor tweaks in the last two days. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Presley
Hi, I realize you may no longer be watchlisting the Elvis Presley FAC, but I wonder if you are around at the moment and could comment on something. The article has five supporting reviews, but a question has arisen from the delegates about article size. The delegates are requesting that reviewers give their opinion on this aspect. Your input would be appreciated. PL290 (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Laser brain's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Internet
Hello Andy. Thanks for your support. It looks like the article is down for the count with a TKO. I'll see what I can do to improve it, but it does appear that the article won't make it to FA status. But as far as the internet is concerned, I stand by what I said. When I say the "Internet", you know what I mean. The Internet as we know it today did not exist in 1990. It was perhaps in its slimmest origins by a ridiculously small network of computers (which were the size of watermelons) and in no way concievable as what it is now. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Avenged sevenfold
Why do you keep removing the fact, that Mike Portnoy is going to record the new album with A7X?--Arneandre (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never done such a thing. You must have be confused with someone else. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bling, bling, bling
You're going to break the internet; what will Al Gore say? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * :) Sorry 'bout that. Is that an idea for a new fashion? Bracelets that read "WWAGS?" -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Monteverdi's Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria
If you have time, I'd value your comments on this article, now at peer review (you can listen to Penelope's lament as you read through) Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, sir. I should be able to get to it tomorrow. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Darjeeling FARC
The GNLF flag image has been moved under "Civic administration". Please have a look. thanks for the comment in the FARC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Kierkegaard
Hi Andy, go ahead and check for 1a and copy and paste any passages you have any questions about onto my talk page! Poor Yorick (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Prose checks on FAR
Hi Laser. Since you said you would be willing to look at FARs that weren't just dead unsourced articles, Flag of India and Darjeeling have been done but are waiting for a prose check. I guess Soren Kierkegaard could do with one as well. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Just got back from traveling—will look after I've settled in. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Couple of comments -- I've responded to your query on the Calcutta flag (at the FAR page); as far as one change you made removing "a derisory", it should have actually read "common and derisory", therefore it looked redundant. Don't think the word is essential, but it provides a clearer picture, I'll let you decide if it goes back or not. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand. It was difficult to discern what was intended, so I went with the "lesser" word. Thanks for the correction. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your comments at the FARC page. Sorry, somehow missed it on my watchlist. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You aren't obligated to copyedit all these articles....  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  05:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't mind. I'd rather fix things than make a list for someone else to fix—takes about the same amount of time. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: what we talked about on The Political Cesspool's FAC discussion
So far I haven't been able to find a library that subscribes to The Commercial Appeal, and since I'm going to be pretty busy with college classes (among other things) in the coming few months, I don't think I'll be able to find the time...would you be so kind as to help me out? I've been expanding the article in the past few days and I was able to find an article from a different newspaper (Memphis Flyer) as well as one from The New Republic, so I guess that counts for something. If the article does eventually make it to FA, I would be gladly willing to split the credit with you. Alternatively, if it wouldn't work with your schedule, are there any other editors who might be willing and/or able to work on the project? Thanks, Stonemason89 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help find sources. I wouldn't take any credit for the article, since you've clearly done the vast majority of the work. What's the best way to proceed? Do you want me to email you sources or just try working them in myself? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can e-mail me the sources and then I'll work them in myself when I have the time. Thanks! Stonemason89 (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Meckiff
Hi Laser. Can you give me a copyediting hand with this one? I've been self-sufficient with FAs generally for a while now, just doing a full ce myself before the FAC, except this time, something seems to have gone awry even after a second round after a complaint, and I feel a bit lost. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I'll check it out within the next day. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  06:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured_article_candidates/Ian_Meckiff/archive1 Here we are. I never thought I was anywhere on the flamboyant side for prose but it appears I'm being took tricky  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the attention. "left-arm quick [noun] -> quickly [adverb]" In cricket "a quick" is a noun that means a fast bowler. And there seems to be something unintended with "allowed South Melbourne [to] climb"?  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  05:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing those out. I hope I don't make any other mistakes that stem from my ignorance of cricket. All in all, I don't think it's far off. I'm trying to massage out the Meckiff naming problem as best I can. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian said you could go ahead :).  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

QuattroBajeena
Had to be done I suppose. I was just on my way to ... what's that place called where you go to complain about incivility? Anyway, I was just on my way there to lodge a complaint about User:QuattroBajeena using my first name without my explicit permission. It's Mr Fatuorum, only "Malleus" to my friends. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is such a place, I wouldn't be inclined to hang around, I have to say. I'm actually quite saddened by the whole situation, because I see a mostly great contributor sticking in too many people's craws (do they have that saying in your parts?). -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  01:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but perhaps because we import rather a lot of American TV shows, not sure. I want to think the best, so I really do hope that wasn't yet another of Mattisse's apparently innumerable socks. Logic suggests otherwise though. Creating an alternate account to continue working on a topic that interests you after being blocked/banned is fine by me, no matter what the official line may be; the net effect is positive. But this socking to pick fights with old (perceived) foes is beyond my comprehension. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Same. If she would just bury her nose in DYK or whatever, I wouldn't give a second glance. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Question
I am fairly certain I know the answer, but who did you block as a sock of? KnightLago (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KL, I hope the arbs are following the Alerts page (preceded by QuattroBajeena); CUs are needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sandy. KL, my apologies for not being more specific. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been a few days since I looked at that. I will comment there. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'm interesting in knowing what procedure we should follow when further socks appear, too.. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, spitfire responded that we can update the archive link once you move the sandbox. I've queried others re future procedures, no hurry. I think we can safely say that the Mattisse apologists, whose involvement allowed this to go on for so long, will no longer be involved, so we're on our own to clean up future messes.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, where are they now? The least they could do is check some FACs since we're doing this. :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Ya think? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I ask questions on the SPI if they will be seen or answered, but: Was the Arizona IP address checked? I found more connections. That IP had a conflict on Crucifixion in the arts, which I now see that the confirmed sock GetOutFrog edited. That makes at least two connections that IP has with confirmed Mattisse socks. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the answer to that matters too much, Andy, because it's a University IP, probably dynamic ... I'm sure Risker got the full picture, and asking her to disclose too much might not be A Good Thing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * True 'dat. I have seven more minutes before I can open my tempranillo, because drinking in the afternoon is okay, right? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already afternoon here, but not having much experience with drinking, I hear you're supposed to wait 'til 5 pm. This time, I'll try not to spill it on my rug :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Having been barely employed as a cashier at a supermarket, I can tell you that it seemed like a lot of soccer moms dropped the kids off and then grabbed a Forty or box wine to chill around 2 PM :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Baseball, Fuchs, BASEBALL ! Besides, the only time I set foot in supermarkets is when I buy my Thanksgiving donations.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's OK to drink from about 11 am onwards. Not sure when you're shupposed to shtop tho' ... --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * MF, I've been working on developing your sense of humor without having to wear a silly hat-- you'd BETTER entertain me tonight. Did you see that HRH is wanting to make a statement?  We wait with baited breath ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I hope she gets a move on before I pass out. It's bloody hard work enjoying yourself; I'll be glad when I've had enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Turf Moor FAC
Hi there, thanks for having a look at the Turf Moor FAC. I have done a major overhaul of the images used, and I now believe that they all have adequate sourcing and licenses. I have also added a number of more reliable sources, including books, academic journals and local news stories. Cheers, -- Big  Dom  18:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick query
Hi, I've asked a question at Mattisse's talk page with respect to your actions there I'd appreciate an answer to. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

another one
User:Xampt An old one though. Fainites barley scribs 08:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On high schools and Castro; another mixed account. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Quest's FAC
Excuse me, Laser Brain, but is your problems with the images on Dragon Quest's FAC resolved? GamerPro64 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but thanks for asking for an update. My initial comments are still in effect—I don't see any reason for those two fair use images to be there. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello? GamerPro64 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * O.k, even though the FAC is over, how about this? If File:Rockett.jpg gets removed from the article, would you support the article? I mean, the battle system is basically nessessary to show how gameplay is like in the series. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm actually really tired of explaining my position over and over there. I used clear language and I'm not sure how else to explain it. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * O.k, I'll stop asking. I don't want you angry. You're one of the ten wikipedians that scare me. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, angry, no. I just don't know how else to explain myself. Why would I scare anyone? I don't even scare my cat. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well to me, your style of reviewing articles seem a little imtimitating to me. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
You may be interested in looking at this as there has been an important development here. –MuZemike 16:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing word
Thanks for inserting that. I had thought it would be pronounced like "born December 25, 1927" in which case a word would not be needed, but the version now "looks right" to me too. Hekerui (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And thank you for saying the text is well written, I guess I'm lucky my old English teacher bothered trying to get us interested in music (he loved the Sex Pistols though) :) Hekerui (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use query
Would it be possible for you to briefly revisit the FAC page of Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, where the fair use of File:PhaecianStoneShip.jpg has been challenged? Perhaps leave a comment if possible. Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that the article was promoted today, over Stifle's oppose. I'd like to thank you for your support, and particularly for your helpful comments about use of the non-free image. In my view this is an important elements in the article, and it would have been a great pity to lose it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I do think Stifle had a legitimate point to make, but not one I agreed with in this particular case. Overall, there are too many fair use images in Wikipedia. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back?
Dare we hope? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, yeah, sorry. I honestly didn't mean to be "retires and then comes back guy" but I had a change of heart. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So glad to see you. Always.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks SG. Glad to see everything is normal: no problems finding help at FAC/FAR, and no unfair blocks of MF. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ah, you've come back with a sense of humor intact :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay, welcome back! Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly it's been business as usual here while you've been away, although I may have set a new record with two blocks in 24 hours. Nice to see you back in harness anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I left a profanity-laden message for you. For, you know, whatever. Glad to see you back. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference between you and those "retires and then comes back" guys is that we actually wanted you back :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is such good news. Andy, all my best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. Moni, I printed out your message and stuck it to my icebox. I relish it. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How wonderful to see you again! Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally, some good news this week! Welcome back :) Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Talbot Baines Reed
I have responded to your PR points; there are a couple you might wish to pass further judgement on ("in addition to" and "generally"). Brianboulton (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC
We would like your help concluding the FAC for Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: No Substitutions: Live in Osaka
Good catch! I copied some information from another article, hence the use of "Brown". Thank you for catching my error! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil
Hi, Andy. I would like to strongly suggest you to read Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. It will help you understand why Pedro II was deposed, his mistakes and how the republicans perceived him. Once you've read it, I am certainly sure that the subject will be far easier. It looks big, but is very interesting. I am pretty sure you won't regret it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It is certainly an interesting read. I have really enjoyed reading about Pedro II, and I very much appreciate all of your hard work. I think the narrative is a lot more clear now. I wonder if we can introduce a bit more context to the main article. Even a sentence or two might make a big difference. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil would be the next article I'd like to recommend. You might have been a little bit surprised to see not only an Emperor who wanted to let his throne die but also republican who desired that same monarch as their first dictator. The main article is already huge and that is why we created sub-articles which expand and better explain the subject. Pedro II had qualities and flaws. If it might look "hagiographical" it is because even his enemies considered him a model of virtues. That is odd? Certainly.


 * But as you might probably have noticed by now, Brazil is a unique country in Latin America. It has Portuguese background, not Spanish. It was an Empire, it lacked the anarchy and economic crises that were common among its Hispanic neighboors and so on. If Brazil is not regarded a BRIC it is because the origins of its development and progress are to be found in Pedro II's reign. Go to Google books, type "Pedro II" and "Brazil". Pick any book you want. You'll see that the English-written books that mention Pedro II are very praiseful of him. I knew people you find hard to understand how could a monarch who had been deposed be at the same time praised as he was and still is. That is why I used 32 (!!!) different books as sources, written in Portuguese and in English. We usually expect to see a monarch who was deposed due to a lost war, or economic crisis, or republicanism, etc... but as I told you and as you saw by yourself, he was an unique case by himself. The monarchy in Brazil was dead the moment his younger son died in 1850. This is why nowdays there is no monarchism in Brazil even though Pedro II and the monarchical period in Brazil is highly revered in here.


 * Lastly, but not least important, the article is part of a series on Brazil as an Empire. We've managed to nominate successfuly Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná as a featured article. Pedro II is the one to go and the next would be José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco (the latter will help you understand even further - from the point of view of the politicians, not of the emperor - the apogee and fall of the monarchy). If you read all three articles, you'll not only understand the period of Brazilian history but also will notice that we (myself and Astynax)'ve devoted time and energy to write exceptional (sorry for the lack of modesty) articles. Pedro II's deserve to be a featured one and we would be very glad if you could help us on reaching that. Regards and thank you very much for taking your time! Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't find time to correct any issue you've found in Pedro II before the FAC is closed, I'd still like to see your contribution in it. All help directed toward the improvement of the article is welcome! Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think I fixed all I could without having access to the sources. I look forward to seeing more of your work at FAC! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not being able to understand properly what do you want with Cabral's picture. However, I do have a suggestion: could you request the people at Graphic Lab/Photography workshop to improve it? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, good idea! It's the Illustration workshop actually, but I've made a request here. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Begging a favour...
Could you check over Robert Burnell for prose and Brit spelling for me? Obviously, since I'm missing Malleus (BADLY!) I'm going to have to beg from other folks much more on prose copyediting. The poor guy's had two peer reviews, with Ruhr, Awa, and Dr PDA weighing in on the last one. I'm going to post this to Moni and Iri too, just to cover all my bases... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be my pleasure—thanks for asking! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

yes sry
im a noob and its my first nominate, D-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot escape me. ConSiDeR YouRSelF wArNeD!

 * I see you have disabled your email. BWAHAHAHAHA! I have catapulted over your feeble attempts to evade me. ConSiDeR YouRSelF wArNeD!


 * }


 * Ah, I like it! Email enabled, BTW—didn't remember that I had done that. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Pedro Álvares Cabral
Hi! Well, its a public monument, as can be found anywhere around the globe, such as the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius. The monument itself was made by Rodolpho Bernardelli (1852-1931), dead for quite some time (Source: ). The second picture was made by the request of editor... Laser brain (Yourself!) in Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Well, aren't they ok, then? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh the map is fine. I was just mentioning that it was licensed other than public domain. I will add some information to the statue image so we know it's out of copyright. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Chain Saw FAC
Hi, thanks for your comments. I was wondering if you could take a look at the critical response and cultural impact sections to see if they're OK now.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Question
Question for you... Would a person who uses electronics like a computer be clasified as a composer or musician. This seems to not be clearly stated in any articles I searched, maybe I'm splitting hairs but I'm not conviced that a person using a computer is a musician. Your thoughts please. Deluxebros (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm afraid that debate isn't going to be readily solved, even using the academic sources I have access to. The most common method of classifying musical instruments is called Sachs-Hornbostel. In 1940, Sachs added a category to that scheme named "electrophones" to account for instruments that produce music electronically. Whether he would consider a computer to be an "electrophone", we'll never know because he's dead. Well, if you consider a computer a musical instrument, and someone is manipulating it to produce music, does that make them a musician? For every scholar who would say yes, you'll find one that will say no. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I being naive or missing something here? Computers can't produce music, all they can do is to control a sound source. Or are we talking about composing music, which any donkey can do? Not necessarily good music, I agree, but still music. Or are we talking about programming a computer to control a sound source? Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If I have a computer program where I can click through a grand staff and specify all the notes I want, and then I click Play, am I a musician or simply a composer? I've made music, after all. Does the computer become the "instrument"? That is the basic question. Academics do bicker about this constantly. I'm assuming the person above is writing a paper on the subject or trying to settle a debate but it's horrendously messy. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to me it isn't; who decided what note to play and when? You or the computer? Who decided how to play those notes, and on what device? You or the computer? Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Assume I've specified which notes to play, to the extent that I've produced an actual piece of sheet music, all on the computer screen—just by clicking. I tell the computer that it should play it back to me using a "piano" sound. I click Play and out it comes, over the computer speakers. I can even print out the sheet music and carry it over to a real piano. I've presumably exercised some degree of skill in the composition process, at least insofar as I've worked out basics like time and key signature. However, the only skill I've exercised in the production of the music is knowing how to control the software. Is that any different from knowing how to control a flute? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  01:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm rather astonished at your argument, so let me paraphrase it for you. "I wrote a musical score specifying which notes to play by which instruments at which times, but I used a computer to help me play it and lay it out". Does that really make sense to you? Perhaps Beethoven might have found such musical scribes equally useful. Just to be clear, I'm a great fan of electronic music, but not of the type I once saw in the '70s, when a couple of bearded guys walked onto the stage, switched on a bank of tape recorders, and then walked off. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not making an argument that that person is a musician—I'm just laying out that side of the debate. Strictly semantically, OED defines "musician" as "A person talented in the art of music." or "A person who performs music, esp. on a musical instrument; a professional performer of music." It also notes that one shouldn't confuse a musician with a composer, of whom we almost certainly have laid out a definition above. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The OED, like all dictionaries, reflects usage, it doesn't constrain it. The distinction between composers and performers verges on the meaningless where electronic music is concerned, but the OED is yet to catch up. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Daydream (Mariah Carey album)/archive1
Hi Andy, I left some comments for you at the FAC page, I think the issue can be easily resolved. Thanks.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * More comments for you.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   21:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for your quick responses. I have to run now but will be back on later. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect thank you :) Yup I'm in it to win it :D-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, so I think we are getting close to solving this lol. Check back please :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Email
You has it. Raul654 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC) (With apologies to DirectTV)

Care to look at a pop-culture article?
Heya Laser brain! It has been a long time. I plan to bring an article about a Malaysian cartoon series, Kampung Boy (TV series), to FAC and would like some opinions if it reaches that level (to be judged there) yet or if some more improvements are needed. I would appreciate it if you look through the article and leave comments at Peer review/Kampung Boy (TV series)/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would be happy to. Thanks for the opportunity to read about it! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate it.  Looking forward to your review.  Jappalang (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Illinois (album)/archive3
Please review I have made several changes to Illinois (album) per your comments--from the cosmetic to the substantial. Please post there if you think that further improvement is needed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would more than happy to. Sometimes you nominators surprise me with your speed and efficiency. :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fed up Three nominations and a peer review have me at the end of my rope. (Not that I'm mad at you or anything--you're just trying to make the article better.) I really don't want to have to go back again and work on this article substantially. I'll happily fix it during this process but neither I nor the co-nominator are excited at the prospect of doing this all over again. By all means, be honest about what you think, but please consider whether or not this is a truly unsalvageable nomination. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I get that, I really do. Let's see if we can get it promoted. I'm going through it right now—I am also doing a few library database searches to see if anything is missing that could be included. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to say that I do indeed feel the same way as Justin, and that I greatly appreciate your honest review and helpfulness since. I've responded to your latest comment; let us know if there is anything else we can do to make this happen. Regards,  Jujutacular  talk 05:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey there, just dropped by to see if you've taken another look at the article yet. Thanks!  Jujutacular  talk 17:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I will hopefully be able to look again soon—some other things have been taxing my time. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My talk page
Have you observed what I did at my talk page immediately after using RevDel? Moreover, I marvel that my refusal to restore the other edit summary is of greater concern to you than someone else telling me that I lack integrity, scruples, collegiality and courtesy. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You do. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I continue to see the edit in question as edit summary vandalism, and removal is our policy for vandalism. I am aware that my opinion is rejected by others, so I will not again delete it, but I will not restore a thoroughly inappropriate comment.  I am under no responsibility to act in any way: I am not an employee of anyone here, and thus only edit or perform other actions when I choose.  I marvel because no good reason exists to object to an action that is immediately reverted by the one who performed it: as it had no effect on any other individuals (contrary to blocking and quickly unblocking), I caused no harm.  Finally, you will observe that it is not I who chose to revisit this subject today after many days of quiet; if you wish for peace, you can contribute by ceasing to beat a dead horse.  Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I refer to my non-employee status exclusively for the purpose of indicating that I am not responsible to perform any action: you censure me for failing to restore the edit summary, but I am under no responsibility to be the one who actively enforces consensus in this particular incident. I read the policy immediately before removing this summary; it is my view that edit summary vandalism in this context is extraordinary, for it was performed by an experienced editor with the sole purpose of attacking another editor.  Furthermore, I fail to see why you censure me for an action on my own talk page that I so quickly reverted: one who undoes one's own action quickly without input from others has clearly seen that the action should not have been performed.  Because it was not on another user's talk page, it had no impact on other users while it was deleted; because it was not on a talk page or project page, it had no impact on the community at large while it was deleted; and because it was not on a page that appears in mainspace, it had no impact on the encyclopedia proper while it was deleted.  Finally, I direct you to the fact that an insincere apology will have no practical effect: others (I presume) have undone my deletion of the edit summary, and before today I had already chosen not to engage in such an action in the future.  My beliefs about the proper interpretation of policy are not subject to any other person's opinion, and if I have plans not to perform actions based on an interpretation of policy with which others disagree, my actions will not be objectionable to others.  Kindly cease from characterising my attitude.  Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I interrupt this drama-fest to help build an encyclopedia?
Would you be willing to copyedit an article for me? Thistle, Utah was an FAC nomination of mine a few weeks ago. I have worked more on the article, and asked those I work with regularly to review it. AFAIK, the only thing it still needs is a good copyedit. You up for it? Either way, thanks in advance. Dave (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes sir! What is your timeframe? I'm a bit swamped for a couple days. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No rush at all, whenever you can get to it. Thanks. Dave (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Self-revert
Just in case I rolled back my edit because I had left open my tab to edit Illinois (album) for a few hours and I saved it. Then, I looked at my watchlist and saw that you had made a series of edits. I rolled back to insure that I didn't undo your additions and I was extremely tired, so I didn't try to compare and contrast to figure out what's best; I'll look at the history now and add back in my changed without taking out yours. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Session data I did lose session data (as well I should) but I saved anyway and then looked at my watchlist to see that you had edited. Apparently, I didn't effect what you did, so I rolled back my rollback. Thanks again for your help with copyediting this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Skirth peer review
Hi,

Just to let you know that Ronald Skirth is currently undergoing peer review. As you suggested previously that you were aware of some problems with this article, I thought you might like to have a look at it. Any suggestions would be most welcome.

Dwab3 (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC thread discussion about you
See this. Raul654 (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've official appointed you. Congratulations and good luck. Raul654 (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You owe me. I secretly emailed everyone and begged them to appoint you. Everyone was reluctant, but my superior social engineering skills won the day. I have a PayPal account and an Amazon giftlist. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooo! I owe a favor to Don Ling.Nut now. "Some day... and that day may never come... I may call on you for a favor." -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Illinois FAC
Just dropped by to give you my immense gratitude. The article improved immensely over the course of the FAC, mostly thanks to you. Happy editing!  Jujutacular  talk 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

FAR nomination 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings
nominated 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- JN 466  23:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bum!
OK, I finally set up a page for us to coordinate schedules: see the talk page at User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be traveling Thursday, preparing tomorrow, but I've started:


 * User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC; feel free to use that page.

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Susanne2009NYC
Hi, do you have any evidence that this is a sockpuppet? You don't appear to be a checkuser and I don't see anything on the relevant investigation page or the user's talk page. Thanks, AD 09:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good morning, see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC. S/he is a serial puppeteer, and worse, plagiarist and copyright violator. I made avail of WP:DUCK in this case. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  13:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Emdash
Hey, Laser brain, please see the template and study its internal workings before your go around reverting my copyedits.&mdash;QuicksilverT @ 03:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the part of the internal workings where it reads "the usage of this template in articles should generally be avoided"? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Kampung Boy
Hi Andy. I have tried to address your concerns in the peer review. I have also rewrote the article a bit (I hope it will make for a clearer and smoother read). Could you give a quick look over of the changes? I hope to bring this to FAC if all seems good. Jappalang (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!
I just came back to WP after a long time, and came to know that you have been promoted as a FAC delegate. Congrats!! Sandy and Karen must be saying "whew!" at the lessening of their workload. I am planning on submitting "Like a Virgin" for a FAC, mind you take a quick look and comment on what you feel? Thanks and congrats again. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 05:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Re: "promoted", not so much—just an extra way I can help out the community. I would be more than happy to take a look at Like a Virgin, although I must warn you that I'm looking at a bit of a backlog so it may take me a while. If you scan up you can see a couple of other promises I have to keep for Dave, Jappalang, etc. :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem mate! Take your time. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 04:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

re:Reviewing
Thanks! Hopefully I can continue to squeeze reviewing into my free time&mdash;once I get fully back up to speed, I plan on making some pushes of my own. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Somerset
Hello! I've left a comment at the FAC about the close paraphrasing. I didn't see too much of a problem with the points you raised, but I suspect you've got more idea than I have! As I'd said the sourcing was OK, I'd just like to clarify as it's got my name on it saying "all fine!" --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem. It was probably just luck of the draw that I happened to check sources that had problems and you didn't. As you pointed out, when he wrote from stat cards, there is no problem at all. But when he wrote from analytical articles, he tended to follow the source very closely. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. With that in mind, I'll strike my "sources OK" comment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, I noticed you left Fasach Nua a message for the way he was acting. I appreciate it thank you!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC
FYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

These balls are brass
You mean running? Eh, I did it back in 2007 when I had no clue what I was doing, I figure now I would actually be useful :) Plus, I feel like I haven't got my share of abuse. Why let people like Sandy hog it all? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 05:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)
Hey Andy. Since you've been helpful to me in past FAC reviews, I was wondering if you could maybe weigh in on some discussion over at my FAC for South Park (season 13). So far, I believe most specific issues have been addressed, but there has been some back and forth over whether (which for now has been removed) meets the fair use rationale. I believed it did, but one reviewer opposed the FAC because he felt it did not. After attempts to update the fair use rationale did not satisfy his concerns, and after another reviewer opposed for the same reason, I removed the image altogether. But now, another reviewer has actually opposed the article due to the absence of that infobox image. So now I have people opposing the image, and people opposing the lack of an image, and I'm not sure what to do to resolve it. (Some have also pointed out that there seems to be a double-standard being applied here that while this kind of fair use rationale seems acceptable for movie posters, it is not acceptable for television season images.) I'm not sure what to do, so any guidance or assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hun <font color="#C0C0C0">ter <font color="#595454">Ka <font color="#595454">hn  20:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were me, I would err on the side of caution and omit the image whose fair use is in dispute. That is an actionable oppose. However, someone opposing over the lack of an image is not necessarily actionable, as having images is not a requirement. My interpretation of criterion 3 is that if it does have images, they must follow the image use policy. Of course, if you feel strongly that the image should be there, you can provide as strong of a rationale as possible and leave it to the closing delegate to decide if it should be promoted over the opposition. I might be able to go leave comments there later, but unlikely until tomorrow. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's certainly no rush, take your time. For now, I have left the image out. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/All I Want for Christmas Is You/archive1
Hi Andy really am a bit shocked, so please bear with me. Why in the heck did you guys close the nomination? I had many supports and had fixed almost all the issues and was waiting for the editors to respond. Not one of the editors suggested withdrawal or that it was premature. And it wasn't even an older nomination. It was there not long at all. I'm really upset, I worked hard in getting it there, and you couldn't even give me a notice. Please respond.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   23:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for all your hard work! The opposers raised several important issues right off the bat, indicating the nomination was not sufficiently prepared and requires substantial work to be brought up to FA standard. I recall this was an issue with your last nomination as well. I realize that you worked hard, and all that hard work is much appreciated—but please do take the substantive comments about prose, fair use media, etc. as a guide for what you should look at before bringing your next nomination. I think it would be beneficial for you to work with a strong copyeditor in the future, since many of the problems found revolve around the quality of writing. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is definitely making progress, but it would probably benefit from another month before nominating again. Although you addressed my examples, the prose still needs work on the whole before it reaches our rather high standards. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting guys. I would love to, but I've gone to so may and noone seems to be able to help. Can you recommend me to someone who is of their word and helpful?-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You might check Featured articles for other pop album FAs and look up someone who has experience bringing pop albums to FA status. You can also scan WP:PRV for peer reviewers interested in pop culture. Above all else, take your time and don't rush this process. I noticed that you nominated this at FAC the very next day after it passed the GA process, and there is normally a substantial amount of work required to get something from the quality expected at GAN to the quality expected at FAC. I urge you not to simply wait two weeks and then come back. Take a good amount of time to make sure this is ready. If it's in the same condition when it comes back in two weeks, it is likely to be archived again. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I can't say I won't be back in 2 weeks, but I'll make sure is good and up-to-par :) I'll take my time!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   04:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

re:PapaJohn's Bowl
It's coming along nicely, IMO, but a second opinion might be good&mdash;especially since I made quite a few tweaks myself. What do you think of the prose? &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, pretty much what I was thinking. I wasn't feeling the prose yet, and I don't have time to work on it in the next few days. I spent a whopping 20 minutes pruning links on Thursday, and that was only about half of them. I think the flag article is in a similar situation, though I dug pretty deep into that one and ended up rewording quite a bit. That one definitely needs a double check. &mdash;Deckiller' (t-c-l) 04:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations !
Laser brain, I just noticed this. Congratulations! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cirt! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck to you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My congrats too! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss Moppet
After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

, with help from, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

re:Flags
Yeah, though I was leaning support based on some extensive edits. Maybe a re-listing soon? &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 04:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Painter o' Light
Absolutely nothing. No hint of incentives should be given for that... as someone who's gone through art school, I've built up quite an intolerance to kitsch, I guess (and "deep" conceptual art too, but I always thought that was a load of bull). :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any FA about Kincade absolutely must include his appearance in this warning to President Obama. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC
Fine, but your request almost makes it seem like he's a "handicapped" editor that others aren't allowed to make impolite remarks about. It's just frustrating having nearly all my FAC nominations for the last 3 years immediately blindsided by his vexing opposition. ZeaLitY <font size="-4">[ Talk  -  Activity  ]  18:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With that cleared up, do you have any suggestions on where to look for some exchange reviewing? I've been nominating that article since 2007, failing to get it to FA because my free time's been really, really handicapped. I've got an open window of time here before January, so I can freely sink a lot of it into copyediting and reviewing other articles if I can secure some reviews of mine. It'd be a tragedy to have it die from inactivity again. ZeaLitY <font size="-4">[ Talk  -  Activity  ]  19:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fasach Nua
I took the liberty to read your exchange with Fasach Nua. Hope you don't mind. You should notice that he erased two messages sent to him requesting him to explain why he opposed the article I wrote (Here and here ). That is not the nicest way to act in Wikipedia. If someone like him behaves like that, he certainly should not be reviewing articles around. Even less FAC nominations. And do you know what is worse? He said that he would not anser back because the editor who sent the messages was ruse. That's wonderful, because he is "punishing" me, the FAC nominator, for something that another editor - who I do not know, by the way - did to him. That's childish and ridiculous. That kind of behavior tell much about him. He should not be roaming around FAC nominations because he is clearly not the most fitted editor to review those kind of articles. I sincerely hope you can understand my point. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, forget all I said. I'm tired of being criticized for having said a few truths and I don't want to see you doing that too since I have a deep respect for you as an editor and reviewer. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll take it for what it is—an expression of frustration. Lecen, your contributions here are quite valuable and I hate to see you too affected by personal interactions. The FAC process is rarely easy, but I always take comfort in the fact that everyone there has a common goal: to bring the very best work to our main page. Won't you be proud when you see your work there for millions of readers to share? It's worth it, trust me. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I'll simply ignore that, it's the best thing to do. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are a delegate at the FAC now? So you are not allowed to review articles anymore? That's a shame, I really enjoyed your work, since you've ve been always very reasonable and competent. But I think that's for the best, since the FAC needs more people like you. Congratulations! --Lecen (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will still review articles—I just wouldn't promote or archive anything I reviewed. My appointment allows more flexibility for the other two delegates as well. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Request
Hi, Laser Brain, I'm hopeful you will let me off the two week penalty as ordained by the FAC instructions. I want to nominate Flower Drum Song, on which I have been working intensively with User:Ssilvers, one of our experts on the musical theatre. User:Brianboulton has given the article an outside review and it has benefited by his comments. The state of the musical theatre area onwiki is in a sad state and I am hopeful that a successful FAC will galvanize people by giving them a model to follow. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That should be fine. It would be nice if you could pick an item off the urgents list and provide a review. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, right now I am in the throes of writing, but I will do the review later in the day or tomorrow. The Muse won't wait, you know.  I'll get the FAC up perhaps this afternoon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Review filed. I'll try to do another one as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

FAC tally
Andy, don't forget; the FA page is the definitive record of FAs, and their number, so we have to watch it closely (the FAR people often make mistakes). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder; I recall this was an issue at some point in the past and I apologize for (nearly) messing it up. I'm throwing together a checklist for myself. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for giving Thistle, Utah a once over. I promise that when I asked you to review it, I didn't know the FAC cabal was preparing to back the dump truck and give you more work to do =-) Dave (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no problem. I have a few other comments but I can make them on the Talk page if you like. Specifically, I found the narrative in the "Highways" section unclear. It seems that you are saying they were basically forced to open the reroute before it was really ready—was that the case? Did they know the cuts were going to be unstable and just did a hurried job to relieve the traffic pressure? Etc. It could use some rephrasing to make the causal relationships clear. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, yes, the road was opened pre-maturely. The impression I got from the newspaper articles was that the state was prepared to deal with the unstable rock cuts, knowing that would take months to finish. However, the road was opened while crews were still doing the last few tasks, such as, painting stripes and installing signs and guardrails. The state was concerned about motorists driving a new highway without at least stripes. Unfortunately, Google took the Salt Lake City newspaper offline that I was using for source for that section (just last week). While the event was given national coverage, the coverage in distant newspapers was more limited. As such, I'll have to dig deeper to expand/clarify this section. Thanks for the feedback, I'll start digging, I've already found an article in a Toledo, Ohio newspaper that went into some details, and a pay-per-view article in the LA times, that, at least according to the summary, could be used. Dave (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Drop me an email if you need help getting any sources. I can access most of them. I found a few that look promising, such as "Thistle – 20 years later" from the April 14, 2003 issue of Deseret News. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I might take you up on the offer. However, let me see what I can find in the local library first. Thanks. Dave (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Nice addition to the article, I was not aware of that detail.

Fee FAC
I have replied to your comment. Please reply.  Volcano guy  17:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/archive1
The Borodino class battlecruiser article has been copyedited and I hope you can take another look to see if there are any remaining infelicities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Will look it over today, thanks. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Fitzgerald
Thank you for the assist. I didn't write that sentence but it needed some fixing. Please do copy edit where ever the article needs it. A couple subsections are incomplete but I will add to them in the next few days.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fasach Nua
I am seeing issues with Fasach Nua's continuous oppose based on NFCC, but failing to explain why he is doing it or what exactly is the issue. Every editor at FAC is complaining about his comments and he is not even bothering to retract such useless comments or address them properly. In a lengthy page such as FAC, cryptic comments doesnot really help nominators or reviewers. As a delegate would you speak with him and make sure that such non-helpful comments are not added? Thanks, — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 08:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Examples? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  13:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first few nominations in FAC are littered with instances. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 14:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you're referring to. I read down through the first ten from the top and only see a couple of reasonable comments or questions from Fasach Nua. If there are particular nominations where you think a problem has occurred, please provides links or diffs so I don't have to go hunting through the whole page. I will provide some blanket advice though: In instances where FN maintains his opposition after efforts to address his concerns, it's normally because he disagrees that the rationale for fair use media is sufficient. I don't consider that disruptive, as he is simply providing his opinion. If there is too much meta discussion, a delegate may move it to the talk page, but I don't think it's reasonable to request that FN not render his opinion. Or, am I misunderstanding your concerns? There seems to be a popular misconception that any one opposition is going to necessarily sink a nomination. That just isn't true. The delegates take everything into consideration when deciding to promote or archive. FN himself stated in one nomination that FAC is a consensus-building process, not a vote. You could also ask Jappalang, David Fuchs, or another person knowledgeable about fair use policy for a second opinion on the fair use media. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have informed Fasach Nua of this conversation in case he wants to comment. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No I have seen opposes where, for eg, just because a cover of an album, or a poster of a film is present. Is this really a notable oppose? Answers to questions about whether he will always oppose nominations on this, was returned with a snarky yes. I think we had a previous consensus in WT:FAC that such opposes seriously holds no value. On top of this, the activity going on at the South Park nomination is really shady and time-killing. I am not saying that all his opposes are invalid. Sometimes, he really points out good instances when rationale is not strong enough. But basic NFCs shouldn't be opposed I believe. i will wait for Fasach Nua's comment here. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's that or teen spirit
I think you're right. It was a last-edit-of-the-night-what-on-earth-is-this-stuff-oh-for-heaven's-sake-get-rid-of-it reaction; perhaps I shouldn't have deleted it without leaving a message for the perpetrators. It's doubtful they'll know how to see the edit summary in the page history and click on the WP:TALK link, after all. I did check all the contribs and they all have just this edit in their history; I am not at all sure they'll ever see their talk pages, or do anything about it if they do. Still, if you want to leave them a message please go ahead; otherwise I'll probably leave a note for them in the morning. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Messages left. I rather hope they contact me; if there are teachers who think that their students' unsourced essays are an asset to Wikipedia then we have even more education of the teaching community to do than I thought. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A spider trapped in amber
Hi, Andy; I didn't miss. I see respect for existing style as a flavour of ownership. We don't respect spelling mistakes or the unreferenced style, do we? At its core, this view is regressive; about things being locked-down, forever — trapped in amber.

. That was a relic from the early days of the project. That particular page only dates from 30 June 2006 (and that html was in the first rev), but I'm pretty sure that it was copy-pasted from somewhere else that prolly goes back years further. I see that you've been here most of three years; I've been here more than twice that long; I've seen a lot. We used to do all the tables that way, and I've been that *is* me for a long time. Many of the smaller projects still have such issues, as they trasnwiki'd or copy-pasted old stuff circa five years ago when most of the smaller projects got started;.

Wikis are about change, about being bold. We evolve new approaches to things, all the time. The whole thrust of things like citation templates is about structuring the elements of a citation in a standard form and then rendering it is a consistent manner. Plain-text refs are not readily ready by anything other than a person. By properly structuring the discrete pieces of a citation, we make them available to all manner of tools. These tools may extract the data, or check it against a database and add something from the db to the cite. Other tools may convert the templates to the next thing; i.e..

A lot of the talk about cite style is about their on-screen appearance. I don't give a hoot about that. Sure some bits get italics, names may be last, first or not, dates may be in whatever format (and per user pref would be best). By hard-coding a plain-text reference with a bit of wiki-markup, editors are precluding most of the advantages of what I'm talking about. See separation of presentation and content; what we put into the edit box should be the 'content' of the citation, not the format of it. The 'format' should be centralised; in a template, or in MediaWiki, with the styling in the site CSS. This is the same thing as eschewing raw html in favour of wiki-markup for table an the like; we let MediaWiki generate the markup. I've a huge amount of experience with code; [ another taste] ; scroll slowly.

I see that some have their heels dug in about this, which is a pity, as it means that the wiki is going to have to struggle through whatever is necessary to get things moving forward. I recall reading somewhere that 1.7 million pages have citation templates. I view the rest as akin to Mercury-Atlas; long neglected and/or held back. We've too many articles in relation to the number of people moving things in the right direction. A huge amount of time is wasted bickering about things instead of doing things.

I missed commenting about inline goop being a pain in the butt; it is. The solution is to put all the references in the reference section using list defined references. See Sheila Varian for a fairly clean example of this. <span style="background-color: #eee; background: -moz-radial-gradient(bottom right 90deg, farthest-side, #777, #eee); display: inline-block; padding: 0.3em 1em 0.2em; border: 1px solid #777; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;">Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * List defined references are a royal pain to edit, since you're never quite sure what the ref you're editing is nor whether it correctly relates to what you're trying to source. And yes, I've played with them enough to know that for an article of any size, it's a pain. We need to remember that we can't make ourselves into a place where learning how to create articles requires taking three or four classes (or the equivalent) just to add information. And it honestly does - I teach a class on basic wiki edition with one of the places I do contract work for - just so folks can use our internal wiki to keep track of projects, information, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Santa disco
hello,

please have a look at this nomination. It would be nice if you help to promote this disco into a FL. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/.hack (video game series)/archive2
I've greatly expanded the development section with some sources I found in Japanese. Does this address some of your concerns? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Promotion/Archiving
When FAC have completed it would be handy if you were to promote and archive as two different edits. I like to benchmark my reviews against the delegates metric, and I can do this quickly with Sandy's edits who archives and promotes separately, but other than that you are doing a fine job Fasach Nua (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will endeavor to do that. Thanks again for all of your input. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song
Hey Laser brain, thank you for the promotion. I think it would be better off in the category "Literature and theatre" rather than "music". After all, it is a Broadway musical, it's all about the theatre! Thanks. This does not change TFA/R points, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree - whereas opera and operetta are primarily about the music, Broadway-type musical theatre is more heavily reliant on the book and lyrics. Also, you have the only other FA for a musical under "Literature and theatre", so it would be better to keep the musicals together there.  Thanks, Laser brain, for your hard work at FA.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good call, sorry about the oversight. I sat there for a few minutes looking for other musicals but couldn't see any. Is it the Scientology one? I can't believe musicals are so underrepresented! Maybe I'd better start working on Robert Preston's magnum opus... -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Anyway, Ssilvers and I are going to do Carousel (musical).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Look forward to it! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Missouri River
I intended it as a follow up nomination, because in the first nom I responded to and corrected all the requests made, and since it was all fixed, why was the article not promoted? <font face="Mistral" color="#008080" size="4">Shannon talk   contribs  05:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)
Hi Andy. I saw that you had archived the South Park (season 13) FAC. Although I strongly disagree with that decision, I assure you I'm not here to complain about it. :) However, I did want to ask you whether you felt it would be appropriate for me to seek an opinion at the NFCR about the fair use rationale and attempt to seek a consensus there before returning to FAC. I had proposed doing this and asking the FAC participants to abide by the decision, and one of the objectors to the image agreed, but the other felt it would be inappropriate to close an FAC with a term being the final outcome of an NFCR review. Now that the FAC is closed, however, I wanted to ask you as the delegate whether you feel it would be appropriate if I were to bring it to NFCR now, and bring the article back to FAC after that discussion takes place. Let me know what you think, because if you feel it's inappropriate, I won't do it. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello! I appreciate your tone, because I understand my decision probably went over like a lead balloon. My concern with the approach you're suggesting is that the standards for everything at FAC tend to be much higher than everywhere else. So if you go to NFCR and get consensus about the image, can we tell reviewers they may no longer oppose over it, or that their opposition is not actionable? No easy answer. We had two knowledgeable image folks maintaining their opposition, plus opposition over the status as an article or list—Malleus should be engaged over this issue if and when you bring it back. I considered restarting the nomination rather than archiving it, but I'm not sure that would have solved any of the outstanding issues. Folks dug in their heels on both sides, and in those cases, a lot of nominations will end up archived. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, and I won't bring it over to NFCR. I'm sure you can understand my frustration in seeing an FAC fail when there were so few objections to the actual article content. I didn't feel there was any real policy-based legitimacy to the list argument, and while Fasach and David are obviously very knowledgeable about images, I don't think that either really presented any argument to dispute my actual fair use rationale language . When Fasach basically resorted to a sarcastic remark when we were discussing it back-and-forth, I personally thought that sealed it. lol. But in any event, I'm glad you didn't simply restarting the nomination, as I feel we had reached an impasse and further discussion wouldn't have helped. Instead, I'll likely remove the image and renominate the article after the two week period passes (it's two weeks, right?). —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that if you bring it back without the image, I don't mind if you bring it back right away. It's not as if reviewers were calling for substantial work to be done. The fair use issue is a larger one that transcends your nomination—it is unfortunate timing that your article happens to be a prime example of one that will be attracting the attention of editors with a stricter interpretation of our fair use policy. FAC tides go in and out. For a while, prose standards went up, as well as standards for citations. Recently we've seen sharper eyes on plagiarism. Now, fair use seems to be coming into focus. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no biggie. I don't necessarily agree with the outcome, but I respect WP:CONSENSUS and the FAC process, and I certainly don't mean to bitch at you since I know it's a tough and often thankless job being a delegate. I'm going to check in with the co-nominator before I renominate. You're sure it's cool to bring it back right away? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  02:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I took the job, which means I agree to be engaged when I make the decisions. It's definitely OK if you want to nom it again. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Cornell University
Geez, Laser. I was about to comment on Cornell's FAC when you deleted it. I didn't get a chance to give an opinion on the article. Do you have something against me? :3 GamerPro64 (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I got a comment in. He who hesitates is lost.  (looks smug)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That reminds me, you edit conflicted, so I should blame you more. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry guys. :) It just failed a GA nom (in what has got to be the most detailed GA review I've ever seen) and I didn't notice the comment. I'm betting any comments you have could be appended to the article talk page for posterity. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it was mostly about no problems from its FAR were fixed and that the nominator rarely edited it. So, its all good. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: South Park
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I've taken your advice and sent messages to everyone who has participated in the previous FAC (but not the second one yet) and asked them to comment on the full FA criteria rather than just the image. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Happy Holidays
Right back at you. Can't imagine it's easy to be sane as an FAC delegate (although I think I might be getting a taste of that come the new year...) Take care of yourself, we can still drain more energy from you 'ere long :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the wishes. Here's hoping for a safe and enjoyable holiday season. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Dear ANdy, Merry Christmas. Just one question, waht do you think about the article Bad Romance and its chances of survival if nominated for FAC? If you say no, then I won't nominate it, as I don't want to clog the page with underprepared nominations. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 11:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot many thanks Andy, yes I am sorting through the media parts, and User:Indopug thinks that a little info about recording is needed for comprehensiveness. After that I will nominate it. I am asking User:Jappalang regarding the images. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 05:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Effect vs. affect
Re this edit: I thought "effecting" was what was meant -- in the sense of "causing to happen". Just a note since of course it's on my watchlist now .... Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are correct, of course. I was mis-reading the passage. Thanks for the catch! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Into Temptation (film)
Not to be a bother, but shouldn't this one be relisted or given a bit more time rather than closed? I know it's had no support or oppose votes yet, but at the very least, Bignole seemed to be in the middle of reviewing the article... (I could always ask folks at WP:FILM to weigh in if it's just a matter of inactivity.) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been more than three weeks without any support, so it definitely is a matter of inactivity. I don't get the impression Bignole is actively reviewing the article so much as just taking random potshots—I would think he would have entered a declaration after a week of looking at it. Normally it could run longer, but you have another nom running which, frankly, could use your attention. They are still fighting over the image and we're going to have to archive it again if some more reviewers don't make substantive comments on all the criteria. I've already suggested they do this, but they'd rather make it about the image. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately, SP13 has turned into quite a cluster, hasn't it? :/ I've left a message with my co-nominator about that one, and will be acting more after I hear from him. Regarding Into Temptation, I had thought when Bignole said, "I have no doubt the article is concise, well written, well sourced, and comprehensive because I know your work...so I'll review those things later", that it meant he was in the process of a review, but I could be wrong. In any event, if you want to close it, I won't object further. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to focus on SP13. In two weeks, I'm sure it will be sorted one way or another and you can bring Temptation back. It would definitely be a good idea to get the film folks engaged, because even if Bignole posted a declaration, that would only be one and not sufficient. I think the holidays are partly to blame—hopefully things pick up again after the new year. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, unless my co-nominator disagrees, I was seriously considering just withdrawing the SP13 FAC. It's a real shame, as once again I'm not getting a lot of opposition about the article itself, but I can't seem to keep users focused on the article itself rather than the image, even though I've specifically asked them to cover the entire FA criteria. I also can't seem to keep the image out of the article, as people keep restoring it, so I'm in a bit of a spot where I can't get the article to pass with or without the image. I'm just sort of at a loss, as I've been trying for weeks to come up with a solution and getting nowhere. Any thoughts? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were me, I would work on engaging other reviewers who would be willing to comment broadly (anyone at WP:TV or WP:PRV?). It would be a shame to see it withdrawn, because it seems that those who have reviewed the content have liked it. The worst thing is seeing good work invalidated or, in this case, smoked over by the image issue. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  01:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I was beginning to fear it was the inevitable outcome, particularly since the image has been readded to the article. I've taken your advice, however, and have reached out to some people to review the entire criteria. I plan to reach out to for a few more today or tomorrow. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  02:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your advice with regard to the South Park (season 13) FAC. Much appreciate your guidance along the way! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm determined not to see individual nominations become casualties of the NFCC discussions! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Evelyn Waugh
Hi. You seem to have "promoted" this article to FA while it was still riddled with sloppy writing and MoS problems. Any chance you could take a look at the discussion in talk (both my user talk and article talk), as the FA process has been used as justification for reverting out a copyedit I made. Either this is a one-off blip or it totally undermines my respect for the FA process. Please see what you can do. --John (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi John, could you clarify what action you are requesting I take? As an FAC delegate, my job is to judge consensus for promoting or archiving nominations. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that the nomination for Evelyn Waugh doesn't represent a consensus to promote. I do read through articles before promoting to look for issues the reviewers didn't catch, but nothing jumped out at me. If you are dissatisfied with the quality of our featured articles, I would encourage you to get involved in the process. Other than that, you have a content disagreement and I can't help you with that. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I take your point. Could you at least confirm the point I made in article talk about MoS? As regards the FA process, isn't it pretty much a closed shop? --John (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SEASON recommends against using season names, for sure. Brian made an editorial decision to go against that advice, clearly, but I'm not inclined to get into the debate. I'd like to think the FA process is welcoming, but perhaps it isn't so. I don't recall seeing you around—did you have a bad experience there? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence at Featured article candidates/Evelyn Waugh/archive1 that these points were raised at all, and you say it didn't jump out at you when making the assessment. Am I to understand that MoS compliance and writing quality are not really that important at FAC? --John (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I suggested, if you are unhappy with FA process, please get involved. Based on your message to Sandy, I'm assuming this is a long-standing issue with you and I've already let you know the extent to which I can help you. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andy. Let's assume I want to get involved. Do you think this conversation (so far) is filling me with enthusiasm to get involved further, or do you think it is perpetuating the idea I am forming, that the FA process is an incestuous walled garden inconsistently promoting mediocre work? Are you content that nearly half of featured articles don't meet featured article criteria? I posted to Sandy in the hope that she can give me some help or at least a straight answer. Cheers, --John (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm truly sorry if this conversation hasn't made you feel welcome. I did ask above if you've had a bad experience at FAC—I wouldn't ask if I wasn't interested. I'm still not clear what you're asking me to do. I don't care to get involved in the individual content dispute, but I would certainly welcome your feedback at FAC. Coming to my talk page with hyperbole like "incestuous walled garden inconsistently promoting mediocre work" doesn't exactly create a cordial atmosphere for a conversation, does it? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry then if I hurt your feelings. It wasn't intended as hyperbole but was genuinely the way I felt when you answered my query the way you did. I wasn't clear that your role was only to judge consensus, and now that this has been clarified I feel bad that I generated so much discussion on your talk page. I will take any further discussion related to improving the article to article talk. Sorry once again. --John (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

John, I'll respond here to keep this conversation in one place. First, you can't really place any blame on Andy or FAC if the issue wasn't raised at FAC; we'd love to have more reviewers, and the delegates' job is only to judge consensus. Second, on the reverted edits: "However" is almost always problematic, but I'm not sure it was misused in that case. When I read FACs, I frequently see breaches of SEASON, but often find it hard to determine how to fix them; the edits did seem to be an improvement, but discussing it on the FAC (or at article talk, as you've done) is the best way to resolve such issues. Finally, I hope you've not lost faith in FAC over matters that should be easily resolved, and I hope you understand that raising the issues on the FAC is the best way to alert the delegates! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

John, you have somewhat of a point on the "closed shop" issue. FAC can be intimidating. It is why I make a practice of trying to introduce as many editors as possible to it as conom or reviewer. I would mix industrial metaphors and say it is not so much a closed shop but an industry with some barriers to entry that can be overcome with dedication by the new individual. None of us were born at FAC, after all.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that "barrier to entry" might be a better description. I try to never hold up a FAC over easily fixed MOS issues (I tend to fix them myself, unless they are huge, and I often can't figure out how to fix SEASON issues), but on the other hand, bringing those issues to the FAC is the best way to shed light, not only on that FAC, but so that other reviewers will watch for similar issues on other FACs.  SEASON is often overlooked by reviewers.  Dig in at FAC, John; enter your comments there.  You don't have to Oppose-- even comments are considered by delegates, but we can't judge consensus on minor MOS issues unless they're brought to our attention.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a difficult issue. If I keep a season in one of my FACs, I've thought about it, and decided there is relevance to the season of the year that justifies it being in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And that often happens on MOS issues; after all, MOS is a guideline, editor judgment comes into play, so again, unless it's raised on the FAC, discussion won't occur! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This also speaks to the complexity of the MoS that this went without mention at the nomination. It's not a subtle issue, either—there are at least a half dozen season names that John tried changing. Almost every new nomination has MoS issues. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It also speaks to one delegates' attention span (moi); I am sometimes frustrated at repeatedly fixing the same MOS issues, and wonder why reviewers don't :) It takes little time, but there are times when I decide not to bother.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But perhaps not everyone would agree on what those MoS issues are. With seasons, for instance, it ought to be perfectly clear to anyone that spring is early in the year and winter is at the back end of the year. It hardly ever matters whether it's warm or cold at either time of year in your hemisphere. The MoS does not prohibit the use of season names, at best it mildly discourages them in some instances. Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Another reason for discussion on FAC; my attention cycles as to which of the gazillions of MOS issues I remember to review before promotion, and why am I the one doing it, anyway? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Spring is only early in the year in the temperate part of the northern hemisphere, where a minority of the world's English speakers live. In the southern hemisphere it is in September, and in the tropics the term is of no help at all. Certainly when we are talking about events in Guyana we should not be talking about "winter", unless the intention is to create an effect of surrealism, not something we usually shoot for in an encyclopedia article. --John (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good point, but I'm also just now noticing that all of this happened post-FAC. OK, FAC reviewers missed the season issue, but few FAC reviewers keep up with MOS or review for it, leaving the burden on delegates, so again, John, get involved!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that you've misunderstood the sentence you're complaining about John. It seems clear to me (made even clearer by the year span given) that it's referring to the UK's winter, not Guyana's, i.e, the period of time between the December solstice and the March equinox. What those living in Guyana call those three months is therefore irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As an example, my current nominee C. D. Howe has a sentence which says that delays in a certain project might lead to construction not starting until the spring of 1957. I left "spring" in because the season is relevant. The article is about Canada and the Canadian winter is not a good time for construction. If I said "April of 1957" (even if supported by the source), the reader might miss the point. Therefore, I overrode the guideline and used the word "spring".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just some more food for thought for John, and why we need reviewers to cover all sorts of issues, including MOS, which is not necessarily at the head of the "core policy" list. We have all kinds of things to watch for at FAC, including correct representations of sources, copyvios, plagiarism, socks, and now paid editing as well. Does anyone check articles that could be targetted for paid editing-- like bios, products, companies, schools, buildings, etc-- for POV? Until I see more sourcing, copyvio, and POV checks, and as long as I have to stay abreast of socks, keeping up with MOS can't occupy too much of my time, and I'd love it if others would keep all of these things, including the bigger picture related to Wiki's core policies of neutrality and verifiability, in mind! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)