User talk:LoneRifle

ReactOS
No problem. I'll give the article a look and tell you what I see. Diderot's  dreams  (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)\


 * Well, I've looked the article over, and I think there is hope that it can be GA. There are a few important things that definitely need improving to meet the GA criteria:


 * The first is referencing. The article is based more on secondary sources than before, so it probably passes for notability (the article can exist at Wikipedia), but the referencing is not yet good enough for Good Article as most of the references shouldn't be primary sources.  Reliable secondary sources should be a larger share, as those are preferred.  You mentioned a list of media articles from the ReactOS website.  You are dead on to use those sources, I suggest keep going.  Not just adding new information, but also replacing citations from primary sources with citations from secondary sources that say the same thing whereever possible.  We want to reduce the number of citations to primary sources in the References section.


 * Wikis are not acceptable sources. So don't cite anything from a wiki.


 * If you use Google language tools, you can sometimes get a good enough machine translation of an web page in a foreign language to understand it, and so you can use it in the article. I'm thinking of the Der Speigel article, of course, a very nice reliable secondary source.


 * There is a main aspect of ReactOS's "story" that the article should address for breadth. It is talked about in John Devorak's op-ed piece in PC Magazine-- basically what could happen if ReactOS is developed into a usable OS.  That really is the big fireworks about ReactOS, and the article should discuss it-- relying on published opinion, of course, stated as opinion.


 * For a Good Article, the lead needs to be a summary of the entire article, a sort of short stand alone mini-article. The lead shouldn't add much, if any, new information, but repeat what is in the body of the article.  So most every part of the article should be mentioned in the lead, and the basic stuff in the lead needs to be stated in the article body.  The way the lead is now, it is mostly a basic introduction, with more advanced info following in the body.  Nothing wrong with this approach, but the GA criteria require following the  Manual of Style for the article lead, which specifies the former method.


 * Those are the major things I see. If you work on these, I'll be happy to look over the changes you've made.   Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is much improved. I've modified my comments above.  I'd work a little more on it, then I'd say it is ready to resubmit at Good Article Nominations.   Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for delay in replying. I think you've covered the rest of my points.  I see you've renominated the article, I'm sure the new reviewer will have more to say as there's more stuff, but the article shouldn't be "quick failed" as it's "within range" now.   Hopefully the end result will be a Good Article.  Best.  Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, LoneRifle, I'm Airplaneman. I'm pleased to announce that I'm currently reviewing ReactOS. Your input is welcome. Regards, Airplaneman  talk 06:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, LoneRifle, it's been listed! I commented on the GA review; in a nutshell, I said "watch the refs". I look forward to working with you in the future. Happy editing, Airplaneman  talk 06:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wine on ReactOS diagram
sup m8, I uploaded a little something just for you:



In retrospect, I think we can make the diagram clearer and more copyright-friendly by losing the Wine icon and just giving the Wine-y boxes a different color. A legend can explain what the hell the various colors mean... and the "User/Kernel mode" captions could be a little bigger so that they are readable in thumbnail format.

I think this would benefit from the companion "Wine on Linux" diagram, for comparison: let me know if I should lose some sleep SVGizing that one as well --KJK::Hyperion (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Heya. I think I'll leave that call to you. a Wine on Linux diagram would be useful for the Wine software page, assuming that they do have a section about their architecture. The ReactOS article as it is right now does not actually make a comparison to Wine, since it is not particularly relevant. -- LoneRifle (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Arwinss
I wasn't aware of my Arwinss sources being considered unsuitable to the article.

If I was aware of the sources being considered unsuitable for Wikipedia, I would never have even added the Arwinss information to begin with, since there would have been nothing to talk about. Since the ReactOS website is the only source of information on Arwinss, I thought it was an acceptable source, similar to how the ReactOS mailing list is cited as a source for the Harmut Birr controversy. If I had seen my edits removed with the comment "Revert edits, Arwinss requires a secondary source", or something like that, it would have made sense to me and I would have never thought that anything was wrong. All I saw on the article's revision history was "Current and future development: Remove information about arwinss on request of the Dev team". I didn't know how else to interpret that statement, and I have a really bad habit of assuming the worst out of people, so I came to that conclusion.

Before I redid the edits, I brought the issue up with the dev team on the dev mailing list. Aleskey Bragin explained that he wanted the statement down until he could get better and more complete information, and said that I could use the new information he had presented on the dev mailing list earlier in the day. After I got that message, and under the belief that the reasons for my Arwinss information being removed was alleviated, I redid the Arwinss information with the updated data.

Now that I know the real reason my information was removed, I understand, and I can see that your actions were justified. Once I can figure out how to get IRC working, I'll hop on the ReactOS IRC channel so we can discuss this in more detail, if you wish.

I don't want to get into an edit war with you or any other ReactOS team members. If anything I want to help improve the article, so more people can get excited about ReactOS like we are. --RaptorEmperor (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Future ReactOS versions
Thanks for hashing this out with me. I'll definitely try to get in touch with the users you mentioned RE:User talk:Gyrobo, because open wikis are specifically listed as one of the self-published sources that I believe meet the criteria of inclusion in this case. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a message on Althepal's talk page, but Offliner appears to have been banned. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also put a message on Diderot's dreams' talk page. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rump steak listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rump steak. Since you had some involvement with the Rump steak redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DuncanHill (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)