User talk:LordViD/archive1

Tecmo Cup Football Game
If you have a problem with any of the edits I made to this article, please consider them individually rather than simply reverting them all. I was attempting to assist you in getting the article up to FA standards, including bypassing of redirects and disambiguation pages, using emdash instead of a spaced hyphen (see Manual of Style (dashes), and similar changes. If you have an issue with any of the specific edits, please let me know so that we can discuss it.  Thank you. &mdash; Jonel | Speak 20:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Tecmo Cup Football Game
I hope you'll take a look at my more recent comments on the Featured Article nomination. I do think that this article can become a Featured Article, but I think it will take some additional research. I'm sorry that these comments are coming so late in the process (after unsuccessful Peer Reviews). -- Creidieki 06:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your comments weren't harsh at all and I wasn't discouraged by them. Take a look at my reply and many thanks for reviewing the nomination :). LordViD 08:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Early RFA thanks
Hi , Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. It has done very well and is currently at 67/0/2. As such, I am posting this in advance of its closure. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know. Thank you once again! – NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 01:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:Lead
You suggest in your peer review of Baseball Stars that the lead needs to be expanded. I actually cut down the lead in order to sharpen up the article. Ironically, the link you gave of WP:Lead, where a proper lead is described, has a lead of two lines. Shouldn't a lead focus on being as short and to-the-point as possible? ... Not that it's a justification, but that's what I was taught in journo school. Themindset 16:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That may be what a lead is supposed to be, short and to the point. But if you want to please the guys over at WP:FAC, you'll probably need to expand it. The first thing the guys at WP:FAC will object to is the shortness of the lead. According to them, a lead should contain a summary of each section in the article, woven together properly. Leave the lead section to the end, and work on the other points. &laquo; Lord  ViD  &raquo; 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear sir...
Several times on your user page you invite people to sue you. How do you reckon they do that when the outstanding policy is no legal threats? Are you trying to entrap someone? Just kidding. Just thought I'd swing by and say hello to a similar user name. Good to see another in the House of Lords. Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark)  18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Greetings, oh Dark One. I am truly happy to have been given the honour to serve you in the House of Lords. I promise to help spread your Dark Mark far and wide. Morsmordre!!!. &laquo; Lord  ViD  &raquo; 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Realmz
I have changed the article based on your comments on the peer review, please see my additional comments at Peer review/Realmz/archive1, thanks. — Wackymacs 21:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
I wanted to thank you personally for voting in favor on my RFA. Cheers! SWD316 21:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, could you check on the users voting against me? I know you saw the Rock09 edits but now another virtual unknown named Sigma995 has voted against me. SWD316 21:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Mcfly85 wants your rationale on why you voted support. SWD316 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Barnstar, I appriciate it. SWD316 23:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As you already know:

I thank you for your support on my recent RFA. Although I did not make admin, I'm very happy you decided to support me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. S W D 3 1 6 talk to me 05:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Foolkiller and Friends
Thanks for your advice on improving the Foolkiller article. I have addressed some of the concerns you have regarding footnotes (now working) and the powers and abilities section is now a paragraph. The disambiguation line has also been removed till a disambiguation page is created for the Fool Killer (important difference here).

I've contacted some of the editors who worked on the article in the past; hopefully they will decide to help improve this article as I didn't want to be the one to remove their contributions (such as the gallery and quotes). I feel that they should decide to do that, especially since someone went through all the trouble to get all those images. It's really more their article than mine. I am just a Foolkiller fan.

On the objection page, someone raises the concern that this article is written by a fan, instead of a scholar. A scholar, I think, would have inserted original research regarding his own interpretation of the Foolkiller. It is true that most of the article is written in the context of the fictional universe but that is because the story clearly states Steve Gerber's views regarding why he created the character and what he wanted to say with the character. I feel those quotes (even if they should be moved to Wikiquotes) from the comic give a good picture of the social commentary that the author was trying to get across. I somehow feel that a section that explains the same thing, but this time outside a fictional context, would be a redundant excersise.

My only other concern is that although the Captain Marvel article is a good example of a Wiki article on a comic book character, the comic book origins of Captain Marvel and Foolkiller are all they have in common. Much has been written and published on Captain Marvels long, distinguished history. Sadly, little has been done justice to Steve Gerber but he is very well known to his fans and readers. Most of the critical acclaim of the Foolkiller (especially the Limited Series) comes directly from his readers. I'm going to get away and think about this article for a while but thanks again for your tips. I'd like to come back to this after the holidays with some new ideas. Mr. ATOZ 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar's RfA
Hi my Lord, I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi, thanks for supporting my request for adminship. If there's ever something I can help you out with please drop me a note. Happy holidays! Jacoplane 16:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Howcheng's RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Deathphoenix
Hi LordViD,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. I'll probably be seeing you around when I close votes on AfD! --Deathphoenix 14:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Realmz
Thanks, I'm going to work on expanding the article a bit more when I have time (a section on Races, Characters and different scenarios). It got some response on the normal peer review which was helpful, so it's OK that it didn't get any at CVG. — Wackymacs 16:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
 ''' Hello ,

I wish to thank you for your vote on my RfA. It has passed with a final tally of 59/0/0. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Knowledge Of Self | talk  03:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC) '''

Praises to LordVid!! Praises! Praises!
LordVid, thank you for your kind tendering of support to my RfA, it is much appreciated. There may be other LordVids on the internet, but you are without question my very favorite. Thanks again, and if I can be of help in anyway, please instruct. Thankk thanky, Babajobu 21:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * }
 * }

Grand Theft Auto
Left a reply in the talk section for GTA: Vice City. I Live here and own the game. Mike 06:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikifun round 12
This is to invite you to participate in the next game of Wikifun.

Round 12 will begin at 11:00 UTC on Friday January 20. 2006.

-- Ravn 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming commitee
Sorry to see you leave the welcoming comittee, is there any particular reason you left? -Ravedave 23:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hamas
Thanks for your note. No worries, although looking at it, I think it may have been me who deleted something I hadn't intended to delete. These things happen when articles are changing fast. We usually get there in the end. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the RFR poll
Hi, LordViD, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Rfa Thanks from Banes
Thank you so much LordVid for you kind support of my rfa. I was amazed by the amount of support I recieved, thank you. Should you ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, if I can ever be of assistance, don't hesitate to ask! All the best  Ban  e  z  18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)



Capitalism (game)
Can you please peer review this article for me and post suggestions on it's peer review page? Thanks! — Wackymacs 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thansk
for closing the MfD - I got distracted :-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi. On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support.  Soothing R  20:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)