User talk:Moisejp/Archive 13

Eric's Trip
"View Master" has been on heavy rotation all week. Never even heard of them before so muchas gracias. My tip for the now, if you liked Slint is these people (skip the first tune go to c 2:50). Hope all is well and chat soon. Ceoil (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

, sorry for my late reply! How have you been? I've been good. Life's been keeping me busy but I have a project in the wings that I'm inching forward wee wee bit by wee wee bit. Thanks so much for your recommendation. Although this particular one I found to not totally totally mesh with my musical dispositions, it's still always cool to be exposed to new stuff, and widen one's awareness of different styles and possibilities. I look forward to future recommendations you may have, and I'm glad you liked "View Master". OK, it's late here and I gotta hit the hay. The weekend is coming up soon—have an especially good one! Moisejp (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Pod (The Breeders album) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Pod (The Breeders album) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 29 May 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/May 29, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article on the Breeders' debut album, released in 1990, and for mentioning the many helpers, who hopefully look here, and take part of the thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with a potential FAC
Hello again! I hope you are doing well. I am thinking about nominating "Candy" (Foxy Brown song) for a FAC in the near future. I was wondering if you could look over the article to see what improvements could be made to prepare for the nomination. I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Either way, have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi u|Aoba47, I hope you're well. I'm doing fine, thanks. Thanks for reaching out and thinking of me. Give me a few days and let me digest your article a bit, and think about how much I may or may not be able to help you. Cool, I'll be back in touch soon. Have a good day! Moisejp (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you and take as much time as you need. There's no rush. I am glad you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aoba. I hope all is going well for you. I haven't forgotten about you. I have been working on completing a GA review, but now that that's done, my next focus will be looking at your article and figuring out how much I may be able to help with it. I'll try to get back to you in not too many days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi again . All right, I've looked at the article, and here's what I think: If you're really not in a big rush (maybe you have other projects to do on the side) and you want to open a peer review for it, I'd be happy to try to help you improve it at a leisurely pace. I don't have a lot of Wikipedia time these days, and I definitely will have other things I'd like to work on at the same time. If I can be honest with you, I do feel the article needs a fair amount of work before it would be ready for FA. But I remember once reading a quote from the playwright Neil Simon, who said basically that the great thing about writing is if you keep at a given work long enough, eventually you can get it to where you want it to be. So if you don't have any specific timeline in mind, I'm optimistic the article can be taken to FA level. (Or it's also possible that big improvements will end up happening quite fast, which would of course be great, but in case that doesn't happen I'd be more comfortable not committing to a speedy timeline.) Does that sound good to you?


 * One other thing is, I know this is about a quite explicit song, but my tendency would be to lean towards toning down the amount of explicit detail in the middle section of the article—at least some. You might argue that it's a matter of personal preference (or a matter of objective description of the song's contents) and that any squeamishness I have isn't relevant to reviewing the article. That could be a valid point of view. I'm just letting you know beforehand that if I'm working closely with you on improving/revamping the article, my natural inclinations about this may come up at some point. And if we happen to have disagreements about this, I guess it would be something we'll need to talk through.


 * Cool, if you're still interested in getting my input on the article, just let me know and I'll be happy to oblige. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I hope you are doing well and staying healthy. I am not in any rush to get this to the FAC. I am still trying to get better about balance my on- and off-Wikipedia work so I will also be limiting my time on here. At the end of the day, my goal is to improve the article to the best it can be and ideally help anyone interested in learning more about this particular single. I have tried the peer review process before without much success, but I would not be opposed to trying it again. I have just noticed from personal experience that a lot of peer review requests do not get answered. On a somewhat-related note, I really should check out something Neil Simon-related in the future lol.


 * This song is quite explicit. There's really no way around that given the subject matter and how its use of sexuality is discussed in academic articles. If it actually did reach the FA level, I'd be curious if it could run on the main page or not. I would like to emphasize that I do appreciate your perspective about the explicit content. I honestly did not notice anything particularly over-the-line or gratuitous. Oddly enough, I am more uncomfortable about having n-word in the article over any of the sex parts, but that is part of the lyrics. However, my perspective could be because while in graduate school, I focused on psychoanalysis and trauma studies in the context of pornography and rape narratives. I guess after reading something like The Sadeian Woman and the Ideology of Pornography and using it as an academic source, I just approach it in a different response lol. With that being said, I completely understand your concerns and would be happy to talk through it more in the future. It is important to present the information in a way that would benefit the most readers.


 * Thank you again for the message. I hope I did not come across as dismissive or insensitive as you have raised very good and valid points. I will mostly likely put the article up for a peer review in about a month or so. Would that be okay with you? I do not really have a solid timeline in mind. Along with this, I am going through my old GAs to improve the prose, add any new information, and determine if they have a future as a FAC so I have plenty to keep me busy there. Even with those revisions, I am taking things more slowly. I actually feel quite bad for directing you to a rather sexually explicit article. If you were by any means offended, I am truly sorry for that. I should have thought about that more. Regardless, I hope you are doing well during these bizarre times. Have a great rest of your week! Apologies for the long message. I think you already know by now that I have a tendency to ramble. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not that it offends me (it doesn't). Anyway, we can talk about that more in a month or so when you put it up for peer review. Even if nobody else responds to the peer review, the PR would be the best way for me to give you ongoing suggestions for the article over a period of time. Talk to you again soon. Moisejp (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. I would like to look through the article a few more times on my own before putting it up for a peer review. Apologies for always messaging you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I just wanted to let you know that I still plan on doing a peer review for this, but it will be later this year than I originally had planned. I am honestly just a little burned out at the moment so I will be taking a hiatus from Wikipedia. Just felt like informing you about this. Whenever I do open a peer review, I will let you know. Aoba47 (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Aoba. That's cool. It's good to take a break sometimes. Take it easy, and talk to you again soon! Moisejp (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

IMM
Hi there, Moisejp. I'm just about to nominate "I Me Mine" for GA – will probably give it a final read-through beforehand. If you could pick up the review, that would be fantastic, but I completely understand if you're busy on other things, of course. Take care, maybe see you there ... Oh, and I'm still trying to unearth those details I mentioned about "If Not for You", btw ... JG66 (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Wow, you're so speedy! :-) I am sincerely interested in picking up "IMM" but I think I would like to hold off for a certain number of days. Recently I've been trying to get one project or another of my own started but have been jumping around a bit without getting far as I'd like with any of them. I'm really eager to sink my teeth into something but I find these things either take a life of their own or they don't. Anyway, I have another idea that I'm excited about, and hopefully I can get some momentum going. If I do get momentum going, that should be able to carry me through even while I review "IMM" on the side; if I don't get momentum going, then it's also no big deal, and it'll be even easier to look at "IMM". But anyway, give me several days to try to get the wheels turning on this project and then I expect I should be able to take on "I Me Mine" too. Thanks, looking forward to it! Moisejp (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I don't know about "speedy"; I think it's a case of having such a backlog of potential noms from the last 2/3 years, as mentioned, so there shouldn't be that much to do on each one now. That is, in an ideal world. You sound pretty busy yourself – and best of luck with all that. Let's see how it goes with this one. I'm in no rush to nominate IMM, apart from wanting to keep the momentum going after OBS. If you're able to grab the review, that would be great – but no pressure of course. Best, JG66 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . If you want to go ahead and nominate "IMM", I'll review it! Moisejp (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, fantastic. It had slipped my mind in fact (despite all this GA-comeback-trail talk). Might need a day to run through it one last time, check I didn't leave anything in the too-hard basket – then I'll go for it. JG66 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again. It's up there at last, do hope your offer still stands. I confess I haven't given the article the final read-through that I'd planned to. Will try to do so over the next 24 hours, but I think it's a fresh pair of eyes that would be more beneficial right now. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

LSXX Tour
There's a reference to Caitlin 1997 in there, without a full citation. Would you mind adding it? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Headbomb. Fixed now I believe. Moisejp (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can install Svick's script per these instructions to automatically get warned of these issues in the future BTW. It's very handy. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Five Go Down to the Sea?
Long time no talk, during which the world changed :( My best you you and yours and hope all are safe and well. I'm calling in the heavies for the FAC for the above article; would love to get you feedback; no worries if you are otherwise preoccupied man. Ceoil  (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I accidentally reverted you earlier while checking the edits on a tablet. Sorry! Ceoil  (talk)


 * Hi ! Very nice to hear from you. I hope you've been keeping well. Yes, who could have imagined how much the whole world could change in such a short amount of time? In the area where I live things didn't get too bad, and life seems to be returning somewhat closer to normal—I hope where you are as well, things aren't too terrible. I'd be very happy to look at your FAC. I've got a couple of other things on the go, and not so so much time, but I'll try hard to give it a proper review. Talk to you again soon! Moisejp (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * PS. No worries about accidentally reverting the edits—things happen! ;-) Moisejp (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Pixies
The timeline thing is a Mediawiki glitch, I've encountered it before, and raised it at WP:VPT. Sometimes the timeline looks completely messed up (with the lines being rendered completely wrongly), but if you purge the server cache (or make a null edit) it looks fine again. Meanwhile, other editors still see the page normally. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, . I hope you're well. Moisejp (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Watching the River Flow
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 7, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/December 7, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt! Well, I don't have a really strong opinion, but the single's release's 50th anniversary is coming up in June. Another possibility could be to wait until then. But again, I'm happy to defer to the judgment of the TFA coordinators if you have reasons not to wait. Thanks for your hard work in organizing that all the time. Moisejp (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll replace it once I finish scheduling the month. If you remember, remind me in early May or TFA/R it, please. No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"A Toast to Men"
Hello again. I have recently rewritten and expanded the "A Toast to Men" article, and I was curious if you think it could stand a chance as a FAC? I am very uncertain about it since I believe certain sources (like AskMen) would be viewed as inappropriate for a FA, and I just do not think I can get the prose to the compelling/engagement benchmark set by the FAC criteria given the coverage on the song. I am very happy with my recent edits, and I would be more happy for that to be the end of my work there. But, I just wanted to reach out to get your opinion as it was something on my mind. Thank you in advance. I hope you are doing well and staying safe this weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Nice to hear from you. OK, I've read the article once. Please give me a couple of days to digest it and I'll get back to you about my thoughts. Talk to you soon, Moisejp (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response, and take as much time as you need. I do not have any intentions on bringing it to a FAC, but whether or not it would be appropriate for a FAC was a small thought in the back of my head. If it is not, that is totally fine, as I still enjoyed working on the article and I would be more than happy to stop my work on it in its present condition. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. All right, I've read over the article a few times. I agree with you that some (I saw at least two or three) sources would not be considered appropriate for FA. I also agree with you (I'm not sure if this is exactly what you meant, but it's related to what you said) that not all of the details are compelling enough for FA. I don't think personally if it were me I would attempt bringing this to FAC, but if you were to attempt it, I think the prose would need a lot of tightening, and (I believe this is related to what you hinted at above) you might not be left with much of a story. Anyway, you asked for my opinion, and I hope this was helpful. I hope you're having a nice holiday season and all the best! Moisejp (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. I was actually concerned about the compelling aspect of the prose. I did not have any intentions for a FAC, but I thought it would be good to get a second opinion and I'm glad that I could verify that my first thoughts were correct. Although I still believe that any article should be able to become a featured article, I agree with your assessment that it would be best to not attempt a FAC here. I'm just happy that I was able to improve the article at least somewhat and I'm more than happy to stop with that. Thank you again for taking the time to do this and apologies for the inconvenience. You have a happy holidays too! Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays
Thanks, ! All the best to you and yours as well. Yes, I'm optimistic we'll get through it. I hope you're enjoying the winter holidays. Take care. :-) Moisejp (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)