User talk:Peregrine Fisher/Archive 17

Supernatural FAC
Okay, cool. I think I have addressed all your concerns. Ω pho  is  21:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living persons solution?: Projectification
As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An article you previously commented in is up for AFD again

 * I am contacting everyone who participated in the previous AFD to inform them the same exact article is up for deletion again. Articles_for deletion/List_of_The_Simpsons couch_gags (2nd_nomination)  D r e a m Focus  04:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okip?

 * moved from user okip:

You're username is cracking me up. I always wanted your original "Inclusionist" username. That one was awesome. "Ikip" was an interesting one, because if I was searching a huge page for your comments, searching for "ikip" would bring up every instance of "wikipedia", so I'd then have to look for " ikip" with a space before it. I like to imaging the deletionists trying to find your comments and having the same problem. That would be sweet.

I've changed my username from "peregrinefisher" to "Peregrine Fisher". I tried to grab User:1 one time, but someone had used that a couple times on some other languages pedia (and that's all they'd done), but because we have to have the same name across all pedias, I was cock blocked. I think I'll now check if there are any single letter or single number usernames left. I still want one. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * you can have inclusionist. I think it has been long enough you can take it. I would not recommend it though, tends to piss people off. An admin suggested I change it, and I did. It is too much like User:Dream Focus's user page, in your face partisanship, which turns people off.
 * i hated ikip, for that same god damn search reason. I had to click Match case, and type "Ikip" then I would forget the match case was on. I used to have ikip (talk) then I removed the talk, so I couldn't search for "ikip ("
 * i picked ikip after playing with the keyboard, i wanted something short, and easy to use, ikip was not.
 * Glad I can make you smile! Okip (formerly Ikip) 05:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Shit. That's an LOL.  I never thought about you trying to search for your own name.  That's hilarious.  "Wikip", "iped", "pedi", etc. would all be horrible names.  Hah! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * :) Okip (formerly Ikip) 06:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN
Some input from an outside party would be good here when you have the time.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lech Wałęsa
Hello, I see that you listed Lech Wałęsa as GA, but it seems that the standard nomination procedure wasn't followed. I can't see a nomination in the history of WP:GAN and the entire review discussion was via email with the nominator, so other editors could not participate and there's no way to verify the review. Could you please let me know why this non-standard procedure was followed and whether you could publish your correspondence with the nominator on the article talkpage? — Kpalion(talk) 19:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's much clearer now that this was a genuine GA process. — Kpalion(talk) 18:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No prob. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For each unreferenced living persons wikiproject list: Google search results and first paragraph of article
List of all scraped unreferenced BLPs with Example: WikiProject_Cricket
 * 1) google news,
 * 2) google scholar,
 * 3) google books and
 * 4) the first paragraph of article:

I am adding this for all projects which already have scraped results.

Okip  05:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * lets keep this discussion here for now, thanks.
 * re: == BLP/Google stuff ==


 * Awesome idea. You did it by hand, right?  Are you going to ask someone to write a bot?  What did you mean by "I am adding this for all projects which already have scraped results."? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I used autohotkey and Microsoft Word advanced find and replace. 2 steps. Hopefully by tomorrow I can get some help to program autohotkey to do it all in one step, check your email.
 * "I am adding this for all projects which already have scraped results." Football is running right now, there are 3400 entries, so it will take some time.Okip (formerly Ikip) 06:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you're doing. Very cool.  Keep me informed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Need some help in finding unreferenced BLP examples
Can you find four unreferenced BLP examples?


 * WikiProject_Unreferenced_Biographies_of_Living_Persons/Contest

Using the same types of historical link as found in these examples:


 * WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment
 * For example on that page:
 * Flank speed (as of January 2010) (use this same format)

I would really appreciate your expertise not only in this, but in this entire contest.

Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Would you be willing to:
 * 1) add new flags when members join,
 * 2) create a user box, and/or
 * 3) create a to do box on the main talk page?

Good luck! ... Okip BLP Contest 17:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Peregrine Fisher,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I explained myself there, I think, but I support the lowest possible threshold, whatever that is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested ...
in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the review! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  23:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I kinda did it because I saw how many reviews you were doing, and I like to encourage that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Yeah, the backlog is getting a bit out of hand, I'm trying to help get it under control a bit. By the way, #48 is currently listed as a nomination by you, but it links to ArticleName. I'm not sure how it happened but you might want to take a look and see if you can fix the mistake... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  06:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Wrong template. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you
Thank You I think sometimes editors forget to tell others this, Thanks again for all of your hard work for the project. I am glad you came back from your little hiatus. :) Okip BLP Contest 02:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been interesting. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * glad I have been able to entertain you a little bit ;) Okip BLP Contest 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

BLPs
I saw that you were looking for unreferenced (how about under-referened?) BLPs to work on regarding D&D. I'll try to find some worth working on for you.

Meanwhile, if you want a challenge, have a look at Rick Krebs. Seems more like a collection of trivia than a real biography. Oy. :) BOZ (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * lord Boz, that is a tough one, I see why you want to avoid it. Okip BLP Contest 00:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that one has refs, even though they're crappy. Have you been following the BLP brouhaha BOZ?  Just one ref may save a DnD BLP article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Frank Mentzer is essentially unsourced, and could use a bunch of work. I haven't been following that whole mess, but I've looked in on it from time to time. Too much drama for me. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike Carr could use some love as well. I'll try to dig up a few more. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find much on these people.  Do you think WD or something would have articles on them?  Over at Wproject Oregon, we've got a list of unrefed BLPs, but when I search google news with their names, I get a bunch of fat articles.  I've set aside a few of them for possible deletion (!) because I haven't found much on them.  I'm getting the feeling I shouldn't be looking at these game designers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL - OK then. :) No idea where sources could be found. BOZ (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

G.I. Joe characters at AFD
I saw you arguing on AFDs for Masters of the Universe characters, so I figured I'd bring this to your attention.

It started with with the implication that there will be more to come. FYI 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Mainframe (G.I. Joe), then moved to
 * Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe) (which includes several characters, such as Airtight and Barbecue),

WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest
The rules of the contest have been changed significantly since you signed up. Please check out the new page and its subpages. Any input as to how to improve any part of it would be greatly welcomed. J04n(talk page) 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

MLJ Blue Ribbon Comics
Thanks for the up. You're right about Pep - it will be destroyed and totally reconstructed from scratch, there doesn't seem to be any way to rescue it, or point in doing so, it just creates more work. The same is true of many of the other MLJ/Archie sites - especially the character stuff and classic GA titles. And I'm still finding it hard to come to terms with the number of titles not covered.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Blue Ribbon Comics revision was done by me with some dead useful input from User:Tenebrae (I'm still new to editing and some of the rules are not easy to pick up when so few pages are good examples). Oddly enough, the Goulart pages on Blue Ribbon and Pep aren't really that citeable. However, I love footnotes, and now I've been shown how citations work - instead of just ref'ing everything like I did to start with - that will improve. After I've finished this lot, I plan to dig into the myriad of comics fanzines I own for the refs I may have missed and add those.

I'm not over-bothered as to a workgroup - they seem to be havens of non-activity, so while we wait and see what happens there, I'm just going to get on with it - loads of GA comics, beer in hand and Winter Olympics on the box. Lovely! Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I've watchlisted Pep, and am curious to see what you do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out Top-Notch Comics as well, completed Monday (although it's not been proofed by anyone else yet) Archiveangel (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks very encyclopedic. Nice work.  It could use inline cites, of course.  Tell me when you start working on Pep Comics, and maybe we can develop a format for these MLJ comic articles that we like.  Are you going to work on it in place, or do it in a sandbox, or offline or? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I find inline citations a bit of a problem (although it should get easier when I get on to the character stuff). Bear with me while I ramble: Reason is - there's very little solid stuff to cite - for example, if you look at the links you provided me (ta for those) there's actually not an awful lot of solid information there, and you haven't missed anything. I like Goulart, but actually he's more an overview not in depth. And there lies a slight problem with Wikipedia's 'rules'. Sometimes you have to go with the facts on a primary level, without the outside citations because there's so few - Archie is a prime example (despite being extremely influential, nobody seems to want to touch the 'bubblegum teen' subject while they'll happily argue minutiae about Doctor Strange or Thor). And that means you don't get quality citations, so you don't get quality subject status for anything less than a GA Captain Marvel article, for example, which people do write about in the outside world. I tend to feel it's lazy just to bend cites into shape so they can get in, and just 'ref them (by the hundred), but if you do that you get a 'no citations' message, which kinda defeats the object because it's criticising something that's not really missing. talk's changes to 'Blue Ribbon Comics' showed me how to gently bend the refs to fit in citations, but I feel it's essentially a fix for a rule that's too sinflexible (my Lonnie Liston Smith rewrite and the Barry Smith one are other examples - work I'm pleased with, everything's ref'd, but there isn't a good solid citation source - there's never been a biography and their own sites are about it).


 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not too concerned about grading, just working on the basis that if there's no solid, easily found information on the net then it should be part of Wikipedia, which is surely the ethos. Hence adding Hardcore Station and the more obscure Strange Adventures characters recently. The bottom line is 'if I look at a comics page because I want to know more does it a) tell me what I need to know b) cover the information in a readable way or do I have to wade through rubbish or look in about 9 places on the page'. Hence the developing structure of the Archie/MLJ pages.


 * I'm still muddling through, and learning on the go (using tables was yesterday's revelation). Having been buying comics for many years (the first were JLA# 3 and The Flash #133) and a fiend collector, I have access to thousands of real-life paper comics, fanzines and just about everything else I could need as cbr files on several 1T drives, plus loads of books on the subject (let's not even think about how much I've spent over the years and how - buy My Greatest Adventure #87 or eat? there's a lifestyle decision!). It seems a shame not to put back something and give others a chance to basically understand quickly what it's taken me a misbegotten life to learn, possibly even criminal. And it's fun to still be learning after all this time.


 * With ref to how I'm working - I start by looking at what's already on Wikipedia, check the BG/Thompson Guide and Overstreet and build basic chronology, then check every page of every issue and make notes as I go on an online edit of the page on the laptop, building as I go (which is saved every few hours to a Word document just in case). If necessary, I'll do some kind of flowchart or a timeline for myself to show how a company develops or how characters work in multiple series. Then I check Google Books for anything I might have missed or not got on paper, and the many books I have (for example Paul Sassenie's 'The Comic Book' is a lovely item, similar to Goulart for style) and the fanzines 'list of articles' I keep, and add whatever. Then I look at the information on the Wikipedia page rough as a whole, cut out the irrelevant or footnote it, and decide how to best arrange it all on the page - for example Top-Notch Comics really lends itself to a bit of a 'list syndrome' whereas Pep Comics has a number of groundbreaks - death of the Comet, first Shield, first Archie, so is developing into a more chronological narrative. Behind all that I run a Word document for cut and paste from the web (with site address) and my odd notes. Once ready I'll print it out for a final check over, revise and check the page for links, then publish once finished - and spend the rest of the night making the bloody corrections I've missed! I haven't a clue how to use a sandbox, and the one time I saved a page under my home page realised a couple of days later it's not actually a private workspace - after a link appeared on Google (the Wikipedia guidance sort of leads you to believe it's an extra area outside of Wikipedia proper).


 * I realise you've been around for a while and much appreciate the support you minor deities give. As I said, Tenebrae's work on Blue Ribbon Comics has begun to work a better template out, and I've carried that forward to Top-Notch and Pep Comics, so I expect to tighten things up a little yet. At the moment it's easier for me to put up what I do, then others come along and get rid of my British English habits and lack of Wikipedia style etc. I don't own it, and anything people like you do can only make it better. I'll just sit behind the whole lot to make sure that things don't drift to far because of people without the knowledge or will diluting things. If you have any bright ideas for the format etc, let's do it to these early pages so that by the end it'll be better first time.


 * Pep Comics will be up late tomorrow night. Jackpot Comics, Zip/Steel Sterling and Shield/Wizard all by Tuesday, hopefully. Any input appreciated.


 * phew - sorry for the length. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you like to use primary sources? If so, that's fine.  My only point is inline cites are better than cites only at the bottom.  Those refs on the talk page were just the results of a quick google search.  They're for me for later, in case I want them, although you could use them if you wanted to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I use primary sources to get to grips with the subject, secondary to back it up. I know there's a down on using primary sources, but most comics aren't written about as much, or as sensibly, as say T.E.Lawrence or Stalin, so secondaries are sometimes quite difficult.
 * Still getting my head around the difference between references and citations, really.What I meant was that for a lot of stuff inline cites aren't practical. The Google Books links you gave are a good example: #5 is extremely dubious, #6 I'd use Brian's weekly blog that the book comes from as the original ] (I love that blog), #7 is nothing useful and #9 isn't the original source, which is available. And the other 100 or so for Pep Comics were mainly catalogues or Guide stuff. Only 3 of them really have any useful meat to them that would work as multiple references and therefore a reasonable citation (I haven't found any better either I could pass on, but will if I do). So I end up doing a reference instead of a citation because there's only one usable ref in the source.


 * The other reason I use primary sources is that so much online is actually wrong and passed on as fact - for example on the current Pep page it says that a strip isn't in a particular issue when it actually is - and I know where that's been copied from. So I try to check everything from source or leave it out. the DCUniverse and DCU Wiki are appalling as histories and even for chronologies. Even Don Markstein's Toonopedia has to be used with caution - it cuts off arbitrarily and sometimes misses crucial stuff, giving a tinted view. I find reading the originals gives a better overall sense of the thing - and it's fun! Archiveangel (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about any source in particular, just that whatever source is used, it's used with inline cites. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I thought I just wasn't getting what inline citations are, but I simply misread My only point is inline cites are better than cites only at the bottom which confused me as I forgot it was specifically in reference to the Top-Notch Comics page. Quite simply there aren't any specific inline citations in the footnotes because I haven't found any - all there are for Top-Notch are minimal, so have been put under the generic 'References' citation. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(redent) Sounds good. You might have already said, but where are you going to work on the Pep Comics article? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently sitting on an offline Firefox page on the laptop. I've got all the refs I can, so up tomorrow night, I hope - first draft nearly done. I'll go through the second tomorrow day, then tidy up and post in evening. At worst it might be online Friday morning. Not getting that much done tonight as I'm watching GB/Sweden in the curling at the same time, and then it's women's bobsleigh finals.
 * Jackpot Comics, Zip Comics and Shield/Wizard all by Tuesday, hopefully. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good and keep it up! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't only not do things the Wikipedia way, I've never done anything the perceived correct way! Joking aside, that's exactly the response I've been looking for, thanks. It's learning the correct way that's so difficult, and I sat behind things for a year trying to work it all out before rolling up the sleeves. Bear with me ..

I have three grand old friends who are demon musos (we can talk for weeks without pausing for breath, though the bar bill is astronomical). Despite being the gods answer to crap pages on obscure musicians (or is it the other way round?), none of them are the slightest bit interested in doing anything on Wikipedia for one reason only - they can't work out how to contribute in a meaningful way without wading through acres of style guides and/or criticism; and they're not willing to be told what's what by what they perceive as anally-retentive style/grammar freaks instead of info peeps. And there lies the problem. I've spent years working on documentation, writing legal advice, guidance, instruction and training manuals, and delivering intense specific training. All involve consistent style, precise language devised for a specific audience, and the requirement to provide correct information. The problem with Wikipedia is there's nowhere to go to get to a consensus on what's the norm. Sure there's the style guides, but they're near-on incomprehensible in a live working situation - there's simply no way the average can absorb all that and get it right the first 100 times. I gave up soon in, and just decided to roll up the sleeves and get on with a couple of out of the way obscure pages to see what happens, figuring that I'd learn as I go. That way eventually I'll get it right, with others help. My friend can't spare the time to do that, so that's their choice (pity). I'm lucky enough to be able to choose when I work, and have a few months spare at the moment to put in something big.

The situation isn't helped within the 2 Wikipedia fields I'm fairly qualified to talk about, music and comics. Too many of the music pages I've seen largely qualify as inadequate rubbish, fan rubbish or inaccurate basics - the comics are even worse. I understand it's not encyclopaedic we're looking for (my main fault I believe), but accuracy would be nice. And there is simply no consensus as to how to write a comics article - Marvel's Dr Strange and Dormammu, and the Thor and Punisher articles for example - all high traffic stuff - are all riddled with style and factual mistakes (despite, or perhaps because of editing wars in the case of the first 2) - and the DC stuff I've covered is either missing or poorly covered despite historic value, yet that seems to be the status quo. Look at the Archie stuff I'm currently trampling in to the ground - that should have been sorted years ago.

Ambience is another critical when imparting information. Cold fact doesn't tell you this is Cold War paranoia or war patriotism, or a wish for a new world driving things. Gentle word touches provide that important nuance.

I'm not driven by WP:GA or WP:FA status (though of course it would be nice). Look at the Captain Marvel site, which got it. Even that is inconsistent. Still unbalanced, covers some subjects elegantly and others well below proportion, misses a number of critical judgements freely available as to the why's and wherefore's, several flagged issues, yet kudos all around. It's not about trophy stuff - I could wander off and build my own site if that was the point, no problem. First principles - where do I go for good information on what I want? Does it provide what I need to basically understand the subject? can I find more, if so, how? I'd rather overdo it and let someone else refine later or come back to it with more wisdom than leave someone thinking 'I checked it up on Wikipedia and it told me nothing'. Especially as the corners we walk are poorly served elsewhere as well (pace Don Markstein etc), and as time goes on will be more so.

I'd love to do it not just well (which I think I've got) but right. I realise it's a time-intensive thing, and appreciate both the offer and the time already spent. If you're happy then I'll take your time to learn - bearing in mind it's the most recent and the most information intensive, if you'd like to use the Pep example as a tutorial, I'm all ears and willing to learn. How to do this needs a bit of management though - do we route it through e-mail or leave it online as an example to others? I'm happy to route it through an e-mail address.

I plan to be around for a long time - there's a lot of Golden Age stuff that needs to be easily accessible, not just buried in unobtainable fanzines. It's not all about who's got the biggest guns and what socks they wore in Univers: 66110. Getting it right would be good, getting it on-line will do if that's the best we can manage. Sorry about the length, but important, I think

Oh yeah - short answer - you wanna help, I wanna learn. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ease of editing section break

 * Nice clear start - but can we clear something first - can we do this on one page or another. I can't get a grip on why why discussions bounce from one user talk page to another - it's kinda difficult for others to follow. You choose where we should go.
 * I can see why the backup ref for facts is important. However, I didn't connect it should be EVERY statement, although that makes sense. Does make for about a thousand references though if followed to the T. The Pep one is easy, I just link it to the Overstreet ref - as that's already there as a general reference, in theory I've covered it already, but I can see that's not the point. Ta.
 * The John Carter thing I didn't think of, it just seemed bloody obvious that's what it was like. What I've done there is linked it so someone else can see the mental link I've made, and I can see that's not the way to do it. Ta.
 * I've not looked at the Silver Age page, mea culpa (but will now, with a misty eye for a misbegotten youth, and a beer in hand). One of the things I decided early on was not to get involved in stuff that's already being handled well, or that might be really contentious (I'd love to sort the Bizarro problem out but don't want to wander into WW3, and firmly believe that the ultimate Doctor Strange article is in my head, but ditto). That leaves me free to go into the corners others don't.
 * The pity of course is in your last comment - no matter what we strive for, there's always an ape with a piece of chalk and 4+ million years of evolution to disprove the achievement. I blame Darwin. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We can do it here, I guess. Basically, it comes down to every statement having a reference.  You don't have to look at the Silver Age page.  All it will show you is that every single statement comes from somewhere outside of wikipedia.  All the vetted articles are like that.  There's another part to making comparisons, even when obvious.  There may be more than one obvious comparison.  Then an editor is not only making the comparison, but is choosing which comparison of the possible comparisons.  It's all in No original research, but what that doesn't instantly get across is how difficult it is to write an article that meets all our policies.  They end up requiring a ton of inline citations, as you mentioned.  I was trying to get Abraham Lincoln up to snuff a while back, and I got tired of working on it after about 200 inline cites.  An important topic like that can end up with 350 refs or more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's debatable whether this is considered a reliable source, but they have a lot of stuff about Pep Comics.- [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher] (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Toonopedia for the easy reading style, and have done links to it for SA pages, but it's a bit personal view and often arbutrarily cuts off - which skews the picture (I recall that there was a debate about it being reliable last month, with a general consensus that Don M was a good source). Personally I use it as a nudge for stuff I might have forgotten Archiveangel (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just one of the few sources that discusses Archie stuff. There are probably a few books out there as well.  I'm thinking your not interested in sourcing every statement in your articles, which is fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on what "I'm thinking your not interested in sourcing every statement in your articles" means. If it means I'm not checking every source before writing, that's not right - as I've said before, I check every link and source possible before starting, that means a full Google/Google Books/Google Blogs/Google Scholar (the last of which can be very useful at times for stuff that doesn't show up in a normal search) and a check of my fanzine spreadsheet so I don't miss the TCR/Comics Journal/etc stuff. If it means I'm not making sure that every quote/fact/etc is tagged as sourced and where, then at the moment that is right, but doesn't mean I'm not interested. Now you've explained the rationale, I'm happy to run with it - although I'm not up for leaving stuff out that's rationally clear but not spelled out in black and white somewehere else. This hits a fine line which falls between leaving out stuff because someone else hasn't pointed it out before, so it's not acceptable because there's no secondary source, and including it because it's logical or simply fact, primary source or not.


 * It simply cannot be right to ignore something because nobody secondary has said it, just as it in't right to accept something because a secondary source says it is so. To go to a logical absurdity: for example: male bullfinches in England have chests of shades of orange - according to strict Wikipedia rules, if no-one has ever said that somewhere else, which can be quoted as a secondary source, it isn't permissible as it is OR; but if someone has mentioned it, it's ok. But if there exists a book that says male bullfinches in England are green, which is wrong, that can be quoted. Within that there is no space for things that have no secondary reference (or if it comes to it, challenging wrong sources). Sadly, despite your fervent wish for Archie Comics "There are probably a few books out there as well", there quite simply aren't, and almost all of the web sites 'devoted' to the subject are rubbish. Which leaves us with - do we actually tell people what is, or do we not because we know it's true and can prove it through primary sources but aren't allowed to. BIG dichotomy.   Me? I'm for put it in if I can prove it's true whatever way - including primary - and let someone else worry about the way to make it fit the rules. If we don't no-one will. The Wikipedia Archie stuff is a prime example, it's mainly shameful nonsense written by people with no respect for the subject or Wikipedia rules.


 * We're all on the same side - trying to make good information available. Sadly the 'let's make information available whatever' crew win because we tie ourselves up in knots trying to defend ourselves and be crystal clear, while they just write what they want. Currently my balance is do I get what I can on, because no-one else is going to, and we can go back on things later and tidy it up, or do I spend all my time on making just one thing fine and dainty with ribbons. Putting up a series of pages that can help some people and forms a basis for the future wins over one prize-winning entry. Having said that - I want to get it as right as I can and your help and others makes sure I learn enough to do that and save much work later Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know where you're coming from, and I don't disagree. The thing is, say I wanted to get Pep Comics up to WP:FA status, and have it featured for a day on the main wikipedia page.  Even after you're rewrite, I'd still have to delete the whole thing and start from scratch.  There's a variety of reasons for this, most maybe bogus, but that's how it is.  That's why I said "I'm thinking your not interested in sourcing every statement in your articles."  You're certainly improving the encyclopedia in my mind, and you don't seem to want to slavishly follow the rules, so you should just keep doing things how you've been doing them.  I was just offering to show you how to do it in a way that follows our rules, even when though the rules may not make for the best article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - it's been a fine weekend so some old friends joined me for a bit of climbing right behind where I live - first chance we've had for ages with the weather. That on top of the very late nights because of the Olympics has just about done me in for a couple of days, so I need sleeeeeeep. It's an age thing.
 * "I wanted to get Pep Comics up to WP:FA status, and have it featured for a day on the main wikipedia page. Even after you're rewrite, I'd still have to delete the whole thing and start from scratch." Totally cool by me - you'd have a lot less work to do! and I'd learn from what was ripped and why without feeling anything personal. Can't say I'm against the whole kudos idea, but as I said it's not a driving force. One day I will have a featured article though. If you want Pep there, be lucky - I just don't think the refs are there to do it. Mind you, I'd love to get there - so if you have thoughts about that particular one ... (however, perhaps if its left until the MLJ character pages are upgraded in about a month's time, that might give even more perspective)
 * As to my following the rules, despite the balance between dragging things to standard just because and writing stuff because it should be there - I think you know I'm interested in getting it right/ish - if you'd like to carry on with the whys and wherefores, using Pep or whatever, I'm in the chair and listening - you have a pupil who realises it's all useful (and sufficiently disrespectful to ignore if necessary, O Ancient One - hey, I've been a Doctor Strange fan since forever). Acheing everywhere, but appreciative (and very glad the Olympics are over) Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but if there's a particular comics page/s you'd like to have a crack at getting to WP:FA, I'm up for it. Just as long as it's not one of the superhero independant titles from the 1980s-1990s - they tend to bring me out in a rash of anger Archiveangel (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(redent) That sounds good. Shield (Archie Comics)? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * fine by me - I need to run through the other Archie titles first (so many of the characters have different versions, rather than going through MLJ titles then doing the MLJ characters, then Archie followed by Archie characters, doing titles first, characters afterwards gives a better feel for the character framework). That'll take a couple of weeks, I reckon. After that, we can turn to Shield first - will probably take about a week to do the whole lot if I get a straight-ish run - MLJ/Archie/Red Circle/Archie/DC and the Higgins/Barnes/Strong/Higgins characters muddle.


 * Don't know how you want to handle it - do you want me to crack a full text and you add, advise, change, subtract and ask for anything else you need? I've got shed-loads of citations for this one. One thing to think of - shouldn't it technically be Shield (MLJ), as that was where he was first published - that applies to a lot of the 'Archie' characters (I've just moved Jackpot (Archie Comics) to Jackpot Comics for that reason) Archiveangel (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. Just drop me a line when you're ready to start.  I'm not sure how we'll go about it, other than I'd like to do it in steps on the article, instead of dropping it in all at once. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi: after checking progress I discovered the MLJ project was ahead in title development terms. The character development might be harder - there are many that have no presence, let alone a 'bad' one (I've gone from about 20 characters that need updates to around 60 that need updates or a new presence - how Mr Justice and Hangman don't have a reference is anyone's guess) but that's not a problem, just stretches the project later.

However, it means I'm ready to start tackling Shield soon if you're still game. In terms of tackling, have a quick look at User:Archiveangel/Trigan_Empire_revision, which is pretty well a scribble pad for a revision page I'm working on; it'll give you some idea of how I work. I'm happy to do that for Shield to give you the material so we can adapt (I have every appearance easily available and fully noted within say 10 days of the off, obviously with added more citable sources than Trigan Empire have got. Don't worry about the Trigan Empire subject, it's merely to give an example so we can make it work. However, the subject is wonderful. Sadly we Brits have a tradition of ignoring our great comics and comic writers and artists until those over the pond pick them up (Moore, Gibbons ....) and, belonging to an earlier age, Don Lawrence never got a look in - 300,000 copies a week and he never got a bl**dy look in to our history. No foreign comic ever managed that kind of sales. Whatever - hopefully the page will give you an insight and we can start work shortly. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll try and do some work on it soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edit help
Hey, in the near future I plan on nominating User:Ophois/Fresh Blood for FA. When you get the chance, do you mind taking a look at it and pointing out any major issues if you find them? Thanks. Ω pho  is  01:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I made some comments on the talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all the comments. Ω  pho  is  19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

BDPs?
Hey, maybe you could, ahem, dig up some refs for people who are no longer among the living? Obits are usually WP:RS, and even most semi-famous people would have them. Try Nigel Findley, Tom Moldvay, Keith Parkinson, and David C. Sutherland III - you may not get them up to the same caliber as Gary Gygax or even Dave Arneson, but it's a thought at least. :) BOZ (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll look into them. Findley brings up nothing.  It's rough trying to source DnD pages.  You've got the right idea finding the sources first, then looking for our page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Findley died in 1995, so probably the internet won't be flooded with a dozen obits about him (although there's likely something out there somewhere). The other three passed away within the last ten years, so I'm sure a search will turn up something. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we did a decent job with DCS - at least good enough that he is not likely to be deletion fodder anymore (the article was completely unsourced) and it's got a decent foundation for whomever might want to build it up further. Now, got anything for Moldvay or Parkinson? :) Moldvay, in it's current state, is not so much a bio as a prosey list of what he did, mostly unsourced. Parkinson is a much better bio, although that also needs some work. I remember there being a pic at one point, but it was CSD'ed. BOZ (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look good for Tom. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured he might be more of a longshot - Parkinson should be better. BOZ (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Working on Parkinson. The image apparently came from here; if I were to restore it, would you want to add a license, or should we leave it alone? BOZ (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can add a license. I checked for free ones, and didn't find any. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I restored it - have at it. :) BOZ (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Done - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. That's enough dead guys for now. ;) Want to try some living ones tomorrow? BOZ (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

White Dwarf's Open Box
All done, by the way. ;) I'll work on Desert of Desolation myself during the week - I want to get that article from Dragon on there, as well as more from the "30 Best Adventures" deal. Not likely tonight though. :) BOZ (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good reminder. I'll try and do something to it tonight. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pilot (Parks and Recreation)
Hey Peregrine. Just so you know, I believe I have responded to all the comments you've left at the FAC for Pilot (Parks and Recreation). I don't mean to be a pest, but my last FAC failed so I'm ultra-paranoid this time around. :D If you wouldn't mind taking a lot at your earliest convenience I'd appreciate it. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't blame you for being paranoid. I'll try and look tomorrow.  If I don't remind me again and I'll be sure and look after that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to BLPs
Let's check out some of the more important figures in D&D history. David "Zeb" Cook, Monte Cook, Ed Greenwood, and Rob Kuntz made some pretty important contributions in the development of the game. Their bios are all good starts, with at least halfway decent sourcing, but could all stand some improvement, and probably all need expanding. Ideas? BOZ (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That interview for Zeb may or may not qualify as an RS, but it should make a good EL regardless.
 * Do you think this will help for James Jacobs? :) BOZ (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's an RS. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I should think so! ;) BOZ (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Betta? :) BOZ (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vic Mackey
Nowhere in Wiki does it say Trivia is not a allowed. Trivia is justified since this is a fictional character —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.125.227 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Trivia sections, a guideline which recommends that trivia sections be incorporated into the article as prose or in a more suitable format than jumbled together at the end. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP red linked pages
Hi, if you a re talking  about the pages I  think your are, then it's probably  up  to the projects themselves to  create the page. At least that's what  we did at  WP:WORCS. Perhaps the projects who listed themselves on the bot's page didn't realise they  have to  do  this.--Kudpung (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Leaving on a Jet Plane by John Denver.ogg
 Thanks for uploading File:Leaving on a Jet Plane by John Denver.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sivaji (film) poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sivaji (film) poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review
Peer review/Desert of Desolation/archive1 - I ordered one for Descent into the Depths of the Earth as well. :) BOZ (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind taking a look at the reception section? I know I overloaded it, and the reviewer agreed. I guess I was trying to make sure not to miss anything, and I got carried away. ;) Anything that your surgeon's skills could trim away without losing anything that adds to the article would be super-keen. :) BOZ (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try and do that. The next week isn't looking good, but maybe tomorrow, or in about 7-10 days.  Whatever happened to Dril? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. :) No idea what happened to him - he got kind of busy in December, and then we really haven't heard from him. I'm thinking of shooting him an e-mail to see how he's doing. BOZ (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I dropped him a line - we'll see how that goes! Got a very detailed review at Peer review/Descent into the Depths of the Earth/archive1. BOZ (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me what he says. He's probably busy in RL.  I'll be AFK this weekend. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got a busy weekend aheard of me as well. :) Gearing up for my dad's fantasy baseball league draft. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, he seems to be alive at least. :) Couldn't get much more out of him though. BOZ (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Be careful of fantasy sports. They can be more fun than wiki sometimes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well sure, but it's good to have more than one hobby anyway. :) BOZ (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hunter × Hunter episode 2.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Hunter × Hunter episode 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hunter × Hunter episode 1.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Hunter × Hunter episode 1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hunter × Hunter episode 27.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Hunter × Hunter episode 27.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Unearthed Arcana
Hey, the GA review is up in case you have any time coming up to help out. :) BOZ (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping
You have mail :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hunter × Hunter episode 42.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Hunter × Hunter episode 42.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Simpsons Star
With the Simpsons WikiProject having reached it's goal of getting every single article about a season 1-9 episode, 203 in total, of The Simpsons to GA status. With that accomplished, I am trying to thank every member (and non-member) who was involved in the effort in some way.


 * Very glad to hear you guys made it. It's an amazing accomplishment. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thread at VPM about Webcitation.org bot, and about Wikimedia creating its own archive service
Hi there,

I'm reaching out to people who I see have been previously been active in threads related to Webcitation.org.

I started the above-mentioned thread at VPM, which
 * 1) asks how things are going with the webcitation.org bot (because i think it's SUCH A COOL idea), and
 * 2) inquires whether WikiMedia should create its own archiving service, to avoid the risks of relying on another organization's services (e.g., the downtimes experienced now).

I hope you'll take a look. user:Agradman editing as 160.39.221.164 (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles
Thanks for your input at the discussion about the GA symbol on article pages. To keep the discussion layout as simple as possible, i'd be grateful if you'd revisit, and if you are happy to put yourself down as a "yes" (someone else helpfully added the headings and numbered lists after i'd gone offline for a while), then pls cut and paste your comments to become one of the numbered list. That'd just make things tidier. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

typestyle
Hi. I got WP:BOLD and made your “support” to “support” in hopes of better keeping with the practice there. I come here so you can revert me if you object. Greg L (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fresh Blood
Hey. Took a break from writing pages, but will probably start back up soon. I'm gonna look through your recommendations, and then submit it for FA. Ω pho  is  04:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been semi-reitired for a while, but if you want help on a Supernatural article, drop me a line, and I'll try to be less retired. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. :) BTW, the Fresh Blood article is up for FA here. Ω  pho  is  05:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also finishing up Devil's Trap, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at that. Ω  pho  is  19:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there hasn't been much response at the FAC. If you are not busy, do you mind doing a full review of Fresh Blood? Thanks. Ω  pho  is  16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Educational GANs - again
Thanks for your past help, this time I have three articles that will be waiting for GA reviewers in early June: details. If you are interested in helping out once more, don't hesitate to post there! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Abby Hagyard
I've done some work on the article, turning this into THIS. Might you offer advice for further improvements... or care to asist in researching the additional ACTRA Awards? Thanks, -- Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's going to be a keep because of what you did, but I'll see what I can do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Casper ghostly.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Casper ghostly.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Cutting Edge: Victorian Woodworkers Association Newsletter
Hello Peregrine Fisher, You commented on this request for RSN verification, as I recall, and I responded there to your comment. I went back to check for other comments today, so I can put this one source to bed, one way or the other, to find that it has strangely disappeared (not archived) from the main page. I searched for it in the RSN search, and found the link there to its section on the current page, but the link doesn't take me to the topic and the request is no longer in the TOC. Is this anomalous or a standard outcome? Can you explain? Duff (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's here. Something is wrong with the servers or something, as far as that search showing the wrong spot.  They're probably behind what has actually happened.  I'm not sure how fast things are archived, but that part is probably standard.  Although that page has as few sections right now as I've ever seen it, so someone may have sped up the archiving schedule. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can see it now. Thank you. However, the point of the request was not addressed before archiving the request. Your response was the only one, and it was inconclusive. I responded to you there, but got no guidance. Is it appropriate to relist the request for source analysis, perhaps with less detail, or what is the best way to get to a straight answer on that source and its applicability to the point? Duff (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, a short question that gives all the relevant info will have the best chance of getting a response. It's also fine to repost a question.  What you might try asking is "Is this source reliable for "this statement"?  At Talk page X, some user felt it wasn't reliable."  Or similar, with the links and statements modified of course.  Provide a direct quote of the sentence(s) you'd like to source, and you could add that the source's author is an expert because of whatever, or provide a link to a sites "about" page if it describes the site's editorial policy or whatever.  Keep it short, as RSN people like to answer easy questions, so it's best to do the legwork for them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay great, and thank you! I have done so, just as described. I hope that's short enough.  Duff (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory
Hi PF, you've mentioned that the Christ myth theory article could stand some more clarity on its definition. While I'm inclined to simply ignore Bruce's protestations on this matter, I'm interested to hear your concerns. As it stands, the article contains a section on the definition that appears at the beginning of the article's body. What more would you like to see? Eugene (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. I guess the first thing that jumps out at me from that section is that it says "Beyond this point of initial agreement, proponents of the theory often differ regarding the details of the Jesus persona's origin."  Then it ends.  It sounds like a summary sentence that will lead to further info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to find a source that details the different varieties. Eugene (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'm very impressed by the effort you've put into the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural
Hey, I want to submit Pilot (Supernatural) for FAC in the near future, and was wondering if you could look it over? Thanks. Ω pho  is  22:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, just checking if you were still reviewing the episode. :) Ω  pho  is  01:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

inre your question
WP:V is quite illuminating. I responded at RSN. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Casper ghostly.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Casper ghostly.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments needed

 * Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.


 * Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.


 * Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Chthon (comics).jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Chthon (comics).jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC
I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural
Hey. Hope you enjoyed your vacation :) Anyways, if you are still up for it, I would welcome any comments you have on Pilot (Supernatural). Ω  pho  is  04:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll get back on it. Thanks for the reminder. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, just reminding you in case you forgot :) Ω  pho  is  15:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nominated Pilot (Supernatural) for FAC here, if you wouldn't mind further reviewing it there. Thanks. Ω  pho  is  22:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on source reliability/notability
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here. Would you please participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just might. ;-) Thanks for the heads up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Google
Hi, your comment "you could add a link to a google image search that somehow shows the weeks latest FPs. Their image search has recently been upgraded."—How does one go about finding this link? Presumably, in future weeks, we'd have to wait until google's bots updated (?). Tony  (talk)  00:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not totally sure. My dad's computer still uses the old format.  I'll look into it, and post a message on the signpost and your talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit help
Hey, my latest project has been working on the film Taare Zameen Par. I'm almost done with it, was wondering if you could take a look at it when you get the chance? I haven't done the plot section yet, so it would be best to start at the Cast section. Thanks. Ω pho  is  01:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it. Are you from India? Why do you work on Bollywood films? Just curious. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol. No, I'm American, but my best friend got me into Bollywood movies. This is the first one that I've heavily worked on, though. Ω  pho  is  14:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've completed my edits to the plot section now, so the whole article is now more or less complete and ready for copyediting :) Ω  pho  is  17:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll keep working on it a bit at a time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for your help :) Ω  pho  is  18:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)