User talk:Tbrittreid/Archive/2008/January

Peer Review for Duck Soup
Happy New Year, Ted! I've just submitted Duck Soup for peer review in order to find out some better ways to improve the article's (and other Marx Brothers articles) quality. If you're interested in leaving feedback, you can go to the article's talk page and follow the link. Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So far, there's only been one response to my submission of Duck Soup for critiques. However, the editor supplied some good observations, and even stated that "this article has good potential for Featured Article Status".  Well, there's my New Year's resolution: Improve Duck Soup to FA quality and get it nominated.  It would be nice to have the Marx Brother's magnum opus as a featured article, eh?  I'll need your help, though, in that regard, as well as assistance from others. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 20:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine; even if your not exactly a Marx Brothers fan, you can still contribute by cleaning up the references, or balancing out the article so that it doesn't appear as "fangush". Someone not too close to the subject would probably help out the most!  And again, Happy New Year to you, Watson.  — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 18:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ten Days' Wonder
I don't think it will be useful to discuss this situation with you any further, so I'm going to submit it for a third opinion and abide by the results, whatever they are. Accounting4Taste: talk 02:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I had no previous contact with A4T before providing a third opinion. The reason I say a third-party source is required is due to the core content rules (and basic concept) of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be the place for a first-reporting of observations and interpretations. Our purpose here is to summarize what reliable independent sources report on a topic. If a claim is non-controversial or uncontested, a citation is not usually required. However, if it is controversial or contested, then usually a reference is required (per WP:V). While uncited and contested information can be removed, if the claim is likely (or at least not unlikely) it is generally considered good form to fact-tag the statement to allow time for sources to be found. I hope this helps better explain where I am coming from. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to leave me a message. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied
Here. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 21:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And again. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Soldier of Fortune--company in infobox?
Thank you for the enquiry about the Soldier of Fortune magazine infobox. Actually, User:Kguirnela placed the original infobox data on the page as shown here. However, a deprecated infobox was used so my role was merely to upgrade to the current infobox. The "Soldier of Fortune, Inc." entry was the publisher parameter, it became the company parameter on the new infobox. I also put a reply on the SOF mag talk page for further discussion. Dl2000 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply about reference formatting
I have replied to you at my own "talk" page. Thanks.Meticuliz (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)