User talk:Zzzzz/Archive6

Charles Buell Anderson
Hi, you voted recently to delete this article. The final outcome of that AfD was no consensus. There were several mentions of merging the two articles together and I originally placed a merge tag on the article as disputed (due to several people voting to delete it). In the discussion of that article recently, an editor has shown the desire to merge the two articles. I am letting you know because the status of the merge tag is no longer disputed, and I am advising all of the editors who voted against that. Thanks. Ste4k 01:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Coronation Street
Just like to say I agree with your FAR comments. I think some articles are promoted due to the popularity of their subject rather than the article's quality overall. Also, I don't think when someone places an article up for FAR its up to them to actually address the article's problems, but up to the people who so-called wish to save them. LuciferMorgan 18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Photosynthetic reaction centre
Some time ago you removed the good article template from this article. Will you place it back now please? If you you can’t do so as a result of it being a policy violation of some kind please contact me. Thanks. Miller 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I mean the little green circle in the top right hand corner of the article page. Featured article have a star in the top right hand corner. Here is the template in question to be placed on the article page (not the user page):
 * ThanksMiller 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So there is no longer an equivelent of the template that indicates that an article is featured for good articles? That's a bummer. Thanks.Miller 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So there is no longer an equivelent of the template that indicates that an article is featured for good articles? That's a bummer. Thanks.Miller 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hey Zzzzz, could you tell me what you think is missing from the Jabba the Hutt article? I would like to make the article as perfect as possible since it is listed as an example at WP:WAF. Dmoon1 03:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. Dmoon1 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

your kind words
Thanks for your message on my 2a talk page. As is happened, I'd just added it to the "See also" section of the FA criteria page, below the other three personal contributions.

I'm unsure what "WP space" is, but it sounds official. It's still work in progress, of course. Tony 11:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so it would require consensus for that to happen, which might be forthcoming when the page and exercises are complete. But speaking purely selfishly, it wouldn't have my name on it, then! On a related matter, I'm concerned about the possible directions that these guidelines for reviewers may take. Tony 12:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive of FAC talk page
Your archive seems to have cut off a discussion mid-thread (there were some subheadings). Is that intentional? Yomangani 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

nope! thought the sub-headings were the headings. fixed now. Zzzzz 00:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC
Hi. What's with the removal of Featured article candidates/Padmé Amidala from the list of Featured Article candidates? Last I checked, second nominations are not automatically failed just because they're second nominations. They either pass or fail based on their own merits, not on how many articles an editor is working on. It's only requested that an editor not nominate more than one at a time, not required. For that matter, Dmoon1 didn't currently have two nominations running.

This removal was unauthorized and on dubious grounds. I'm going to revert it. Ryu Kaze 12:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Raul's beaten me to it. Ryu Kaze 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict; my post below agrees with Ryu Kaze:
 * The wording at the top of the FAC page isn't usually interpreted as a mandatory rule (people have been having more than one nom on the page for a long time). Furthermore, it's pretty clear that Dmoon1 is the primary nominator here, and he has no other nominations on the page.  The guideline is there to ensure that no nominations are left unattended, and Deckiller adding to the page that he is a co-nominator isn't going to reduce the amount of attention the candidacy receives. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

sounds fair enough. cheers. Zzzzz 13:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Heated flamewar"?
An alleged "heated flamewar" is not a good reason to revert my edit; I am not involved in any "heated flamewar", and my edit was reasonable, factual, and sensible. Inflammatory edit comments are what fan the flames of "heated flamewars"; please desist from reverting based on your assessment of emotional states, and instead deal with content. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

KLF articles
Hello Zzzzz, long time no speak! Unfortunately my coeditor on articles relating to The KLF (User:Vinoir) has disappeared, about which I'm not a little worried. Nonetheless since I must assume he's not coming back, I suppose it's time to move forward on my own. Before his disappearance, we put these articles through peer review: Since you were so helpful and useful in getting The KLF promoted to FA, I'd like to ask you to look at these 3 articles and PRs and advise me on whether any of them are ready for FAC (The KLF discography would be a Featured List candidate). I hope you'll help and look forward to hearing from you. --kingboyk 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The KLF discography (Peer review/The KLF discography/archive1)
 * 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) (Peer review/1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?))
 * Fuck the Millennium (Peer review/Fuck the Millennium/archive1)
 * You didn't have to go to the trouble of nominating it yourself, but since you have :) - thanks very much. Let's see how we go! --kingboyk 12:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

FA reviews for Version 0.5
Hi Zzzzz, would you be able to look over the last handful of Media FAs at Version_0.5_FA_Review? I'm hoping we can tie up the loose ends on that section by Thursday - is that possible? Thanks! Walkerma 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

t-shirt!
Hi zzzzz, let me know where to send your Wikimania Awards prize and what size you are, and I'll send it along... +sj + 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm... did The KLF win a prize? If so, what was the category and what is the prize? Why has WP:KLF received absolutely no notification of this and no chance to bask in the glory? Furthermore, (sorry to have to do it) but I strongly object to Zzzzz claiming The KLF as a self nom or receiving a prize for what was essentially my and User:Vinoir's work (that's if he got the prize for this article, which Google tends to suggest is so). Zzzz helped us out with some structure at the end, and did the FA nom, but the graft was mine and Vinoir's. I even applied for a scolarship btw and such is the esteem in which my contribs are held I didn't even get a reply. It would be nice, then, to at least get credit for my work! --kingboyk 12:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Completing Version 0.5 reviews
Hi Zzzzz, thanks for your help on Version 0.5. We've made it over 1000 articles! Now we only have about four weeks left to review articles for Version 0.5. I was wondering if you could take a look at Version_0.5/To_do and sign up for something? I'd like us to make sure we don't miss anything important. And once the end of the month rolls around we can take a well-deserved break...! Any help you can give would be most welcome. Thanks, Walkerma 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Witchfinder General
Hal Raglan has requested a peer review of the Witchfinder General article but has not received any comments. I reviewed the article for him shortly before he nominated it as a Good Article. He posted a message at the Horror Wikiproject talk page, but to no avail. Would you mind critiquing the article for him if you have the time? I'm sure he would appreciate it. Dmoon1 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Haloween
Halloween Main Page October 1, 2007.

Halloween II on October 15, 2007.

Halloween III on October 31, 2007

--Foundby 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MoS (writing about fiction)
In the past you have participated in discussion about this guideline, or voted in it's acceptence. There is currently a discussion about a partial rewrite of this guideline. The discussion could benefit from some more input. Thank you for your contributions. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)