:::I'll also add that if you do not like the truth then do not edit on Wikipedia. You can warn me a 100 times - I refuse to listen to a hypocritical admin who abuses his power and who demeans Wikipedia with his dictatorial attitude. Nobody is going to bully me around - just because you're an admin it doesn't give you the right to in any way. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I'll also add that if you do not like the truth then do not edit on Wikipedia. You can warn me a 100 times - I refuse to listen to a hypocritical admin who abuses his power and who demeans Wikipedia with his dictatorial attitude. Nobody is going to bully me around - just because you're an admin it doesn't give you the right to in any way. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
== Re: User page revert ==
Re [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gogo_Dodo&diff=125619815&oldid=125331380 your message]: In this case, it was just lucky. That particular IP seemed to be going on a run of vandalism so I left her/his contributions list open and manually watched for new edits. I do a lot of RC patrolling and catch user page vandalism that way, too. -- [[User:Gogo Dodo|Gogo Dodo]] 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.
Without trying to sound cheeky, can you tell me the differences between your proposal and the current GA criteria? I can't figure out much at present. LuciferMorgan00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody will go for that since they'll want distinct differences between FA and GA. If GA / FA become one and the same, GA would be redundant. LuciferMorgan00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with the content of the criteria; rather, the writing style of the criteria. Also, thanks for catching [this; I failed to change the "an" when I turned 19 last week. — Deckiller01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me if the proposed change highlights the differences between FA and GA by having similar writing styles. Congratulations on your 19th birthday by the way (I turn 20 in May). LuciferMorgan01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, it's clear by looking that there is a significant difference. For example, the prose standard just requires clear and grammatically correct writing, as opposed to "compelling, even brilliant" prose. The comprehsiveness standard is still once again lower than that of FA, and there is a clarification footnote included. — Deckiller02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DavidShankBone deserves kudos for his current drive to provide quality LGBT photos from the NYC area. One of the more recent photos is posted on Michael Musto, and you can check out the gallery on David's user page.
Project News
There is now the beginning of a list of core topics to possibly be included in the Wikipedia 1.0 release. Your suggestions are welcome; there may be many core LGBT topics still missing.
SatyrTN identified all the articles that were in subcategories of Category:LGBT but not yet tagged with the project's banner, about 1,400 articles. These have been completed, though SatyrBot will make periodic runs through the cats to find any new entries. Thanks Satyr!
The number of articles within our project's spectrum (6,667 currently) should now be relatively stable and only grow with article creation. However, if you find a category that should be included, please let SatyrTN know so it can be included in the bots runs.
Work is underway to improve the LGBT Portal. Please add any good quality (free) photos you come across on LGBT articles to the gallery here. Also if anyone would like to volunteer to help in maintaining the portal, please make yourselves known on the Portal's talkpage.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive
Thank you for your contributions! -- WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar
For your tireless and endless efforts in assessing biography articles, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Working Man's Barnstar. 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The Golden Wiki Award
For your exceptional contributions to the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Golden Wiki Award. 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You recently brought up a bunch articles at GA/R for delisting discussions. The instructions at GA/R clearly state that, and I quote "If you see an article on the GA list which clearly fails the criteria , you can delist it and remove it from the list at WP:GA immediately." GA/R should be used to discuss borderline cases, or when someone else objects to your moves (either to list or delist). The GA process should be kept as unbureaucratic as possible, and in cases where an article OBVIOUSLY is no longer GA status, go ahead and delist it. The articles you listed appear to be clear cut cases of delisting, and really stand little chance of generating much discussion for that reason. When you do delist an article, also leave extensive notes at the talk page to the article's editors can fix it back up to GA status. Thanks for doing such good work, though, on this project, and please keep working to improve wikipedia. Happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted as well here. I tend to be verbose in my comments, and I know it is a fault of mine. I try to make myself as clear as possible, and I know that at times my long-winded messages can come off as patronizing and condescending. For what its worth, my feeling is that we shouldn't always assume that editors are going to object to every delisting or GA failure. In my experience as an editor (I've not been around as long as you, but I'm not a newbie either) people respond very positively to a delisting or a failure if I explain clearly why I have done so. While I clearly understand why you are listing them all at GA/R, my feeling is that if an editor objects to my actions, it is up to THEM to bring it up at GA/R. I am always clear on why I do what I do, and any editor is free to challenge my actions on any article. Also, I do not wish to criticize how you handle these situations. My above, inexcusable comments not withstanding, your methods of handling delisting are valid and good, and they work for you, and so I should have no reason to try to convince you to do it otherwise. --Jayron32|talk|contribs23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You seem to have a lot of experience and knowledge in working with Good Articles, and there are some editors (myself included) who are looking to develop better guidelines for reviewing nominees. I would really appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Thanks again, and I feel bad about the mutual misunderstanding. I look forward to working with you in the future. --Jayron32|talk|contribs23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"When reviewing a GAC, be very specific in what you think should be improved" Looks like we have the same mentality on this. Funny that we started out in conflict on this. I take reviewing GAs very seriously, and often spend about 45-60 minutes reviewing an article: 15-30 minutes reading it, checking pictures and references and 15-30 minutes writing the review. It always irks me when someone just fails an article and doesn't leave any suggestions for improvement.--Jayron32|talk|contribs01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again there seems to be a misunderstanding (this time with no conflict though). Click the link I left in my P.S.. Really. It will all become clear what my P.S. meant. (if you clicked the link I apologize for assuming you had not, but your recent message leads me to think to misunderstood what I was saying). --Jayron32|talk|contribs03:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next FA? I think it's a possiblity. It has all the information there, today i added a picture from the blade film and Lombardo's kit and made some minor tweaks. I would like your opinion on it (and Hell Awaits) if you could, all your help is greatly appreciated :) M3tal H3ad04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I think Lombardo's a much safer bet myself. There's probably a few Slayer articles I think have more FA potential than that one, such as RIB etc. Good luck with it though. I'll take a look at Hell Awaits soon (COF definitely did cover the song btw). It appeared as some bonus song on one of their CDs and on their hits album. LuciferMorgan20:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RIB it is! It's almost ready just gotta add some pictures and expand the significance section. (added the COF thing to hell btw) M3tal H3ad03:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns "Haunting the Chapel", you need to deal with covers to some extent. Do an AMG search for each song and that'll throw up a bunch of leads for that. LuciferMorgan03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Do you think RIB is ready for FA? i don't want to add every cover of each song as that section will be a bit too big. M3tal H3ad11:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lists usually require less inline citations, because they are taken from references that are lists themselves, and the claims are less controversial or varied. Of course, controversial claims on lists (or notes and explanations) should still have cites, but if everything is given an inline citation, it will end up being a list of four or five cites combined 100-fold. Either way, one ref for a list is nowhere near enough. — Deckiller23:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Music Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your exceptional and tireless work improving Wikipedia and fighting for high quality, well referenced articles. In particular, and the reason why this is a music barnstar, I'm deeply appreciative of your work in improving articles related to the hereto fancruft-ridden heavy metal genre. --kingboyk13:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy metal
Thanks. I want to let you know that while I'm not particularly a fan of the genre (all I really care about are Zeppelin and the NWOBHM), I do own the Ian Christe book and have some Guitar World issue laying around with useful metal interviews. If you ever need help with citations on a metal aricle, let me know and I'll see what I can do. WesleyDodds23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the Metal Wikiproject, the alternative rock WikiProject I've developed (WikiProject Alternative music) has come a long way; it's probably the most active WikiProject related to rock music at the moment (even then, there's probably only about a dozen of us who are really active and focus primarily on articles within the project's scope). You might want to browse through it for ideas on how to improve the Metal one. Ultimately one day I hope the Metal, Alternative, and Punk WikiProjects can all work in tandem with the Rock WikiProject to work hard on developing and cleaning up articles, but we all do have a long way to go before anything like that happens. WesleyDodds11:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know people who can fix this...
Hi,
I've never even heard of The KLF outside of Wikipedia, and they have high-quality articles.. while one of the top bands of the last century has... Clampdown. I'm just dropping you a line 'cause you probably know someone who can fix this... Later! --Ling.Nut19:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've read you comments at GA:talk and that article review and think you might get better results by approaching a review you disagree with in a clam and dispassionate tone. When you insult people it tends to get their backs up and is usually counter-productive. In short - chill out. TimVickers21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right, but it really gets to me an admin can do such a lame review. I don't mean lame as in I didn't get a positive reaction, but lame as in he didn't properly review it. LuciferMorgan21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed annoying to get suggestions that are impossible, a reviewer of one of my papers once seemed confused about which organism we were working on and suggested some very strange experiments! In that case, and perhaps in this one, a polite explanation of why their suggestion won't work or isn't possible usually deals with the problem pretty rapidly. The reviewer did seem to be trying to help, and to me it looked like you bit their head off with little justification. If the reviewer's comments are a genuine mistake, you would probably be best off just explaining to them where they went wrong. Anyway, hope you work this out quickly. TimVickers21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you're coming from, though it's likely too late now. It's true I likely approached the situation the wrong way, but I cannot exactly go back now. I can calm down in further talks about the situation though, so thanks once again.
Also I can understand about the paper bit - I interview bands (on a very small scale), and that throws up strange feedback from others. LuciferMorgan21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jihad
I'll give you some feedback
The track was largely written - i don't like "largely written" how about primarily?
might want to link "Al Qaeda", and human experiments
Thom Jurek of All Music Guide commented the "the - "the" twice
Dead Skin Mask is a re-direct to Seasons
To expand the structure section
Hanneman’s “Jihad” is one of several standouts, a fascinating departure that starts off with a wonky little riff followed by slower, mid-tempo chords that segue into a stuttering riff that swings, thanks in large part to Lombardo’s near-graceful drumming[1]
"Jihad" smoothly mixes up tempos, with a catchy angular riff that brings to mind the legendary "Angel of Death" breakdown."[2]
This isn't helpful but i found it funny - "Highlights here include Jeff Hanneman's long promised song written from the point of view of Osama Bin Laden on 9/11" they sure got it wrong there
""Jihad," "Flesh Storm," "Skeleton Christ," "Supremist," after a while they are a blur of the same riffs, tuning, tempos and arrangements. And yes, Kerry, I get it. You hate religion. I got that impression with "Haunting the Chapel" [3] in 1984." could be useful somewhere. At least it didn't get failed for "refs have too many numbers" and whatever crap that guy said. Mmm Slayer tommorow M3tal H3ad03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your message under RIB, the only thing i can think of is expanding the music and structure. The above quotes are professional reviews, IGN, Popmatters, Stylus Magazine so try exhaust them - comparing it to AOD and the other Christ songs will help. M3tal H3ad03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has begun, feel free to edit whatever, I'm putting info in atm and will ce it later, but this is pretty damn easy, and i only really used two interviews. M3tal H3ad06:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix these tonight. I'll definitely use what you're on about to expand the "Music and structure" section - I just didn't think the admin had the right idea with that section that's all. LuciferMorgan08:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Jihad", alongside fellow Christ Illusion album tracks "Eyes of the Insane" and "Cult", was made available for streaming via Spanish website Rafabasa.com on June 26, 2006.[8] Slayer's ninth studio album Christ Illusion was released on August 8, 2006, hosting the track's inclusion. The song met mixed reviews. Christ Illusion is linked twice, and has Jihad is featured on the album twice - fellow Christ Illusion - hosting the track's inclusion, might want to reword it a bit. M3tal H3ad04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
God Hates Us All
Might aswell start a new section. If your'e still interested in collaborating, i added a "recording" and "lyrical themes" section, the information is there it just needs to be written better (which i'll do later) and there's no doubt some more info that can be added. I plan on making a section where the title originated from and about the cover art, search for a new drummer after Bostaph left, and expanding the Reception to include quotes from reviewers and stuff. So yea seems like a lot, but if we both work on it, it can be done in a week or two :) M3tal H3ad12:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll chip in yeah - can't promise a lot (lot of interviews being fixed up for my site of late), but I'll try my best so to speak. I'll help out where I can once I've got "Jihad" through GA. To be fair, I think this one has enough material for FA, so once the work is done and feedback is returned from the regulars like Ceoil, Michaelas10 etc., I think straight to FAC is a much better option than GAC. LuciferMorgan17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if they should have inclusion, hell i don't know if they should even have articles, maybe Rubin would have inclusion in the project. I found where the Dette info came, a copy and paste from "his" MySpace [4] Oh and i had you blocked on MSN by accident (sorry!, unblocked), i get about 5 turks adding me everyday asking for you know what... >_> M3tal H3ad14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seen you around GA, thought you might be able to help me with this. Do you think this 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Individual football games? I hesitated to be bold because it seemed well-sourced but so would any article about any collegiate or pro sports contest. Any thoughts? I am just trying to get a feel for what people think before I AfD someone's hard work. IvoShandor09:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a fairly decent written article. Having said that, this is irrelevant. To qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia, this article has to satisfy notability. Does it do that? It's questionable. I mean in this, it wasn't a Cup final, it wasn't a high draw on TV, hasn't been described as influential or anything - the only thing the person feels is notable is it's the first time the team met. Is that notable enough? I'm not too sure really - my opinion is if this was a poorly written article it would be killed off speedily. The fact it's decently written may put off some reviewers. Afd it if it doesn't satisfy notability, and explain why so you have an airtight case.
I feel sorry for whoever put that hard work in - I wish people would cut down on article creation and place a better emphasis on improving the messy stub / start articles. I sure hope an Afd wouldn't get to him too much, as we need editors willing to improve articles that much. LuciferMorgan09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was just looking for additional opinion. I think I will AfD it and see where it goes. You're right about the stubs needing work, but for all the articles on the Wiki there are some pretty gaping holes in coverage here and there, so new article creation has its merits. Of course, if new article creators would just go into the creation thinking GA or FA, this wouldn't be as big of a problem, I guess. Thanks again for your input my devily GA cohort.
As a side note, I almost reviewed Jihad and would have probably passed it with a few minor hold changes, wish I would have now. : ) IvoShandor09:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries :) My temper got out of control for various reasons. Wrong of me I know, though I've been frustrated by some people thinking it was due to it being put on hold. The reasons for it being put on hold I got annoyed at, not the fact it was put on hold. If you have any minor issues with "Jihad", feel free to message. LuciferMorgan09:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at it a couple times, but didn't note anything in my mind that I remember, maybe another look and I will let you know? It probably passes at this point and whatever concerns are brought up won't be enough to hold up GA. I don't know where the BLP stuff came from on the Review discussion. As for gettin' angry, it happens to the best of us. The Wiki can be stressful at times....I know this. Also, article nominated for deletion. Thanks again for your input on this, a second opinion was all I needed, I had to know if I was being unfair. IvoShandor10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure to inform the article's primary author - he won't be pleased, but in the interest of fairness he should be given the chance to say how he feels. LuciferMorgan11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to discuss this AfD with you and perhaps we can get to know each other a little better. First of all, thanks for suggesting Ivo contact me about the AfD. That is actually a suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion and it suggests that in fact notifying other closely related pages, such as the WikiProjects listed on the article talk pages, might also be a good idea.
In this case, there are several notable things about the article. It is not just that it was the first game between the two teams. The article also talks about how it was rare for two top 5 teams to meet in the early season, how it was caled one of the most anticipated and best games of the season, etc. The article also explains that one of the two teams went on to win the national championship. Therfore, the statement you made above that "hasn't been described as influential or anything - the only thing the person feels is notable is it's the first time the team met." is not correct. It was influential, and it was notable for several reasons.
You mention the TV draw - I don't have those numbers handy, but I am sure they were big. As I said, it was a highly anticipated game and it was also the only game that weekend featuring two top 5 teams. The stadium attendance alone was 105,565, which set a new all-time attendance record for the stadium. This fact is already in the article.
You talk wishing people would work to improve articles as well as create new ones. I like to do a bit of both. If you look at my contributions (takes a little time to load), you will see that. I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check which seeks to better source all our articles. I am the primary author for one featured article.
I have also helped with other FA's and FL's. I have been the primary author on several GA's as well, and I also help review articles at GA. I've helped edit some important articles like Water and United States as well as lesser known topics like Attwater's Prairie Chicken. I also do a fair amount of photography. My photos appear on articles such as Water and Accident as well as Gesture and Knitting and Marching band. I also search free photo sources for photos to add to articles such as Product placement and Valiant Shield. I mention these articles I have worked on because at AfD, you express a hope that I will work on articles that satisfy WP:N.
The thing is, the 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game article does satisfy WP:N. It was a significant game for numerous reasons, the article is written in a NPOV manner, and it has numerous verifiable citations to reliable sources. I certainly don't claim that a college football article is as important as water, but we certainly have the resources to cover more light-hearted lifestyle articles as well. People need some freedom (excluding obvious vanity pieces or attack articles and the like) to write on things that interest them. We are not getting paid, so we can't force everyone to work exclusively on improving existing articles on "core" topics. I think you may find that as Wikipedia grows, we have the ability to cover a wider reach of subjects.
Given that this particular football game is notable for more than one thing, I hope you will reconsider your stance and give your support to keeping the article. Best, Johntex\talk20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks for messaging me on my talk page, and I'm only too happy to discuss this AfD. I suggested contacting yourself since this is something prevalent at WP:FAR, and firstly given the article's fine quality I wouldn't wish the Project to lose a good editor if it ended up deleted. That's no problem at all - I know how it feels when important discussions are being made and not even being notified. It sucks.
Now your second paragraph is rather interesting, and rather persuasive. The fact it was the first time they met I wouldn't consider to be notable, since this would mean that maybe every first meeting would demand an article - and to be honest I doubt they'd be as well written as yours. Having said that, I'm much interested in the rest of what you said. Notability should be asserted in the lead - one of the most anticipated games of the season etc. you said. Cool! Let's put that in the lead. If you could expand upon this fact in the body of the article that'd be welcomed. Same for being one of the best games of the season - put this fact in the lead (even if it's one sentence), and try expanding it in the body.
You also mention one of the two teams went on to win the championship - does that mean all their games that season need articles? Hmm I wouldn't class this as an assertion of notability. Having said that, was this specific victory pivotal to their eventual success in the championship? If so, this would be notable and if it could be expanded upon in the article then great.
TV draw - a big game, so maybe you could find out what the ratings were? This may help your cause with the notability factor. Right, the game set an all time attendance record for the stadium - now why isn't this in the lead? That's a definite plus in your favour that fact, so mention it in the lead. If you can mention all these notability factors in the lead of the article as requested by me, I'd be mighty tempted to change my vote. And yes the article is NPOV and well written - I praised the article's quality didn't I?
As concerns improving current articles instead of creating new ones, this wasn't meant as a criticism to yourself. The thing is, if this article gets zapped, all your hard work goes down the toilet. Furthermore, this was more of a criticism of those which make crappy stubs that lie there in a sorry state for what seems like eternity. You likely can think of some off hand. Your a member of Fact and Reference Check - very warming to hear, and something I admire. I am someone who people find sometimes annoying at FAR for demanding such verifiability, so any measures to improve this get my 110% backing. Congratulations on getting Baby Gender Mentor to FA, as we need more FAs. Very good article!
Helping with FAs, FLs, writing GAs, reviewing GAs, editing important articles and lesser topics, doing a fair amount of photography, searching for free use pictures for articles; yep this is all great, and you have my applause so no worries! When I expressed a hope you'll work on articles that satisfy WP:N, this was because I'm so admirable of the quality of the article. I'm a fan - I'd like to see more if possible. In my assessment, I was actually praising your value as an editor believe it or not.
As concerns not concentrating on core topics, don't worry! I have never edited a core topic, and wasn't saying you should. All I was saying really was to hopefully concentrate on articles which won't get AfD'd. As a matter of fact, your FA is much more of an important topic than the article I had FA'd (Christ Illusion, by a fairly known metal band). Also, college football is more popular in culture than heavy metal music. " People need some freedom (excluding obvious vanity pieces or attack articles and the like) to write on things that interest them. We are not getting paid, so we can't force everyone to work exclusively on improving existing articles on "core" topics." Yep, I 110% agree. If someone forced me to do so I would tell them to bog off personally, since "core" topics tend to get a lot of crufties targeting them and they're harder to maintain. Also, I couldn't write a quality article on a subject I find boring - you probably agree, as would most other Wikipedians.
Thank you so much for replying. I hesitated to contact you about this because I was afraid you might find it irritating or improper. I'm glad you took my statement positively. You say some great things above and you give some good adive as well about improving the lead. I'm in a bit of a hurry at the moment due to off-wiki stuff I have to do, but I will definitely come back and put more of the good stuff into the lead. Thanks again, Johntex\talk01:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is...... 9.9 million TV viewers. This has been added to the article and I have expanded the lead also. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. I have to help a friend move tomorrow, so I may not be back online until the day after. Best, Johntex\talk05:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michigan State University
I would like to know Why you want Michigan state removed from the FA Topics. It is a Featured topic this week. you had your chance to say what should be fixed before it became a Featured topic, The pages that are not "good" or FA quality, have never been look at for grading, SO please help the pages get look at to see if they are of "good article" condition.
Why remove Michigan State from FT status it'll be nominated again in only a week?
I would like this removal candidates/Michigan State University to stop. In 2 weeks if the pages are not rated or they are bad then I my self will added Michigan State University to the topic removal candidates. Max10:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask stupid questions. You're asking me why, yet my reasons are all in the FTRC. I never saw the FT nomination for this, and furthermore it isn't my problem if the nominator didn't nominate the articles for GA. I cannot "help" to get them looked at for GA as I could be accused of bias, and the page has a backlog. What makes these articles so special they should jump the GAC queue? Exactly, nothing.
Furthermore, don't come on my page shouting the odds. My reasons for the nomination were perfectly valid, and this FTRC nomination will continue pending its outcome. If you make any attempt to remove the nomination I will not hesitate in reporting you to the administrators noticeboard. LuciferMorgan10:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to take another look at the WP:KLF inventory please, Mr Morgan? I was thinking that as the Project has several articles which are damn near ready for FAC already, we might get one or two nominated to help myself and especially User:Vinoir back into the swing of things.
To my eye, Whitney Joins The JAMs looks particularly promising as a potential FAC. If you could see what you think and expand upon your previous comments it might be really helpful. Also, if you think we have a better article it would be nice to know about that too.
Ok, I'll take another look. I've indeed noticed the Project has several articles ready for FAC already, and it'd odd that as you and Vinoir wish to get back in the swing of things I'm rather busy - when that happens it's article improvement by me that loses out, though I still respond to queries etc.
Some moany reviewers may ask you to review the citation templates, though whether you wish to act upon them is up to you. Personally, it isn't really much of a problem. I also noticed with articles like NME, just the end of the quote is then cited. Some reviewers may wish for each quoted sentence to be cited given they're quotes.
Review section - nothing wrong with what's in it so far, though I would encourage a good scrummage for any other critical reviews. FA songs tend to usually have more reviews at hand, and as there's only two used some may cry POV.
I'm not an expert on lead sections, though I've noticed in my article improvements I tend to forget the lead section. If the lead section isn't adequate, as you know FAC reviewers pick up on these things.
"Composition" section - this is, besides the reviews, my main problem with the article. It has no citations, so comes across as Wikipedia's own description of the song - someone will scream WP:OR likely, and object. My recommendation, which you're free to call overkill, is to citate every sentence - the descriptions came from somewhere so likely can be cited. In FAC, this and reviews will likely be the main
KLF Communications should be already FL, and I put my middle fingers in the air to the objectors - makes me sick that articles not even half as good are FL. I'd find out sometime if it could make FL without the image moaning from last time. "The Magnificent" needs a little work but could be GA easily - I think it's a B really, and more deserving of that status than say "Who Killed the JAMs?" and a few others that've been rated B. I know FA is more prestigious etc., but if the sources are there this one has partially untapped potential - so run with it sometime.
I hope my advice has been helpful, though I doubt it since I'm not much of an expert. My advice is to open a quick peer review and then request the comments of Ceoil, WesleyDodds, ShadowHalo, Seegoon and don't forget my partner in Slayer crime (M3tal H3ad). May be worth trying Sandy too possibly. If that lot can't find anything to criticise, then you should be given the star right now lol - they know their Wikipedia better than me and all have their own expertise in one way or another. If you dislike some comments, you could always ignore them then. Good luck Mr. KLF :) LuciferMorgan09:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DW stuff
Hi Lucifer. Thanks for the note on my talk page — I've added a DW wikiproject template to the Dave Martin talk page, thanks for pointing that out. I have also started adding citations to Doctor Who missing episodes — lots more to be done, but it's a start. Angmering18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working from the web versions of the articles and one of the book chapters as my hard copies are 160 miles away; I've cited the print versions as I know they're the same and they're more reliable as sources to an outside observer cited that way. However, I shall get someone else on the WikiProject to come up with the page numbers, or else they'll have to wait until I'm next back at my parents' house, which probably won't be until late May sometime. On the subject of Quatermass II, I'll think about it! :-) Angmering21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lucifer, Blabbermouth.net was speedy deleted (apprently not notable, but yea whatever) and i put it up for deletion review. Please say your part. Regarding Eyes i had look but there isn't that much, only thing was it was "dark" and a breather from other Slayer songs or something. M3tal H3ad12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
Lucifer,
I apologise about undeleting your comment on the Michigan State FTRC. It was an accident. What happened what that I was looking at the history when I saw your (deleted) comment about Sparty, so I decided to delete it from the list at top. Unfortunately, I must have edited the previous version — the one you deleted. I certainly did not do it to make you look foolish, and for that I most heartily apologize. I will delete that thread from the current discussion if that helps.
Oh no problem. Delete my critical comment as regards it also - to be honest I thought it was not you but the person below who was mentioning how it was already GA etc. like he was above me in stature or something. My apologies if you felt this was directed at you, but it was directed at that other person. We all make mistakes so have no fear. Good luck with the FTRC - people at FAR will tell you I'm a general pain in the backside lol. LuciferMorgan00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I came across like an ass, I didn't check the history to see that you had deleted the comment previously, and it had come back.--PresN02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I know you write a lot of music/band related articles around here and have gotten some promoted to GA and whatnot. I was wondering if you might help me out a bit. I have run into a bit of a problem conducting a peer review for The Motels. The review can be seen here. However, further discussion has occurred on the user's talk page. It is the comments there that concern me the most as they are pretty much out and out saying, "hey this is OR." Since you have quite a bit of experience with this type of thing I thought maybe you might be willing to drop by those pages, take a look and offer your input as to reliably sourcing the article. IvoShandor06:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comments? I thought you're the only person who commented - or are we discussing the article itself? If you mean the article itself, search for adjectives like "extensive", "faithful" etc. and then zap them. Afterwards, to avoid OR accusations cite every sentence and all quotes (if there are any). The articles used to write the bio may be on a fansite somewhere with all the original publication info etc., so you could use them. If you have any other questions as concerns sourcing an article reliably, message back. LuciferMorgan08:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was concerned about the user's assertion oh his/her talk page above that:
By the way, a fan site it is... my own, but it is semi-official. Martha Davis wants me to keep it up to date and most of the former band members periodically send me info to include. I know many personally and they were the ones who originally told me of the wiki site and it's inaccuracies and asked if I could "fix" the errors. So first it was get the info correct, then get peer review to get the writing upgraded with some good advice. Then dig into my source articles to properly cite this thing and hope that not too much sourcing was gotten over a glass of wine with Marty or Martha backstage. I will only use my fansite as a last resort but things like a complete gig list, song lyrics and some band member interviews are found nowhere else.
Because I think this presents all kinds of difficulty with several key policies and guidelines, WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:EL, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. I think I am the only person who comments, at least at peer review lately, its like a ghost town over there most of the time. An occasional announcement helps sometimes, at the Community Portal, but still crickets chirp incessantly and dark alleys remain deserted. IvoShandor09:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the problem may be resolved for now, but thanks for the input. I will continue to monitor the article's progress as the editor's ultimate goal is GAC, it has a good chance with some citations I think. IvoShandor09:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that you cannot tell if he or isn't telling the truth. As concerns complete gig lists and song lyrics, they aren't needed. Whichever way, some may assert he wants to get hits for his site. As concerns GAC - needs work on its writing as there's a lot of one sentence statements, the odd OR adjective here and there, and also the customary citations. LuciferMorgan09:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of coursely. I have given the editor quite a lot to work on and they seem to be committed to improving it. I copy edited this version partially, I will give it a thorough copy edit before any nomination and weed out anything that may be unintentional POV, because of whatever reason. IvoShandor09:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't come on my page warning me, especially when you're well known for blocking people in disputes you're involved with. Also, you're well known for your "toxic" attitude also. I stand by every word I said about you earlier - you have acted as though you own Global Warning for quite some time. I am fully entitled to my opinion and don't think of censoring me as it won't work.
When I came to you when a certain "friend" of yours was bad mouthing me, you couldn't be bothered to assist. Now I've told the truth about you, you dislike it and are using your powers like a tyrant.
Just because you're an admin, don't think you can bully me around. I never put up with your attitude before and I won't now. I'm not the only person who thinks you've used ANI like a farce and it should stop. And the best laugh about it is you've done exactly what I said you do - use your admin powers for your own agenda. LuciferMorgan20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So when is coming going to warn YOU about your toxic attitude then Raul? Tell me that. Tell me when someone's going to give you a block warning for the bullshit you've pulled on Wikipedia, like getting into arguments with people and issuing blocks to them when you don't like hearing the truth. LuciferMorgan20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that if you do not like the truth then do not edit on Wikipedia. You can warn me a 100 times - I refuse to listen to a hypocritical admin who abuses his power and who demeans Wikipedia with his dictatorial attitude. Nobody is going to bully me around - just because you're an admin it doesn't give you the right to in any way. LuciferMorgan20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: User page revert
Re your message: In this case, it was just lucky. That particular IP seemed to be going on a run of vandalism so I left her/his contributions list open and manually watched for new edits. I do a lot of RC patrolling and catch user page vandalism that way, too. -- Gogo Dodo20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
