User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

HMM peer review

Nope, looks good to me. CloudNine 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_review#Rename_proposal

Check back for a reply to your comments. I believe you misread the proposal or, most likely, my comments regarding the silliness of requesting a merge of the two considering we only need the shortcut. Lara♥Love 19:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw. You probably looked at the merge notice at the top of the page. That was my silliness. I'd not done a merge or move or anything before. I had it in my head that we'd merge into Good article delisting and rename it to Good article disputes. Then it occurred to me that it would be totally ridiculous to do it that way. The shortcut is what threw me off. It wasn't clicking in my thought processes that it's just a redirect and in no other way tied to that page. Anyway, I don't even know if any of that made sense. But Homestarmy has corrected my mistake in the merge template. Good article disputes is the potential new name. Please, forgive my blondeness. I mean well. :) Lara♥Love 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PR and FAR

I'll be leaving town tomorrow, so I'll try to peer review Lombardo when I get back on Sunday. By the way, I've almost completed the "Hey Jude" FAR. I just need to reinsert the (verifiable) cover and cultural legacy of the song, and then we should be able to close the FARC with a keep. WesleyDodds 08:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being able to contribute to the peer review after you return, as it'll be great for the Slayer Project to get another FA under our belts. THe "Hey Jude" FAR seems to be coming along fine, though I must say it's a shame that nobody else wanted to undertake it - in that statement I'm referring to the Beatles WikiProject. I ain't surprised though, since I've nominated a bunch of Beatles FARs which went unnoticed. LuciferMorgan 08:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
What really gets to me is that in the FAR the primary author of the article refused to work on it and decried the need for citations. I mean, seriously? WesleyDodds 22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the first time the primary author said that, as there are a few Beatles related FARs which I nominated where he said the same. It's unfortunate really. LuciferMorgan 16:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lutoslawski FAR

Hello. Your last post on the FAR seemed to imply that you thought I was being incivil, and since civility is my watchword on Wikipedia I must have messed up somewhere. I think we have a serious disconnect. Early on you described my disagreement with your opinion as a "questioning of its truth", after having characterised my opinion as "couldn't be further from the truth". Actually, I was only disagreeing with you. My opinion is not necessarily the "truth", neither is yours. Your stated reason for the FAR was originally "none of the information is verified" (your exact phrase), and now we have refined the problem to be that the article contains some "POV statements in the music section". That's definitely progress. Please tell me which statements. You may be right, for all I know, I am not claiming infallibility!

I have never thought your FAR nomination was made in anything other than good faith, please extend the same courtesy to my argument that until we have enough to go on we don't know whether you are correct that statements require footnotes to be verifiable. Neither am I "refusing" to work on it, I just haven't yet been convinced of any reason to do so. I think our priorities are different, that's all. I happen not to think that the little FA star impinges on the article's quality at all. If it loses its FA status, however, its current incarnation will remain in my estimation (and that of others, it seems) among the best articles on Wikipedia. But then I would say that, wouldn't I? :-)

By the way, I may not be able to get back on line until Tuesday. --RobertG ♬ talk 19:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Lombardo

Just letting you know I haven't forgotten about the peer review; I'm just rather busy right now. I'll try to get around to it this weekend. I might do a copyedit first and then point out any other issues I spot when I finish that. WesleyDodds 06:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's greatly appreciated. LuciferMorgan 07:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally starting some work on it; sorry about the delay. By the way, there's no link to the Peer Review on the talk page. WesleyDodds 09:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much, it's greatly appreciated. LuciferMorgan 10:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Enter Sandman

Thanks for the heads up, I have offered some suggestions. J Milburn 12:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown

I, Durova, award LuciferMorgan Wikipedia's Triple crown for superb contributions to the encyclopedia. May you wear it well. DurovaCharge! 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your majesty, it is with pleasure that I bestow this triple crown. Thank you for outstanding improvements to the encyclopedia. DurovaCharge! 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! ♫ Cricket02 22:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool!! LuciferMorgan 12:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

King Crimson

Hi LM. Wondered if you could comment on this FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King Crimson if you have some time, been up since August 9. I think its good, but Tony1 had some prose issues. ♫ Cricket02 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would comment, but I don't find it FA worthy. I don't like the way critical opinions are being thrown around as fact. LuciferMorgan 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Nine Inch Nails FAC

I believe BotleySmith and I have taken care of all of the issues you raised at the NIN FAC. So, if you have any more issues or feel we didn't completely address some of your previous comments please let us know. Drewcifer 06:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the NIN FAC has gotten pretty unwieldly, I hid some of your comments (namely the ones that I think have been addressed). If you feel like a particular comment that I've hidden hasn't been addressed, please feel free to take it out of the hide box. Also, you might notice that the box hides your original Oppose vote, but it was weird format-wise to do it otherwise. So, please take the time to post your vote again outside of the box. I think at this point in the debate another vote might be in order anyways, since alot has changed since your original vote, and we seem stuck on one particular point. So, I just wanted to let you know that I hid the comments to make things manageable and not to hide your original negative vote. Thanks! Drewcifer 00:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please check your diffs

I did not revert Tony; I edited him. The persistent incivility of his edit summary aside, he put "imperial units", which is subliterate; and restricted the exception to a much narrower scope than the subject requires and the discussion on the talk page provides.. You have also restored a mistaken count; there are three exceptions and we say "two"; I am not sure Tony is responsible for this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistent incivility is actually something you're pursuing PMAnderson, so please don't lecture on it. Your edit summaries usually are incivil, and you have a bad habit of accusing people of being "illiterate". From the behaviour you've subject others to at FAR, GA/R, FAC - you name it, I'm well aware of how you operate. You've lobbied to change many Wikipedia policies to suit yourself, and to further your agenda. I'm also well aware of how persistent you are in pursuing vendettas, as can be seen in the immature behaviour you showed in my FAC for "Eyes of the Insane". Now Tony has stood up to you, you're subjecting him to the same behaviour.
Please do not come to my talk page spewing your propaganda, as I don't wish to hear it. LuciferMorgan 12:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The only agenda I am aware of is a desire that Wikipedia be in English, and recognize the variety of forms of English which may be useful in describing all verifiable knowledge. If you see some other agenda, please describe it; I am at the least unconscious of it.
I very carefully did not say that Tony was illiterate; I don't believe it. In haste, however, he produced, and you reverted to, "imperial unit", which is embarassingly wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You're well aware of the agenda you pursue against editors who stand up to you PMAnderson, so please don't come here saying otherwise. As concerns "embarassed", I am not embarassed at all. It's about time someone stood up to you, and pointed out your immature antics. LuciferMorgan 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I asked a simple question, to avoid what seems to me a misunderstanding. I do not know what agenda you believe me to be pursuing. When you come up with an answer, please tell me. (On my talk page, if you don't mind; I may well miss it here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It's this simple; if anyone says something you dislike, then you try making things difficult for them here on Wikipedia. There is no misunderstanding PMAnderson, and we're all aware of the way you operate. Enough of the pretense. LuciferMorgan 19:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary. I have disagreed, and do disagree, with some editors, on matters from small to large. Some single-purpose accounts have found me opposed to that purpose; but neither you nor Tony is one (and who else could you mean?). I have interacted with neither of you in article space, as far as I recall.
I am not Tony's difficulty. Tony's difficulty is that he wants to use the MOS to compel Wikipedia into a Newspeak, which would
  • Not capitalize book titles
  • Always use "logical" treatment of punctuation
  • Always use Socrates's.
I disagree with him on all of these; but I have never disagreed with him by myself. None of them are consensus of the English-speaking world, or of Wikipedia; if they were, MOS would not have to mandate them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

GAC Comments

I don't particularly appreciate the comments you left on the Good article candidates talk page. If you actually took the time to look at what the tag actually notes, and looked at my other reviews, and perhaps the history of this page, you'd note that I actually do complete all the reviews I tag. I'm fine with working on the the raft of backlogged reviews, and I don't really give a damn either way whether I get recognition or not, but it really annoys the hell out of me when I get bitey comments like yours after I put in hours of work without reward on doing these reviews. Cheers, you've really made it not worth my while. Pursey Talk | Contribs 14:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not worth your while? You'd tagged three music articles, and there are no comments on them three whole days later. And actually, I did take a look at the article's respective pages. There were no review comments, no nothing.
As concerns the history of your GA reviews page, it tells me nothing. All it says is that you have three music articles under review, and the poor editors who took the time to work so damn hard on them are still waiting for their reviews three days later. Where are these reviews? Why haven't you informed the GA nominators their articles are on hold? This is a waste of other people's time, so stop saying you're reviewing an article when you are not. As concerns my comments being "bitsy", I frankly don't care - not when it comes to time wasters. If you're going to review an article, choose just one and actually post the review in due time on the article's talk page. LuciferMorgan 14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you actually have understanding of how the process works? The default template gives a review time of 7 days. This is probably about average for most editors too. Once the article is tagged with the GAReview template, the review generally isn't completed for a few days. The tag is there to stop multiple editors wasting their time reviewing the same article. My reviews are pre-typed in notepad before I put them on the article's talk page. I spend a fair bit of time reviewing each one. The reviews are partially completed. And they'll stay that way now too. I'm not going to bother. Pursey Talk | Contribs 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I definitely understand how the process works, and have had several GAs for your information. And as concerns you not going to bother, I don't care (they're not my articles anyway) - you should've chose one to review at a time, and not three. LuciferMorgan 14:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreign charts

Got any good sources for foreign chart numbers? Well, sorry, I mean other than US? ♫ Cricket02 17:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, nevermind. I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Certifications. Of course if you know of any other sites let me know though. Thanks much. ♫ Cricket02 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's another question. What is the best way to list chart successes and/or album certifications, in the prose or in a chart? If in a chart, got an example? ♫ Cricket02 18:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Your question will meet a differing answer, depending on whom you ask. I prefer using prose which can be seen in Christ Illusion, whereas others like Drew17 prefer using chart tables (check Love. Angel. Music. Baby). I hope this helps in answering your question. LuciferMorgan 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks.  :) ♫ Cricket02 04:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Article rating system update

I have a proposal to change the part of the article rating system where it says whether an artice is important or not. I find that many people believe the "unknown" rating on the importance scale is incorrectly listed as "No", leading people to believe that that is a rating, and not a lack of an importance rating.

Where would I take this discussion to get this debated and changed? All the best! Judgesurreal777 22:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The page where the article rating system is should have a talk page, so there would be best. LuciferMorgan 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Slayer

Please join the discussion. M3tal H3ad 07:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Heavy metal

I'm hoping to bring Portal:Heavy metal to featured portal status soon. Could you give it a once-over and perhaps add some important bands, dyks or news? Thanks! CloudNine 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks alright to me, and should pass FPC. LuciferMorgan 10:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GA/R re-review?

Since your initial GA/R of Bringin' on the Heartbreak, significant strides have been made in the article, and as the original nominator, I believe the article is now up to GA standards. So, I'd appreciate it if you could re-review the article real quick and change your vote if you feel it's up to par. Thanks! Drewcifer 04:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

South of Heaven

It looks good so far; I've seen shorter FAs (shorter recent FAs that meet current standards, that is). Definitely scour time.com and nytimes.com for more sources; the latter should at least have a review. You might want to see if any of your local libraries carry archives of the music weeklies: NME, Melody Maker, and so forth. WesleyDodds 10:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that, my main suggestion is to combine "Photography and illustration" and "cover interpretations" under one section (ie. "Packaging", only less trite). WesleyDodds 10:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NIN FAC

I'd like to thank you very much for your incredibly thorough and tough-as-nails review of the Nine Inch Nails article. Would you consider having a fresh look at it to see if it's made FA level yet? That would go a long way in helping us move toward consensus. BotleySmith 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy for the next few days, though I'll be able to take a look on Monday. LuciferMorgan 16:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, so it's been about 11 days since the last post at the FAC, and during that time I've been trying to figure out how to address Wesley Dodd's concerns. Your concerns about the Musical characteristics section are still unresolved as well. So, I posted a comment/response/questions concerning both. Please take a look, since I mainly asked for clarification of your position. You can take a look at the diff, since that might be easier than wading through the whole dang thing. Hopefully you'll have some time around Monday to help us out some more. Thanks! Drewcifer 09:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

List!

It would be interesting if you added to this. Ceoil 08:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Slayer

  • SLAYER's much-hyped re-release of the "Christ Illusion" album sold a little over 2,300 copies in the first seven days after it was reissued on July 24 through Columbia Records. This brings the total number of "Christ Illusion" copies sold in the U.S. to approximately 172,000. [1]
  • An early version of South of Heaven is featured on Soundtrack to the Apoclypse [2]
  • Christ Illusion re-issue featured a "live rendition of the band's 1988 LP track "South of Heaven" that was shot in Vancouver, British Columbia, on last year's "Unholy Alliance"
  • SOH doesnt mention that Friedman took them to Seattle and he thought "The sky in Seattle was so perfect for that day—the lighting couldn’t have been better." Also "I remember they didn’t really like Dave that much at that time, but they also never denied that he was the perfect drummer for them. I guess they just didn’t get along." to expand the photography section
  • Lombardo's departure is inbetween RIB and SOH, which one do you think it should go in?
  • Around the time of SOH Kerry did the solo on "No Sleep Till Brooklyn", doesnt relate to the album but is worth a mention
  • just before SOH “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida” was recorded, maybe worth a mention also

Some of these may be helpful, i also requested a user at flickr to release a picture of a poster in response to the bans under a usable license. M3tal H3ad 04:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll address these comments when I have time. I'm mainly concentrating on getting South of Heaven to FAC at present. Is there any news on Lombardo going to FAC? LuciferMorgan 15:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Next week sometime. M3tal H3ad 12:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
And The Blackening soon, forgot about it. M3tal H3ad 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrome Division GA

Thanks- I'm currently working on Devourment in one of my sandboxes here, so I will no doubt be submitting that to peer review on the hope of getting it to GA once I 'finish' it. J Milburn 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Metallica/Iron Maiden songs

I completely understand what you are saying. If you take a look at my comments on the AfDs, I generally say something like 'Delete, unless sources are provided demonstrating notability.' What I mean by this is that I currently see no reason to keep the article, but, should they be provided, I would be more than happy to support the article. I have little doubt that, should I nominate "Imagine", someone would quickly come along and show me some sources (or perhaps just point to the awards it has won, or the time it spent and number one). However, as far as I have seen, no one has provided any real evidence of notability. Yeah, a few people have argued some fairly good points for why they should be kept, but, without evidence, that is pretty meaningless. J Milburn 15:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion, though I still maintain the fact that just because an article is poorly written, that doesn't prove it's non-notable. LuciferMorgan 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of the United Abominations tracks, I'd say "Gears of War" is certainly notable, and due to the fact "Washington Is Next!" is to be released as a single, it is worth keeping for the time being. "Out on the Tiles" and "À Tout Le Monde (Set Me Free)" link to pages about the original, but I can't see any reason to keep the others. I will prod them- if you disagree with any of my PRODs, remove them and drop me a line on my talk page. J Milburn 17:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tool's FAC

Hello Lucifer!

By now, Tool's FAC has received mostly support, and only one opposition still stands. The critique is kind of vague, criterion 1 a) is cited but without any specifics as of now. After copyediting the article myself a couple of times, and contacting the league of copyeditors (no response), I remembered that you helped several music-related articles achieve FA status, which is why I hope you could help me out. I'd welcome it very much, if you either had another look at the fac & article to help me find sentences/paragraphs that probably need my attention or have a go at copyediting yourself. Naturally all further comments regarding the FAC are welcome, so don't hesitate to just drop a short line if you're too busy to respond to my request .. Thanks for all the constructive criticism over the weeks and best wishes, Johnnyw talk 12:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I did like you proposed and hope that bears fruit. Johnnyw talk 13:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rockdetector

Would be a shame to lose an article on the subject. I added a few sources to the article to try and assert notability, and they could be used to expand the article at some point. I have also watchlisted it- I think it should stay. J Milburn 10:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons (album)

Hi, I don't know how much of a fan of ambient music or role-playing games you are, but I do know you have a few featured album articles under your belt, and I think that this could be my first featured article. I recently submitted it to peer review here, and any comments you have would be very much appreciated. Of course, if you would rather not comment, I don't mind, but I know how much help you have been with other articles myself and others have written. Thanks. J Milburn 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! J Milburn 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I already know Cricket02, and have come across the others at various times. I'll consider dropping them a line; thanks for the advice. If you are interested, I have submitted the article, and you can see the nomination here. J Milburn 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted it now. No idea why I didn't do that in the first place. Thanks a lot for your comments, they are very much appreciated. J Milburn 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:GAR

I have noticed that you are a frequent reviewer at that Good Articles project. good article reassessment is experiencing a considerable backlog problem. There are several articles dating from August that still have not generated enough discussion to close. Could you please take a look at the oldest articles and make some fresh comments on them? Please note that some of these have undergone signigicant changes since they first came to GA/R; please judge the article only on its merits as of its current version. If you reviewed an earlier version of any of these articles, please also consider re-reading them and either revise or endorse any earluer comments you have made. Thanks for your help with this! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LuciferMorgan/Archive_18&oldid=1190112440"