This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This issue we are trying a new type of newsletter feature: "Featured editor". This is a chance to learn more about the various editors who contribute to the Video games project as well as the roles they fill. If you enjoyed this new feature and would like to see similar interviews in future issues, please drop us a note at the VG newsletter talk page.
David Fuchs (also known as Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs), is a long time video games editor that has written a large number of the project's Featured articles. He has been ranked high on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, and has assisted in reviewing and editing more many. Recently David has begun to assist with image reviews for Featured article candidates, and branched out into other types of articles in addition to video games. He can normally been seen on the project's talk page offering advice and his input on the various discussion taking place there.
What drew you to Wikipedia, and what prompted you to begin editing?
I got involved due in part to (I believe, my memory is fuzzy) finding the site while doing research for Advanced Placement Europen History during high school. My earliest contributions (in December 2005) were creating topics based on what I learned, as well as creating an article for my high school with another friend. I soon became involved with editing topics related to Halo video game franchise, specifically the article on the parasitic Flood.
What got you involved in writing Featured articles?
I think for most editors it's a shiny accomplishment you are striving for, and natural for most editors to try and get an FA. I first nominated an article for FA in 2007, after about a year of inactivity onwiki; it didn't pass as it was poorly written and didn't follow our guidelines for writing about fiction; I also took a couple of tries to get my first video game FA (Halo 2).
What article(s) are you most proud of writing or exemplifies your best work?
I suppose Myst is a sort of accomplishment I can point to; I started work on the article on May 2 2008, when it looked like this, and submitted it to Featured Article Candidates one day later. I think that's some kind of record, but I dunno. In terms of being a good read or something I'm very happy with, however, I'd have to look at my more recent work, specifically Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Bone Wars.
How do you pick the articles you work on?
Whatever hits me. There's many articles I haven't gotten around to editing and improving as planned because another article has caught my fancy.
What advice would you give to editors seeking to write quality articles?
In the words of one of my favorite cartoon characters when I was a child, "We must do reeea-search!" Even in video games, online sources don't usually cut it. Even after getting an article to FA, make sure you continually trawl the internet and elsewhere for more information to add to the topic.
Note: This is an abridged version. To read the full interview, click here.
Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing a lot of nominations at the DYK suggestions page. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! As you know, you don't need to be an administrator to review hooks or to move hooks to Next update, so your help is more than welcome.
You may already be familiar with the DYK rules by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the official rules and the "unwritten" rules. You may also want to look into some useful tools that can allow you to review nominations more quickly: the Cut & Paste character counter is a helpful JavaScript to calculate the length of hooks, and User:Dr pda/prosesize.js is a script you can install on your own Wikipedia account for more heavy-duty article length calculating.
The best way to learn is by doing, but here is also a quick reference of the things to check for each hook you review:
Thanks again for your help! I look forward to continuing to work with you at DYK, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else at DYK. Now get to reviewing some noms! 13:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)~
Thanks. That's a great template. I'm going to anchor it somewhere and use it as a reference. Lawshoot! 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Re:DYK nomination of My Life as a 10-Year-Old Boy
Hello, could you please clarify what needs citing? The entire section has nine citations, almost any one of which will prove the statement. -- Scorpion0422 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Law. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello
Greetings, Law. I just wanted to check in and see how your Wikipedia experience was progressing. If you'd like to send me an email sometime, I am reachable via the 'Email this user' link. :) GlassCobra 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Experience here has been very positive. DYK has been a great source of fun when I'm trying to dodge homework. Thanks for checking in. Maybe we can work on an article. Lately all I do is create articles about bars I find. LOL. Lawshoot! 01:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which closed with 83 ayes to the right, one no to left and five abstaining users! Sabre (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
On February 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tilted Kilt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Yeah, looks to me like that image is incorrectly tagged. I would say the best thing to do is remove the image from T:TDYK; I have already removed the CC tag and will leave a message with the uploader. Thanks for the message, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 03:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hm...from what I can tell, it seems to be an article that was redirected because it was nothing more than a junky plot summary, and has since been rewritten like a real article. I don't think we have specific rules on this because it doesn't happen very often, but my intuition is that the rewrite has added a lot of good content and sources, so even if it's not technically 5x the length it was before the redirect, it's still a good expansion...plus, it was a redirect for almost 2 years, so I would be willing to IAR on this one and consider it "new." But in cases like this I think it's pretty much up to your personal judgment.