This is an archive of past discussions with User:David Fuchs. 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.
saw your comments and i will take them into account. I always knew i would have some sort of problem with the length of the plot, even though i was keeping on cutting it down. I will also hopefully get around soon to finding references for the reviews. thanks anyway. Kilnburn (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
(copied over from Elc's talk page:) Thanks for this, oh talk page stalker. Do you have a good, clear form of words? We can take this to email if it's simpler. (My email is enabled.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You deleted the article STIR Future, but the version I saw was not patent nonsense as defined by WP:PN (the guideline specifically mentions "poorly written content" and "incompetent and/or immature material" as things not to be confused with patent nonsense). Some of the definition appeared to be accurate even if the majority of it was original research, however as it is a valid subject for an article, I think the best way to deal with it would be to restore it, add a {{disputed}} template, and nominate it for deletion via WP:AFD (I had been watching the article after the first AFD, which was closed as "disruption" due to the poor reason for nomination and presumably a suspicion that the nominator, "Sockpuppet II", may have been a banned user). Allowing the article to go through the correct process of a deletion nomination could result in the correction of inaccuracies and removal of original research, and maybe result in a verifiable article instead of a red link (although if that cannot be achieved at the end of the process I agree with you that it should be deleted). —Snigbrook02:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
For some time now, the Video games project and the Military history project have been cross listing their articles undergoing peer review in an effort to improve the quality of articles, as well as the copy editing skills of editors. The idea was first proposed by User:Krator as a way to better prepare articles for Featured article candidacy. After being approved by both projects, the idea was implemented under a trial period, and eventually approved as a standard practice.
New, cross listed military history articles are announced on the Video games project talk page, and listed on the Video games Peer review page under a special section. Video game editors are encouraged to leave any type of comments that come to mind. If you don't know anything about military history, that's perfectly fine because that's the point. An editor lacking knowledge about the particular topic can provide a helpful point of view as a general reader—the intended audience.
A peer review process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take.
Peer reviews are meant to examine not just the prose, but the sources and images used in the article.
Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Reviewing another editor's article can help sharpen your writing skills, which in turn can improve the articles you write.
Knowing how you absolutely love to piss off SandyGeorgia with your video game noms, I'm expecting it any time soon. :) Which reminds me, I probably have to keep an eye on Myst V: End of Ages so I don't miss anything. bibliomaniac1501:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Images for Third Battle of Kharkov
I think that I have dealt with, more or less, with the image problems outlined in the Third Battle of Kharkov's featured article candidacy. There might still be some problems, but I think that the images are definitely closer to being properly tagged. Thanks, JonCatalán(Talk)15:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Seeing that you opposed this article the last time it was nominated for FA, I thought to ask you for your opinion before I nominate it again. I've removed all WrestleView sources besides two and they only source non-important material. If you don't mind can you give me some feed back before I re-nominate it?--WillC21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There was two WrestleView sources they are a source for the theme song, since the TNA one will eventually be non-existent, and their review of the event. The review only sources which match is next. I usually place a source for what match was next and how the match ended. I thought the WrestleView one would be good enough to source which match was next.--WillC23:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, maybe the order of matches does fall under common knowledge but I'll let you decide since you're the FA reviewer. I'll get your heads up before I remove the sources for order of matches.--WillC03:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
David, thanks for the help, but a partially withdrawn FAC creates work for me to have to track down and finish. I've asked several editors to help with the withdraws when needed, and trained them in all the steps, so it would be better to leave those to them. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey dude....
Hi, I'm Soundnous. I'm a new member at Wiki and I don't understand why you undid my edit on the page "Halo 3 Marketing." Would you mind explaining why? I don't want to make any mistakes or anything. Maybe there is a way that that edit could be worked back into the article........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundnous (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Evasive? reply.
Hi David,
Ah, I very specifically, explicitly, overtly <continue adding synonyms> said two things:
The reason why I wasn't talking was to spare HDYTTO my participation in a postmortem. I really don't think the bad guy in this particular story (that is, me) should be walking around discussing the topic. For that reason, I'm going to make a very serious effort to not post at all on TALK FAC, hoping others will sort out the macro-issues without me. I'm not being evasive— "evasive" is the very last thing that I am.
My rationale was very very very very very clearly and explicitly laid out in two comments in the Talk of the FAC. Wait, I'll link them: here and here. In short, we need to address the issue of FACs that are grammatical and well-formatted but have no content (by extension, this very often includes short FAC articles, but that is not the only thrust of my comments).
One thought; should the Myst Online game article be merged into the Uru article your working on? I am uncertain about the amount of reliable sources the other one has, and if it really is just the multi-player version of the game, perhaps it could be combined and featured eventually because of its amount of content. Just a thought. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Uru: Ages Beyond Myst you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Uru: Ages Beyond Myst for things needed to be addressed. \ / (⁂) 07:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I reverted your edit to Template:Cite news, because it seemed to break the template (it was giving all my references an error saying they needed the title parameter (only problem is, they had it). My reversion appears to have corrected it. Maybe your edit was missing some curvy brackets somewhere? - Mark13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when I click "edit this page" on the citation templates, my brain starts to hurt from all the stuff I don't understand about how they work. :) - Mark13:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Mummy
Can you point out where the links are not appropriate per WP:ELNO? The links are systemically accepted as links that provide substantial content that an encyclopedic article cannot host per WP:ELYES, such as a comprehensive list of cast and crew information, more reviews than can be realistically written into a "Reception" section, and specific box office statistics beyond the typical opening weekend and total gross. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I've arranged for wider discussion at Talk:The Mummy (1999 film)#External links since Alientraveller seems interested in the situation as well. He restored the external links, but I've removed them for the time being until we can understand where everyone stands about permitting external links. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, looking at recent FACs you seem to be the image expert these days. This is in relation to the upload of this. If I use a full scanned image of box art, it is obviously copyrighted, and cannot be used with a free license. However, if I take a photo of a box in context with something else (this is primarily where this concerned me), I can release it under a free licence (meaning I change the license on that image to a CC one). That would make sense, if you took a photo of a racing car on the track, you own the copyright, not the racing team. -- Sabre (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Few easy image checks
They're easy, see? Eh? Anyways, could you do Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of New Brunswick when you've got time? There are a few dozen images, but I went through every one and there is a URL for each one that links to their source, with their copyright status on each page. They are all government pages.
Hi, sorry I took my time getting back to you, it's been a busy week off-Wiki. The article's looking a lot more comprehensive now. Whether it's as comprehensive as it can be I don't yet know, if only because I don't have immediate access to most of those sources. However, I'll take a closer look at the weekend when I've got a little more time and if I have any suggestions or comments I'll be certain to let you know. All the best, SteveT • C21:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
Not too much to go with for dev info...there was promotion of the title at least (a very viable commercial and full blown article in Nintendo Power come to mind). There is a matter than the US version was censored for the event revolving around the Mermaid (see the talk page) that could be covered under development though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Located the article and Nintendo Power's guide for the game as well. Not sure on the full usefulness of both but I can rapidshare them and toss you the link. In addition the game was covered in the Super Game Boy player's guide in a similar format, additionally giving color codes for the game. Sadly I don't have access to that guide, it's a pain to find online. >_<'--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Here ya go. There's also a tidbit or two here at N-Sider pages 3 and 4 for development but it's more or less a sentence. Still, citable. I hope some of this helps in the long run: I'd help more, but I'm still knee deep with college work and other projects XD I'll add info about the censorship later though, just have to find a tool to get the japanese text to show up as is for citation purposes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, forgot about that. It's Issue 50 of Nintendo Power, dated July 1993. In addition the game was featured exclusively on the issue's cover.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Re
It's a common gameplay mechanic in the game, seen in many instances, and we see one level with a sidescrolling boss battle. I disagree that the sidescrolling element is not significant enough to warrant a screenshot. - A Link to the Past(talk)20:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, there's the added bonus that it shows the Mario cameos. If it is removed, it should be replaced with another image, but I cannot think of anything that would be a better choice. - A Link to the Past(talk)20:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to delete an image in order to win a dispute. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's a flagrant abuse of your administrative powers. - A Link to the Past(talk)00:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
