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.
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Peer Review
Hi David,
Could you please make your addition to this peer review? Its been three days since you said you were going to write a review, and I want to archive the current peer review and begin a GAN. Apologies if you were about to add your review. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. They were very helpful. Even your "shudder" gave me a good idea =) I'll get to work on them in the near future and ping back. –xenotalk23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"Trolling" in RFAs
Hi. I'm posting here to request that you refrain from such edits as this. It is the consensus among more and more Wikipedians that applying labels such as "trolling", even in cases where they are accurate, tends to increase the heat, add fuel to fires, and distract from the project of encyclopedia-building, or in this case, approving an admin candidate. Regarding "oppose" votes in RFAs, please consider what is written at WP:TYFYV. If you want to discuss this, I'm certainly willing to do that. Just let me know. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk)17:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. I saw that it was your name on the diff, and didn't check the sig... I'm sorry. I see now that I was looking at two diffs at a time. Darn. -GTBacchus(talk)17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I figure that you might have an answer for two VG terms: "action-adventure game" and "top-down perspective". Would they need to use endashes or are they correct as they are hyphenated, according to WP:ENDASH? MuZemike04:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.
It looks like the guy who was making those incoherent edits is back. May be trying to sock-puppet with a different IP. Peptuck (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.
I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER". -Groucho Marx, Groucho and Me
More or less copying from Casliber's user talk: you weren't quite the first person at the RfC talk to suggest that jealousy motivated the initiative's opposition. Yet you did so under color of authority, which places those of us who have sincere wikiphilosophical qualms at a disadvantage. In response, I have posted an invitation which for clarity am repeating here: feel free to salt this page. Any person who would tank a good idea simply because they weren't invited into a position of power is someone who shouldn't be entrusted with administrative tools. Durova27502:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, I didn't name users in my comments and while I was tempted to, figured that wouldn't help the discussion. I don't see what the point of salting a possible RfA page is. (Furthermore, I am not sure what "authority" I've invoked in any of my comments.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)02:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well then, one thing that's come to mind (although it seems a bit premature) is to offer a pledge never to seek membership in such a body, if five people sign their names saying they think that's the basis of the objections. It came as an unpleasant surprise to see such a thing implied, even obliquely, but a few years of wiki-experience has demonstrated how readily low surmises take an appearance of insight in the eyes of onlookers. When an arbitrator followed by an administrator murmur something that looks like you're just jealous in a general direction, those of us who stand on that side of the room and stand there on principle do find ourselves in a difficult position. Durova27502:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the internet. You don't have any sacred honor to get bent out of shape about. I was acknowledging the elephant in the room (before Giano points it out, although he probably did) in an effort to steer discussion from that point. It's not a witch-hunt, and while it may be obvious to people long involved in wikiproceedings what some people's motives are, proving anything is a waste of time and an exercise in futility. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)03:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I was actually trying to be conciliatory so we can move on and find common ground - I would have liked to include more people, and hopefully as it evolves, we can structure it so there is scope for this (like some giant funnel, I don't know). I did make a quip about groucho somewhere (looking though my diffs I can';t find it now), but I think I want to replace Groucho with Karl and utter "Workers of the World Unite" to see if that gets us all on the same page... :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A quick Google search demonstrates exactly how far out of hand such things can go. Once burned, twice shy. And Casliber, I would never validate the panel as currently structured by accepting a position on it. Your responses to negative feedback go across as if this were something like an opening chess gambit. The Committee has no mandate to even establish the opening terms of discussion by such an act as this. Subtle politicizations can be poisonous in the long run. I ceased accepting new mentorships after that kind of poison infected the Fringe Science case, and frankly it didn't surprise very much that serious harassment followed about a week after I cleared ScienceApologist of a socking allegation. The Committee didn't have any authority to attempt to structure an existing voluntary mentorship; I didn't want to be 'empowered', as Coren put it, upon ArbCom's terms. The potential harm of a top-down formation of the advisory board would be much broader, even if the aim is to involve the community. Otto von Bismarck tried to impose parliamentary democracy on Germany from the top down; long past his tenure that backfired in big ways. Durova27503:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
So you're talking about chess gambits? You recognise that some form of concerted effort or change is needed, and that there are good elements, but you'd be prepared to nullify and eradicate what has been proposed because of your opposition at how it came about? Sorry, this doesn't sound collaborative or constructive to me. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) You gained a seat in an election where the community wanted change. It wanted a change away from the direction the Committee had taken in 2008 overstepping its mandate. Yet this year's Committee has been more aggressive than last year's about expanding its mandate. That carries overriding importance.
By analogy: if a neighbor wants to borrow my laptop computer I may say yes. But if I come home one day to find him standing at the desk putting my laptop into a bag the answer of course is no. If he sets it down promptly and has a very good explanation then perhaps he can borrow it again on other terms. That's not likely but it's possible. If he picks up my television instead and accuses me of being uncooperative when I object, then neighborliness breaks down very quickly.
By two to one, the community is asking you to set down that laptop computer. That ratio is even more lopsided if you discount the opinions of the people who have already accepted appointments. The longer this continues the greater the odds of the scenario you seem to be trying to prevent: one where a basically worthwhile idea fails because of the way it was attempted. Durova27705:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
So far it is not 'the community' as a whole, but a small sample - and many of the small sample have had recent adverse experiences (whether justified or not) which influence their opinion and prompts them to speak out. As I said, I don't really care whether it gets totally transformed as long as something comes out the other end. Make a proposal, or reiterate one of your older ones, at the bottom of teh page. The last thing that we should end up with is a vacuum. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The amount of people who think that this is some sort of government structure is boggling, and frankly, they're all dead wrong. People have wanted to hit ArbCom over the head for something as soon as they toed out of "jurisdiction", and convening a group of people to talk is hardly that; most of us wouldn't have joined if that were the case. And frankly, I feel that all the people who suggest that the group is a good idea, but needs to be democratically elected are fools for not realizing that adding that layer of votestacking and popularity-currying kills the whole concept in the first place; an acknowledgement that comes pretty strong in the RfC that say some sort of organized group is necessary. The disconnect between what people want and what they're getting is rather unfortunate, but they'll welcome to ignore us. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)11:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Casliber, you have never responded to the point that I for one (and probably many other objectors) would gladly discuss the matter if the current proposal were scrapped and a new one were started from the beginning without any attempt to leverage the power of the arbitration committee in its inception. Within the last week three of your colleagues on the Committee have resigned. Two more have marked themselves inactive. Iridescent has given up his sysop flag. I am acting in ways that endanger a matter before you. Very strange things are happening here. Yet you respond with begging the question, false dichotomy, and now poisoning the well. I voted you into your current position because I trusted your ability to reject informal fallacies; regardless of what good cause you purport to be advocating it is nothing but disappointment to see you employ them. Now that someone else has leaked the same material onsite, I can pose this question: why do you suppose arbcom list emails were leaked to me? Why do you suppose I sat on it quietly for months? Because under the present governance structure there is absolutely no legitimate option when an arbitrator believes that fellow arbitrators have acted improperly in private. Jimbo is a theoretical check and balance, but he is loath to intervene unless the community calls for it. So the only way to achieve that is to leak. I held onto it quietly because of instances (mostly before your tenure) where people had come to me for advice after being subject to offsite harassment: one of their foremost concerns is whether ArbCom communications are secure. Checks and balances are important, and it is very unlikely that a proper check and balance upon ArbCom would emerge from a think tank conceived and appointed by ArbCom, whose members serve at ArbCom's pleasure. Durova27713:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Durova, you didn't vote for me as far as I can tell. I really do not want to continue with intellectual jingoistic bluelinks instead of trying to find some common ground, which is what is needed. I am not prepared to keep bashing heads together. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
ACPD
Thought I'd drop by and say hello. I've added your NFCC concerns to the problems section - perhaps you could expand the problem for the clueless in that area? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Musical instrument
Some person emailed me and accused me of being Curt Sachs. I was going to point out that he died in 1959, but I rather relish the idea of being an undead Wikipedia editor. --Laser brain(talk)21:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
After exhausting the DotA conversation, it seems that they're trying to modify/remove any comments that they dislike—including those from other talk pages[1]—therefore creating holes in conversations. What can be done about their disruptive behaviour? —LOLT/C00:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the fact that the talk pages aren't going to make much sense after he's done. He put my signature in front of one of his comments, and is beginning to disrupt the article space.[2] —LOLT/C00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I'm back from my trip. For the films you identified, I included resources from the British Film Institute's index and the Film Literature Index on their articles' talk pages. There was no FLI for Nemesis; FLI may not be that new. Also, I searched FLI by searching for the title under the "production title" option, but there may be some items that do not cover the right film. I was a little surprised to see that these articles were so underdeveloped; I expected there to be a bit more since there is a fan base. I reckon they're happy with Memory Alpha, huh? Let me know if you want me to look for academic resources; I can search JSTOR and a few other databases for them. Wasn't sure if anything you've found covered multiple films or just each one whose article you've completed. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
ST:TWOK revert
Why did you revert my edit here without any reason/edit summary? Aside from removing the name of Khan's ship, you also returned wrong information into the article. Khan and his crew were not exiled. If you watch TOS:Space Seed, Spock tells Kirk that there were 80-90 of Khan's men that were unaccounted for after they lost. They were not captured, ergo, they could not have been exiled. Please explain. Also, it's always helpful when reverting an edit to leave a reason behind. --Despayre(talk)16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I just re-watched the episode, at 10:45 into Space Seed, Spock explains why it would be completely illogical to assume these people were exiled in this ship
Spock: "If you're suggesting this was a penal deportation vessel, you've arrived at a totally illogical conclusion."
Kirk: "Oh?"
Spock: "Your earth was on the birth of a dark ages, whole populations were being bombed out of existence. A group of criminals could've been dealt with far more efficiently than wasting one of their most advanced spaceships"
Here's a quote from Space Seed (20:02 mins in) where he and Kirk are discussing who Khan is:
Spock: "By my estimate there were some eighty and ninety of these young supermen unaccounted for when they were finally defeated."
Kirk: "That fact is not in the history texts."
Spock: "Would you reveal to war-weary populations that some 80 Napoleons might still be alive?"
Further quote, from Space Seed, from an exchange between Kirk and Khan (at 25:57) indicating that Khan left on his own. Khan doesn't deny he fled, only denies he was afraid:
Kirk: "You fled. Why? Were you afraid?"
Khan: "I've never been afraid."
Kirk: "But you left at the very time mankind needed courage."
Khan: "We offered the world order!"
Kirk: "We?"
After brushing up on all that, I'm more convinced your revert was in error. Please self-revert. Khan was exiled by Kirk, not by earth of the 1990's. Thanks. --Despayre(talk)17:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
First Contact budget
I don't know why you keep reverting my researched, evidence provided, edits, but leaving an edit summary of "better sources than The Numbers say $45" without providing those sources, is not very useful (the OC Article is not available in their archives). Please show your "better sources" and explain why they are better. A number like 45 million needs to be backed up with a decent reference or two. I'm even ok with "~$45 million" if necessary, which is probably more accurate, since I doubt they spent 45 million, down the the penny. I've left several notes for you on the various pages we're both looking at, but so far, even though I've seen from your activity you are around, you have yet to answer me. I'm starting to wonder if you are familiar with WP:OWN. Thanks for any input you can provide here that will help clear things up. --Despayre(talk)01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If you had responded in a timely manor to any of the comments I'd previously left on the article talkpages, I would not have used your talkpage at all. Since it seemed you were ignoring those talk pages, I thought I would leave a note on your page as well. And oh look! You saw my notes and responded. Great, very useful. I guess that's what talkpages are for, talking. Also, I don't know what you percieved as a threat, was it the reference to the Wikipedia policy WP:OWN? I can assure you there was no threat intended, I was merely bringing it to your attention, as your brusque editing behaviour seemed to have that kind of nature to it. Also, I'm fairly certain the degrees in History hanging on my wall would tend to indicate that I am fully aware of how to find sources when I need to. I would appreciate it if you did not talk down to me, it isn't very helpful, or in much of a Wikipedia spirit of cooperation. Thanks. --Despayre(talk)03:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not a problem– frankly, I was afraid that nothing would show up considering how small the game is. I'll e-mail you either tonight or tomorrow for the Herald article if it isn't a problem, although the reception information available is pretty well fleshed out. I'm trying to get the article up to GA, but I just don't think there's enough development information to meet the requirements. Thanks for trying though. -- Nomader(Talk)22:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it's been a "reasonable amount of time", but it's been four days and you've made contributions since then, so maybe you did forget, I don't know. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The article Halo (megastructure) 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:Halo (megastructure) for things needed to be addressed. Malinaccier (talk)05:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi David, I think we've been talking slightly at cross purposes due to perhaps one of those transatlantic furniture differences. When you say "table membership issues" for now - I think you are saying we'll "shelve them for now". When I think about "tabling motions" -I think about tabulating them on an agenda for discussion - I'm pretty sure this isn't what you mean? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Last week, you left some comments at the above FAC for Herrerasaurus. I have, I believe, dealt with most of your observations, setting a {{-}} template in place after the final image in the article, and expanding the Description section slightly so that the other image wouldn't push into the next section (does it show up correctly now in your browser?). Several people also worked on the prose and flow, per your request. The last item was your observation that the article came to an abrupt end; I made a suggestion on how that might possibly be improved, but haven't received the go-ahead from you. Can you drop by the FAC page and possibly weigh in on whether it's a good idea or not? Best, Firsfron of Ronchester21:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Enterprise
Eh, how is it superior? I thought it'd be better to consolidate our Fair Use images (ie: use as few as possibly as many different ways as we can) than to have two images that are seconds apart. EVula// talk // ☯ //20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It shows more of the rift... I think it's better, at least for that article... Perhaps use it on the others. –xenotalk20:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sixtyforce.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
All the stupid tools are down... X!'s tool is throwing a MySQL error and the Kate tool just chokes on all of Steve's edits. :) --Andy Walsh(talk)14:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Funny joke while it lasted... not too subtle for me! :) But really, wanna consider striking it out for the sake of 100% approval for Steve-O? Be like, the cabal has your family hostage or something. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I felt like I was reading a script from Monte Python when I saw your comments on Steve's RFA. Although funny, please consider changing you humorous Strongest possible oppose to a Support. --Dan Dassow (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey !
Fuchs, I don't think anyone can accuse me of being a Slim-o-phile, but she raised a legitimate concern at WT:FAC, and she did so politely, so lighten up :))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to be too repetitive, as I already said this and you deleted, but someone insisted I take appropriate admin actions in response to the provocations and discussions on ANI, so here goes. This will be followed by further actions re others behavior.
Your earlier comments to SlimVirgin on the FAC talk page were uncivil and bordered on personal attacks. You know that we expect better of administrators; everyone has to abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In my judgement you have stated that you understand that your actions were controversial and you've said you're stepping away from that thread and conversations with SlimVirgin - those are both positive steps and I encourage you to do that.
David, whatever your thoughts and feelings, your language was over the top. The whole ANI thing could have been nipped early on if you had formally apologised to Slim Virgin and struck through the offending text.
Dear David, I just read that nasty ANI thread. Being an admin here on en.wikipedia is not an easy thing, and sometimes things can get out of control. Please forget about that ANI drama, and keep on contributing positively to en.wikipedia. Best wishes, AdjustShift (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Alternative text for images in film articles
Hello, since the guidelines to add alternative text for images is being proliferated, I would like to ensure that the Good and Featured Articles under WikiProject Films have such text. Since you are a primary contributor to the articles listed below, I ask you to review the guidelines to add text to images in the body. For the image in the infobox, please add alt= above caption= and include alternative text in this field. For an example, see the text for Fight Club (film): alt. Here are your articles and a tool assessing them for alternative text:
Hello David Fuchs, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Brushed metal (interface) has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - this can probably be merged somewhere, but outright deletion isn't the best option (I don't see any article that covers it in depth currently))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
){kind=link}
