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.
I think the problems you brought up in your initial comments have been addressed. Whenever you have time, it'd be great if you could take another look at the article. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi David, you have initiated a broad and unlimited ban against me.
You did this because supposedly I have "improperly used sources to support his views on the use of Kendrick units."
I do not think that I ever did this. Since you did not show a single example to back up your claim, it is difficult for me to defend myself against what I think is a unfounded accusation.
Therefore I would like to get into a discussion with you so I can find out why you got this strange idea that I improperly used sources.
I am sorry to waste your and my time in this way, but your ban, which is much to broad and indefinite even if the accusations were true, does not leave me with another choice.
Kehrli (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi David, thanks for your answer. However, I could not find any place on this page where I have "distorted, selected, or combined evidence to suit my own view". I am a scientist in the field of metrology and if you make such a serious accusation you should back it up. I am pretty sure that everything I wrote (in the article) was based on sources. If you think I wrote something without sources, show me exactly where. And then, when you are at it, please show me a source where the term "Kendrick mass" is properly defined. I know that it is used frequently, but I did not find a definition so far. This lack of definition is the reason why I was against the renaming my article to Kendrick mass and this became the basis of this dispute. Thanks for your help.
Metrology is the science of measurements and it includes the "grammar" of quantitative communication. It therefore is very universal. It will be very difficult to find an article that is not "metrology-related". This is why I think your ban is much to broad. You will probably not find a single page on wikipedia that is not "metrology-related", depending on how narrowly you define this term. To give you an analogy: this ban is like banning someone on "english-related" articles. Would this include all pages that contain english text? Could you please define what you mean with "metrology-related"?
Thanks for explaining me the procedure of becoming unbanned. I will work on it as soon as I understand where exactly I misbehaved. Kehrli (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi David. You wrote: "... you were using sources, for example, that did not expressly define kendrick mass as supporting it because you felt there was no other realm of interpretation available". Now you confuse me even more. Could you please explain me what exactly you mean? I never found a source that defines the "Kendrick Mass". Murray never presented a definition, nor a source. I was always against this term. I certainly never misused a source to "support it", because this would have been against my arguments. Can you please name the source that I supposedly misused and where I did this? My only point was: we should not rename a page to a name that is nowhere properly defined (whereas the former name is properly defined). Why does this lead to a ban? I am sorry to be so persistent, but I think the arbcom has made a serious mistake here. I never misused any sources and so far you were not able to pin to the point where I supposedly did. Kehrli (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi David. You accused me of: "improperly using sources to support my views on the use of Kendrick units." You still did not back up this accusation by showing me exactly what you mean. I have no idea where I should have done this. I asked for an explanation of your accusation, but only got vague answers. I did not get any answer to my last question above. How do we continue? Kehrli (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi David. Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately you now open a whole new can of worms. I do not very well understand the arbitration process, but as far as I can see in my arbitration case there is only one accusation. It goes like this:
"Kehrli has improperly used sources to support his views on the use of Kendrick units."
I have to assume this is the reason for which you banned me. However, instead of indicating to me where in the article I did "improperly use sources" you now come up with a list of new accusations which are actually old accusations that I countered before. I will be glad to show you again why these additional accusations are not true, but I hope you will understand that first I would like investigate the main accusation for which I was banned and which was written by you. Please also note that this accusation was not even mentioned in the Workshop and that therefore I did not even have the chance to give my opinion about it. So let's stick to the issue of improperly using sources and please show me where in the article I did this. Once this accusation is off the table we can address the next one. You will see that none of it will stick and that in fact Murray was disruptive by renaming an article that I started without discussion to a new name that is 1) nowhere defined, 2) is a jargon term of a minority, and 3) does not make sense in the framework of metrology. Kehrli (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi David. You wrote: "The evidence is in the case pages and the linked evidence." There are many accusations in these pages and I have disproved all of them, as far as I know. If you think there is any evidence of improper use of sources in an article then I would like to know where this is. Just give me a single example. I am happy to show you that all I wrote is based on proper sourcing. Kehrli (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, sorry to bother :) I've just noticed that you are marked as the reviewer for the Dominion War GA review, and it's been waiting for quite a while. Think you could pass through there again just to get the review over with? Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I just noticed that Halo 3 was put up for FAR, which is too bad. Are you planning to fix the issues Jinnai raised, or are you going to let the review take its course? I know you're super-busy these days, so I was wondering. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like it's going to be pretty difficult. I'd really like to offer you a hand, but I've been so busy myself that I don't think I'd be much help. Good luck, anyway. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi David. Your name and previous comments have come up in a recent discussion at Spock. If you would like to contribute, your opinion would be helpful. Thanks. Erikeltic(Talk)03:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:St08-post-first-contact.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Damn it dude yes I am,I am Tailsman67 of the Sonic News Network, Halo Wiki, Fusion Fall wiki, and the Dragonball Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.213 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Summer Wars, which recently became a GA, is currently at peer review. Stop by and leave some comments to help improve the article to FA.
Kung Fu Panda is currently at GAR awaiting some fixes to prevent its delisting. If you went and enjoyed the sequel in May, come help out with improving the quality of the original!
Our project currently has just under 84,500 film-related articles, with only a handful of unassessed articles, thanks to the assessment department! Remember to always add the {{WikiProject Film|class=}} template to a film article's talk page so the project can get a better idea of what work still needs to be done. If you believe that an article should be assessed at a certain class, feel free to follow the assessment scale and assess the article yourself (it's not too difficult to determine the basic classes such as stubs, categories, or lists). Below is a table showing a breakdown of our articles by class.
Remember that any editor can give the WikiProject Film Award to another WP:Films member. If you do present this award, please make mention of it here or tell one of the newsletter editors who will then include it in the next issue.
Please add your name to the member list if you have not already.
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 6 – June 2011). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
Does the ten-year gap legitimise the game having its own article? I am asking this because the Resident Evil remake having its own was turned-down in a discussion due to the gap between original and remake (1996-2002) being considered too small.-- OsirisV (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Setting up a protected redirect right now is a bad idea. News of this title will likely spur much discussion and coverage over the next few days. Brushing aside rumor mongering and fan speculation, there is still a substantial amount of information being released to the press. Certainly enough for a well-referenced stub. And though opinions may vary on whether there's enough material currently out there to justify an entry, that plurality requires at least an incubation period and AfD discussion to allow for consensus-building. Please reconsider your decision. ˉˉanetode╦╩00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the log as a full- rather than semi- redirect, so different situation altogether. ˉˉanetode╦╩02:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Please assist You participated in the peer review for this article and I would like to know if you're willing to look at it again. I have a little left to do, but I'm more than 95% done with the article and I want to submit it to FA again (third time's a charm!) Please respond on my talk or that page. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I am writing this message as a third party monitoring an ongoing arbitration case. I have been voicing concerns about a proposed finding of fact since 6 June, but no arbitrator has chosen to respond to those concerns. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your input on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_finding_9. I apologize for contacting you on your personal talk page, but despite posting notes daily on the proposed decision talk page requesting arbitrator input, no one has responded. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Myst is a graphic adventure video game designed and directed by the brothers Robyn and Rand Miller. It was developed by Cyan (now Cyan Worlds), a studio based in Spokane, Washington, and was published by Brøderbund. The Millers began working on Myst in 1991, Cyan's largest project to date, and released it for the Macintosh computer in 1993. Myst puts the player in the role of the "Stranger", who uses a special book to travel to the island of Myst. There, the player uses other special books written by an artisan and explorer named Atrus to travel to worlds known as "Ages". Clues found in each Age helps to reveal the back-story of the game's characters. The game has several endings, depending on the player's course of action. On release, Myst was a surprise hit, with critics lauding its ability to immerse the player in a fictional world. The game was the best-selling PC game of all time—until The Sims exceeded its sales in 2002—and helped to drive the adoption of the then-nascent CD-ROM format. Myst's success spawned four direct video-game sequels and several spin-off games and novels. (more...)
Oh boy, that's embarrassing...unfortunately I can't fix that for a couple if weeks, but thanks for the heads up... *facepalm* Connormah (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
David- I expanded it a bit. Not sure what else to discuss though. Maybe my edits can get your creative juices flowing. What we have is probably fine, but I have a nagging feeling that we left something out. :-\ (Guyinblack25talk18:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC))
A new task force was created to improve collaboration for developing film articles related to Avant-garde and experimental films. If you are interested in working on articles in line with the task force, consider joining and watchlisting the page for updates.
We are looking for new editors for the newsletter for future issues. If you are interested in helping shape the newsletter to focus on new areas or submit individual stories, we can use your help! The newsletter can be edited by all members of the project, and we are always seeking new volunteers. Instructions will be provided on how to develop the newsletter each month. Any interest and/or questions can be submitted on the talk page of the Outreach department or contact Nehrams2020.
Several film articles are available for review at both WP:GAN and WP:FAC. As members of this project are more familiar with WP:FILM guidelines for film articles, input at these reviews can be helpful for determining if they meet all good and featured criteria. Other articles can also be found at WP:PR looking for helpful comments.
Based on views, the top five most popular articles from our project this month were: Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Super 8, Green Lantern, X-Men (film series), and X-Men: First Class. For a list of our project's top 1,000 most popular articles, see here. Consider helping to improve one of these articles that is seen by thousands to millions of people each month.
Our project currently has just over 87,400 film-related articles, with only a handful of unassessed articles, thanks to the assessment department! Remember to always add the {{WikiProject Film|class=}} template to a film article's talk page so the project can get a better idea of what work still needs to be done. If you believe that an article should be assessed at a certain class, feel free to follow the assessment scale and assess the article yourself (it's not too difficult to determine the basic classes such as stubs, categories, or lists). Below is a table showing a breakdown of our articles by class.
Spotlight Update: Multiple films and film-related articles have reached GA and FA status in June 2011.
Remember that any editor can give the WikiProject Film Award to another WP:FILM member. If you do present this award, please make mention of it here or tell one of the newsletter editors who will then include it in the next issue.
Please add your name to the member list if you have not already.
... that independent filmmaker Frank Sudol wrote, animated, voiced, directed, and composed all of the music for his film Dead Fury?
... that at the 1933 première of the film Das häßliche Mädchen there was a Nazi-instigated riot in which tomatoes and rotten eggs were thrown, because of the male lead, Max Hansen?
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 7 – July 2011). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
