This is an archive of past discussions with User:SMasters. 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 so much for alerting me. I do not have any vendetta, and do not wish to be drawn into any dispute with this user. Let me think about it. Cheers. - S Masters (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ribbon Reward
For all of your hard work in creating and organizing the Wikipedia Ribbons page, I award you the following:
Wow! Thank you so much! I wasn't expecting this many barnstars. Glad I could help. Trust you had a good honeymoon! Cheers. – S Masters (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks (Chain Saw)
Thanks so much, I really, really appreciate it. You've got nothing to apologize for, we're all busy from time to time. One thing is true, though, if this FAC passes, it will be in no small part to all your great effort in improving the article. I doubt it would pass without your help, or other editors. I really cannot thank you enough.--TheTaerkasten (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You really deserve it! And thanks for your understanding. I really hope it passes, I have been going through some of the other horror FAs and I think this is on par with their standards, if not better. Let's keep our fingers crossed. – S Masters (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is now, if it does pass, what am I going to do? The journey towards FA has been exciting and really rewarding, meeting new editors, and just the feeling of improving it. I suppose I could work on the rest of the Chainsaw series, but I'm not sure if they have the wealth of information available like this one has. Ah what to do....--TheTaerkasten (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting thought, alas my copyediting skills are not all that good, though I'd certainly be open to improving them. I'll keep that in mind, actually.--TheTaerkasten (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Alas, just when I thought consensus was reached, some more problems crop up. A week from now, I won't have anytime to work on the article, I've got real life stuff to be busy with, so if this doesn't pass now, I guess it'll have to remain GA for a long time.--TheTaerkasten (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks again, but unfortunately it didn't pass this time round. Concerns were about references, although I feel I adequately addressed some of the issues. I didn't agree too much on what they said about the references, but ah well. Still, there's always a 5th FAC, though after that I may just give up. Once again, thanks for your help on the article and its FAC.--TheTaerkasten (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
This is most unfortunate, but you are so very close. I sincerely that hope you don't give up. There are people around you that are willing to help if you give it another go. And this next time, hopefully the issues are minor and that the nom page will be a lot cleaner so you might get more support votes. – S Masters (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The paragraphs themselves can be fairly lengthy though. Have a look at WP:LEAD.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:SMasters. 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.