User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 25

The WPVG Newsletter (February 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

VG sources

Hi there! I'm just curious why you removed gaygamer.net from the video game WikiProject's sources page. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused...there are plenty of sites in the checklist section that don't have a discussion. Why haven't you removed those as well? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC) — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Halo Wars page

Can you please unprotect the Halo Wars page? I made a large summary of the Leaders and their units which I cannot post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNSC Fury (talk • contribs) 13:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability (Fiction)

There seems to be some progress being made towards redrafting the guideline. Most of the arguments for a permissive guideline seem to have been countered in the sense that they have been found not to be viable. My attempts to obtain a compromise earlier this year seem to be leading towards a slightly stricter applciation of WP:V for fiction that should discourage topics which are only the subject of in universe plot summary, trivia and cruft. A recent post at WT:FICT#The rules seems to make this clear. Can you provide some cool and clear support towards drafting a compromise that is compliant with existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest word in Turkish

Could you explain your "delete" closure here? I don't see anything near a consensus to delete in that discussion, nor any overriding policy reasons to delete. Please reply here, rather than my talk page. DHowell (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I disregarded the votes that were not based on policy or guideline; that includes "no real point" delete comments and "appears useful/notable". No one refuted that this article fell afoul of DICDEF/INDISCRIMINATE, and the sources did not prove notability via the GNG. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Earlier Disscussion

I had posted a responce to a reply of your's on my page. I don't think you've read it and would like for you to know my standpoint on this. By the way, the comment you replied to is in your recent archive as "Undoing Changes", or something like that. The content on my talk page is as follows:

Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. You are changing the text while not changing citations. Unless you can find reliable sources to back up your changes, it's best to keep the correctly cited version. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Wikipedia doesn't accept truth? What kind of bull shit is that? So you're saying just because someone else says something, it's good enough to put on an article, and if something is a generally stated fact or an undeniable observation, it's not sutible for placement on Wikipedia? If that's true then I believe this website should recieve no donations and deserves to be removed from the internet. Good day to you Sir! The TRUE Adoring Fan (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_TRUE_Adoring_Fan"

PS: Respond to this post here on your talk page please. The TRUE Adoring Fan (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to mention that the current references do not actually support what is currently stated in the article. In fact, MY edit was more representative of the content of the pages referenced. The TRUE Adoring Fan (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a response on your page- not mine. Also, you fail to address my other concerns- that the current material is improperly referenced or references my changes. In which case, some of my edits were justifiable since they were already referenced, and the other ones, along with the text that currently corresponds to the false reference should rightfully be removed, correct? The TRUE Adoring Fan (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about you read the reference. For the one about weapon visability, it never claims that all weapons can be seen at all times, or that the secondary weapon can be seen at all times. Here's the text from the article: "Note the weaponry his back and the all new weapons in his hands. Halo multiplayer will never be the same again." As for the names of the different kinds of file-share items, here is a quote from the reference from Bungie.net: "Players can choose to upload up to six files, be they films, screenshots, map variants or gametypes, to their file share but when they want to share something else, they can replace any of the six currently being shared." How's that for referencing?

Uru

I went through the article again, made some changes, and left a note on the Talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen

What would you have cut out? I was surprised myself how short the Manhattan and Rorshach flashbacks were considering how much Snyder fought with the studio to keep them. Alientraveller (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Longest word in Turkish

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Longest word in Turkish. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Cfsenel (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ta!

Amazing what you can pick up reading other articles, I was after some sort of sales info for Empire: Total War. Judging by previous sales performance, I was expecting something like this to come up, I was just looking in the wrong place. -- Sabre (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blech

I guess great minds think alike. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Oh my god, I'm really sorry about that. It was a mistake I swear. Shamwow86 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do, sorry again. Shamwow86 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet peer review

Hey Dave, want to expand your horizon (well maybe you have already read enough of this...)? How about taking a look at this battle? It has guts and glory (amidst bloody big cock-ups). A Kingmaker died at the hands (well, indirectly) of his protege all because they fell out from bickering over the young boy's secret marriage and growing independece from his teacher. Let us not forget that this fight was in Willie's Henry VI, Part 3. If you have the time, leave comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1. Thank you in advance. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A-class review request

Hey David, I was wondering if you could review the Spokane, Washington article in an ACR. After you read the article, I believe all you need to do is apply the A-Class criteria to the article and put whether you believe it is worthy of being A-class in the section dealing with the review in the articles Talk page. Also, in addition to doing the assessment, it would be helpful if you could include some points for improvement. If you are up to review it, notify me on my Talk. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request for copyedit/review, or payback is a bitch

I will take Start Rek for 200, David! Set up the peer review, and I will try to run it through (images too) during the weekend. Jappalang (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Posted, take my queries in humour (I was overwhelmed with the presented details). Jappalang (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

House pilot

Hi David - I didn't intend to step on anyone's toes, so apologies if I did, but could you direct me to where the infobox was discussed - I am not seeing it. My point is that there are over 100 episodes of this program that use the House-specific infobox, so I wonder what the logic is in using the generic one just for the pilot. Isn't consistency within the show more significant than consistency among tv pilots? But maybe there was some other reasoning at work, which I'm interested in understanding. By the way, I'm not saying the House infobox is in itself a superior design, just that I don't see the logic of using one for the pilot and another for all of the rest of the episodes. Tvoz/talk 22:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh - one other thing - you asked me to defer to the people who "have actually done the work here" - I've not done much work on the pilot article, and again didn't intend to step on anyone's toes - but I have spent hours in the last week or so going through all of the episode articles, among other things fixing the infoboxes which previously said "unknown" for the previous and next episodes rather than their titles, because the editors must have mistakenly thought that leaving off the field in the edit screen would leave off the field when it displayed, and apparently didn't bother to do "show preview" or even look at the completed edits. So forgive me if I wasn't in a deferring mood. But the issue of why we would want to use alternate infoboxes remains, and I am interested in your reply to the above. Tvoz/talk 23:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Motley Moose

Sir, I... heh, I like your floaty HALO thing... anyway, I wanted to bring up some concerns with you. First of all, see the comments I just added into the Admin thread; then, the recent behavior of both user "Bali Ultimate" and "Sloane" have been very concerning to me as of late. A quick review of their user histories should demonstrate this... they seem to be dogging any articles edited by either myself or user "Peter Jukes" (see Peter Jukes, or Congress Matters); user "Sloane" added a "Speedy delete" tag to the AfD article which had already been observed by two administrators, and that was two days into an AfD discussion; then, when that was rebuffed by an administrator, proceeded to drastically edit an article which they had already vocally denounced as worthy of deletion and changing it's entire look and focus. They have now moved to try and track IP addresses and harass users posting support for the article in the AfD forum, throwing sockpuppet accusations about- even to someone who rightfully disclosed they were involved in the article- this is very disturbing; I've never seen anything like this before. If I am overreacting, no problem... but I thought I'd get your take on the matter. Thank you, sir. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Halo 3 Versions

I was wondering if you could tell me why {{Halo 3 Versions}} is a template and not simply placed in the article itself. Thanks! --Odie5533 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for being hostile towards you at the FA candidacy. I understand you are just trying to help. Perhaps you could help me retrieve some articles from LexisNexis regarding System Shock 2? The FA candidacy closed before you had a chance to respond. Thanks so far, -- Noj r (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose

It looks as if you are using the standard "archive" template on this AFD while you evaluate it for close. A better way of doing this is to use the {{closing}} template. It puts a tag with this text on the page...

Close in progress: An administrator or other editor is in the process of closing this discussion. The result should be posted shortly. As a courtesy, please do not edit this page/section while this message is displayed. The user who added this notice will be listed in the page history. This message is intended to help reduce edit conflicts, and to avoid closers duplicating each other's work. It also helps avoid a late comment being added to the discussion but not being taken into account in the close. If this page has not been edited for more than an hour, it is usually safe to remove this template. However deletion discussions involve weighing up and balancing evidence, Wikipedia's standards and policies, and editor consensus. If the debate is long, involves complex issues, or was acrimonious, please allow slightly longer.

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall

Hi there! I notice that you're open to recall. I was wondering if you had your own process mapped out, as I'm drafting mine out (somewhat prematurely as my RfA hasn't quite finished yet!) and I've lots of respect for you as a writer of articles. --GedUK  08:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Halo Wars

I've reviewed Halo Wars and put it on hold until some issues are addressed. You can find the review here. Good luck! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph Staten

The article Joseph Staten you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joseph Staten for eventual comments about the article. Well done! MuZemike 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Motion Picture

Howdy, oh busy one. I'm going to hang back on this PR for a while because it looks like Jappalang gave you some lengthy feedback. I would be happy to copyedit the article but I'd rather wait until you address or respond to his request for pruning. --Laser brain (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change Template:VG-Action

Thanks for participating in the discussion about this template. I have now made a proposal, looking to establish consensus to change it, and I'd be grateful if you could express your approval or disapproval, in WT:WikiProject_Video_games#Proposal.

Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Playing Columbine wiki

Hey David:

Since you did such a great job on cleaning up the problems with the "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" page, I was curious if you could improve or make suggestions for improvement on the wiki for "Playing Columbine." It has gone through some edits lately between two users with obvious ideological bias. Have a look and please assist if you have the time and interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_Columbine

-much appreciated!

Zephjclark (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bungie

"assuming http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/950/950839p2.html is what you are talking about, and they do not mention dropping support at all"

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=18453 http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/950/950839p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricanesFan5 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My French Coach and My Spanish Coach possible FAC

Hey, I was wondering about bringing the above article to FAC. Besides a copy-edit that I'll look into getting (anything in that department you can help with would be greatly appreciated also), do you think there are any issues that need to be addressed? The development section is definitely sparse, but there isn't a whole lot that I've found on it. Thanks, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Halo Wars edit

You edited my post on the Arbiter article saying it was unreliable when the information used was taken from the game so how exactly does that make it unreliable? If it is sourced to the Game and the Graphic Novel Halo Wars Genesis which chronicles the back story leading up to the game including the Arbiter and how he became that will that be acceptable? Martoine (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll

Hi David, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (March 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)