User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 27

GA Sweeps update

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

STMP...

(hee!) (whacks David) Take care of the one little niggle I put up so I can quit watching the FAC and not have to see the squabbles... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Very off-topic, but the new film rocked! My mouth was agape when I saw the new Enterprise appeared, and I was so moved by much of Spock's story. Alientraveller (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

SHhh! I don't get to go until tomorrow... taking my mother for mother's day. (The concept of taking a 78 year old woman to a trek movie for mother's day is vastly entertaining... she's been a trekkie for a LONG time...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, even my mother (who snorted dismissively when I wrote my term paper on revenge in Star Trek) actually wants to see this one. Who knew? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, David. The image of the Enterprise on the STMP page was made by Foundation Imaging for the DVD director's cut re-release many years later, it is a CGI reinterpretation of the scenes shot by Trumbull where the plasma weapon disappears before hitting the Enterprise. It may not be accurate in having this image represent the 1979 Douglas Trumbull footage. Cheers! Mark T. Bantha68 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

declining to place refs in the bibliography if they are "only cited once"

Hey, regarding that practice of declining to place refs in the bibliography if they are "only cited once" (sort of like, "only driven once, by a little old lady from Pasadena"): does that practice exist outside Wikipedia, or is it only a Wikipedia thing? If it's the latter, I think a strong case can be made that the practice should be discontinued. If non-Wiki-familiar readers peruse that type of article, they will be blindsided/negatively surprised. They will be unlikely to know the book was ever even referenced, unless they click that particular footnote... why go against the expectations of a large number of readers? I actually see no justification for the practice at all. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ayers appears in the notes, but not in the refs. The rationale is that Ayers is cited only once. My question is, does this practice of deliberately listing a source in the notes but not the refs exist outside of Wikipedia, or is it only practiced on Wikipedia? If the latter, then (see above). Lotsa people scroll down to the References, expecting to see a full listing. They use that as a fertile ground for tracking down more info. Heck, I don't even like the (apparently widespread) practice of leaving journals etc. in the notes but not the refs. Scholars, you see, love the refs. They help that person find more info, so that person can use that info to write another article. Am I explaining well, now? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that this is a relatively common practice in wikipedia. I'm not sure what traction we would get by comparing it to other media or venues. Protonk (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. I believe that if Wikipedia is to slowly gain more acceptance outside its own confines, and esp. within academia, it has to leave behind its adolescent phase of "making crap up as we go along" (Good God, look at the refs section here and conform to generally accepted practices... whenever and wherever that does not conflict with our goal of presenting an excellent encyclopedia. In this case, it certainly does not conflict with that goal. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But there isn't a universally accepted style guideline in the world outside wikipedia. An article in Physical Review Letters will look very different from one in the American Economic Review which will look different from an article in Modern Fiction Studies. All of these will look different from an entry in Encyclopedia Brittanica which will look different from an article in the New Yorker. Within wikipedia we have to embrace the fact that we don't have a uniform admission standard for articles in terms of style. We don't have an editorial chain of command. The formatting needs to reflect this. If it doesn't, too much effort will have to be dedicated to stretching varied articles over a Procrustean bed, a process whose major output will be bad will. Protonk (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) <waving arms> No, i didn't say "universal". I said "generally accepted". Look, pick a good style, any well-knownstyle, and follow it religiously. I sincerely hate MLA, forex. I think it's an ugly, high-maintenance mess. But if someone chooses to write an article using that style, and follows the style very religiously, then more power to 'em. They are doing well. The article will feel comfortable/familiar to folks from fields where MLA is used, and that is a Very Good Thing. We want to reduce the learning curve here. Whenever possible, we should b strongly averse to making up our own style. I know it's fun and it feels cool to innovate, but it alienates non-Wikipedia people. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was fun or that some benign policymaker has made it so. I said that heterogeneity is going to have to be acceptable in a project like this. And part of the "issue" is with the software. The existence of Cite.php puts our editors on a path to avoid MLA and APA formatting (to give two examples) for references. It doesn't make it impossible to write an article that way, there is just a structural disincentive. I also don't really get the passion behind picking some other styleguide and just following that religously. Just like ENGVAR, choice of style would get to be an article by article thing, where we would judge an article based on internal consistency. At that point, how are we better off? Sure, someone who is familiar w/ that styleguide finds the article more accessible but someone familiar w/ other styleguides finds it less accessible. If we have article where the bulk of the readership could be from a certain style 'camp', then there is some benefit to writing articles in that style. Otherwise it seems like wonkery. Protonk (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against heterogeneity; I'm against wholesale innovation. I'm against "making crap up as we go along", because much of what we make up will be just that – Geocities-like crap. I'm in favor of rules (practices, not rules, actually) that can bend a little, but do not break... And cit.php doesn't make it harder to use APA, since APA has both references and Harvard-style name-year notes. It is not a cosmic leap to move the name-year notes from the text to a notes section. That Eric Cantona aberration I linked to above, however, is a Geocities-like eyesore. The practice in question in this thread kinda looks benign in the "Star Trek" article 'cause it's only done once in that particular article.. but if there are many books cited only once (as is often the case), then there are many books that appear in the notes but not the refs, and then it looks like an ungodly mess. In that case, the learning curve has been made steeper, and unneccessarily so. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defending every crappy attempt at references, but I will say that the logic behind the star trek choice seems reasonable. Use name/page citations for frequent citations and avoid it for rare citations. It's also handy because it allows the system to fail gracefully for citations w/o page numbers and it allows new contributors to add a reference w/o doing it twice with the somewhat cumbersome {{Harvard citation no brackets}} system (or equivalents). I mean, in a sense, I agree with you. If we had 3 major sources and a dozen minor sources, the reflist would look loony. But I would hope that an editor would realize this and say "maybe I should just go back to a standard footnote system w/ no reference list". If I could go back in time and mandate an exceedingly narrow scope for the MOS: wikipedia specific stuff, wikimedia specific stuff and suggestions for aesthetics, I would do it. We would probably be fine if MOS just redrected to The Chicago Manual of Style for 75% of all the cases. But I can't push the toothpaste back in. Protonk (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) here's where I get in trouble. :-) You said, "I would hope that an editor would realize this and...". I get in trouble here because I believe you vastly over-estimate the common sense of a large-ish number of editors. Folks just.. in reality, there is little sense of discipline in many, many editors. They just "follow convenience" (a literal translation from Chinese; idiomatically similar to US English "what-ever!"). I actually don't want One Ref System to Rule Them All. I want Lit articles to look like Lit articles. I want Linguistics articles to look like Linguistics articles. And I want none of them to look like Made Up Crap. :-) But Made Up Crap is in fact exactly what we get, unless we actively campaign against it. This new style (is it new???? That was my original question!) is a case in point... Crap! Did you look at the old Cantona version I linked above? Do you want to know my guess as to how that happened (and continues to happen!)? Ligulem, in a seemingly-benign example of "following convenience", wrote some documentation for Template:Reflist/doc (which I have very recently changed), and in it he/she discussed "general references" and "specific references". Then in all innocence, one or more n00bs (I do not mean that as an insult) looked at the documentation and adopted it as new style. So one editor's casual documentation error became a new freaking meme. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys seem to be having a fine time hashing this out between yourselves, but to answer your previous question up top, I've used the same scheme in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, as well as non-FAs I'm working on like Covenant (Halo), Star Trek: First Contact and Klingon. I use a straight reflist depending on the content; for things like video games, it's pretty much easier, while for more scholarly stuff total segregation works too. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't interrupt us while we're merrily splitting hairs! :-P But actually, your response doesn't answer my question. My question is, do any journals etc. other than Wikipedia use this method, putting books in Notes when mentioned only once but in refs elsewise. Tks. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I will have to hunt around. I'm reasonably sure I wouldn't have made a citation scheme up (though my hatred of MLA is on record...) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we may have some trouble with that because we don't use "notes" in the same fashion as everyone else. Most journals I read (though a lot of books are bad about this) use notes for explanatory purposes or for pointing briefly to further reading and use the reference list as an exhaustive recording of references used. Since we effectively (in some sense because of Cite.php, but in another sense because there isn't the physical separation of notes and references without pagination) use the notes system as references in the bulk of the articles, direct comparison becomes hard. As for books which do this. The Looming Tower, winner of the Pulitzer prize does this for citations which appear in only one note. Fred Turner does it in From Counterculture to Cyberculture. Taleb's Fooled by Randomness does this, though in an odd way, both the notes and the bibliography are narrative, or at least conversational. That's just from my little bookshelf in the front room. It's fair to say that if I go over to my big bookshelf I will find more. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent, lost track of the colons) Ah, I found From Counterculture to Cyberculture on Google books. Can you point me to an example...? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

madness!!!!

Thanks for doing that. I did want to wait until a couple GA reviews were done, but no big deal. I'm glad that the madness is over. You gave my talk page new light. Randomran (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• See here, specifically October and November. It's a pain in the ass and takes a solid hour to sort a single month's worth. But we're close to being done, and I think analyzing it will be fun, or at least very interesting. Randomran (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• ... ok, now just one more month left! Randomran (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA thank you

My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Halo Wars copyedit

Sure. Worst case is that I have a long Memorial Day weekend, so I should be able to get to it by then. —TKD [talk][c] 15:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Blargh. I'm going to need some more time. I think I underestimated (a) how much I preferred to sleep off a long week; and (b) how long the article actually is (it was 5,900+ words before I started on it). I've done some of the article and will continue to chip away at it. —TKD [talk][c] 06:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Will try to finish a first pass through the article tonight. Sorry for being busy procrastinating. —TKD [talk][c] 18:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Cool. Unfortunately, I can't help you with gameplay correctness, because I've yet to play it (and probably won't soon). I'm not much of an RTS guy; the last RTS that I played was Warcraft: Orcs & Humans (yes, the first one), and I got my rear handed to me regularly. Haven't touched RTSes since, although Halo Wars would probably be an ideal gateway back into the genre, in terms of fictional setting and streamlining of mechanics. The problem is that I think too methodically: in first-person shooter terms, I like to snipe and pick off enemies one by one rather than firefight. Cloak on demand (e.g., in Crysis) helps, if available. :) —TKD [talk][c] 19:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • OK; done for now. Check my work; I have my own particular style of phrasing. I cut the article from 5,957 words to 5,442, most because of redundancy and informal phrases for which tighter constructions exist. A few suggestions:
      • Check for jargon. I found a few cases where wikilinks were helpful (Dolby, replay value). Oh, and Master Chief (Halo). I linked him, but you might wanna explain who he is a little more. :)
      • I found a few cases in Reception where the sources were being used verbatim (or virtually so) without quotes (which is bad), so you might want to run through the text to make sure that there aren't remaining cases of unquoted quotes or really close paraphrasing.
      • I was slightly confused by some of the data in the the Release section and left an inline query. That section was pretty fraught with non-neutral overtones: "edged out", "slipped to", "toppled". Might want to make sure that I didn't make it too bland and choppy, though try to avoid making the games anthropomorphic if you revise it (games don't "claim" spots :)).
    • Oh yeah; I've copyedited several articles for games I've never played. My little secret: I need to finish Halo: Combat Evolved and to start Halo 2. I did finish Halo 3. —TKD [talk][c] 10:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I should've noted that I fixed the quotes that I found. :) —TKD [talk][c] 17:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

LexisNexis request

Just a quick request for you and your LexisNexis access. I'm currently digging up sources for a rewrite of what's currently at Last invasion of Britain, would you mind giving LexisNexis a cursory glance for me to see if they have anything of interest available? I dug up a few useful sources out of JSTOR and am in the process of raiding my uni's library; if you see anything potentially useful on LexisNexis from "last invasion of Britain", "battle of Fishguard" or "French invasion of Wales", please send it my way! -- Sabre (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know, I was surprised too! Just thought I'd try to expand into other interests; rather than fiction that no-one cares about in the grand scheme of things, I thought I'd try a bit of history that no-one cares about in the grand scheme of things! -- Sabre (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

TLOZ:LA

Do you want to nominate The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, I think it will pass. It has enough information. If you remember things that must be fixed since the last FAC. What do you think? OboeCrack (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This link is broken, http://www.zeldaelements.net/4secretseashells.shtm. That's why I corrected it. I don't understand why you remove this: IGN, ed. (2007–2009). "IGN - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accesdate= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date format (link) and similars. If you don't think the article will pass, please tell me why and I will take it out! OboeCrack (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ideas

• Any idea to improve the Development section?
• Should we mention Kirby, Wart or Yoshi. Yoshi can be included because is metioned in the reference for the trading sequence: Yoshi doll.
• Can we add an image to compare both versions? Such as: this one OboeCrack (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks OboeCrack (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved this to the talk page of the article. OboeCrack (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cultural impact

So what exactly is the verdict on the section for articles? Do we have a MoS style/standard guide so I can fall back on it in case of future events (and does it count for Necrid's article o_O?)

Yeah I know, a lot at once, just got back home.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Wisdom University"

Hi, I'm the creator of the article "Wisdom University" and I would like to get it re-created. I just had a look at its deletion review (after not finding the article) and...I don't think the deleters realize that the school is actually kind of important. Certainly it's well-known among Bay Area spiritual seeker types, and comparable to other New Agy schools such as CIIS or ITP. The involvement of so many notable faculty--including the pope! (as an enemy)--is important. Few unaccredited schools make this kind of impact. I'm not trying to promote them, by any means (and in fact consider their accreditation claims dishonest). But I do think it is important to have an article on it. For one thing, potential students will come here looking for info on it. Dawud (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek: The Motion Picture/archive1

Made more comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR

You have a current nominee at WP:FOUR. We are trying to clear out the log of nominees without having the nominator confirm the eligibility. If you have a chance could you help confirm a nominee or two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:FOUR#Reviewing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This is kind of a new procedure. Let me know if the instructions are confusing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. In the future, I think it will be policy that you can nominate yourself, but can not be the final arbiter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicole (Dead or Alive)

...is no longer a GA. This means the Characters of Halo topic is under retention, with 3 months, or until 18 August, to get the article up to GA again, or else the topic can get nominated for removal. The irony isn't lost on me that the article was an addition to your topic (by me!) and is now causing problems but well err that's how it goes I guess :S rst20xx (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your recent copyedits of Necrid and Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss that found opportunities for wording improvement that I missed. —TKD [talk][c] 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI report

The ANI report is not about the tag, it is about the way I was treated over it. Please, if you're going to make a comment, take the time to read all the relevant material.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

ST:TMP articles

Is there anything I can get for you? I noted that you don't currently have access to your library. If something is available in any of the various research databases, I can get it and email it to you. --Laser brain (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those I can't get. I have electronic access but no physical access to get books. I refuse to deal in hard copy. --Laser brain (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I have the damnedest time finding Star Trek sources. Have you worked out which databases are good to look in? I can look at Halo Wars soon. --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a few more sources at Talk:Star Trek: First Contact. Anderson looks particularly promising. --Laser brain (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on making TMP a Featured Article! You've been a great asset in raising the bar when it comes to Featured Articles about films! (The 2006/2007 FAs are not much to look at in comparison.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits to US 41 in Michigan

I'm curious about the edits you made to the article about the image placement. If I erred about the placement before, can you explain what was wrong? Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DougsTech. As you overturned my indefinite block of this user, you should consider whether or not community consensus now supports re-instating it. Best regards, –xeno^talk 07:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but my block wasn't to topic ban him from RFA, it was to indefinitely block him from Wikipedia. While the latter may have had the effect of doing the former - since he had been doing little else - there is a distinction to be made. I staunchly disagree with topic banning anyone from RFA, no matter their !vote templates or slant. The fact that I blocked him near-immediately after the topic ban was closed conflated the issue: that was my fault and I admit that. However, my position remains the same: disruption-only accounts should be indefinitely blocked. Thanks for looking at this, I understand if you decline to take action, but wanted to give you the opportunity to de-enable his disruption. –xeno^talk 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Barnstar

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, Nehrams2020, hereby award David Fuchs the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Great job in your many additions to film featured articles. You have improved more film FAs then any member, all within the last year! Hopefully you continue to bring several films up to featured status (there's a lot of Star Trek films left!). Keep up the good work! Awarded 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

--Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you happen to have access to LexisNexis during the summer...

Hi David; I have a LexisNexis search request for you, if you have remote access to it during the summer (if not, I'll ask again in September). I'm looking for any newspaper references for Rooster Teeth Productions or Red vs. Blue (the latter is probably best searched as "Red vs. Blue" machinima to minimize false positives). The state of Connecticut generously provides all residents with limited access to InfoTrac and ProQuest. This covers a good range of magazines and journals, but the newspaper selection is somewhat limited and inconsistent. Again this isn't high-priority, and I can wait until September—as it is, I have enough material to work with to bring Red vs. Blue up to modern FA standards (it was originally promoted in early 2006, predating even WP:WAF)—but general web/news coverage of Rooster Teeth seems to drop off the table after 2007, which is somewhat frustrating for handling reception of the newer series. Thanks, —TKD [talk][c] 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring 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) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your participation. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Interstate Bridge MWMM.JPG

I am now grinning like a Cheshire cat.

Dave, I presume from your remarks at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 41 in Michigan/archive2 that you are 68.50.242.207 (correct me if I am wrong). I am surprised that you are submitting and verifying an OTRS for an image Imzadi1979 has uploaded. Are you part of the OTRS team? Jappalang (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Kyle-sotto): "You bastard!" I keep running to Stifle to check OTRSes, fearing that one day he might cry "Aaaarggghhh, stop it!" when I could come and harass you??!! Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really keen to have additional bits attached to me plain ole editor status, but at least now I know who else to look for... Jappalang (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Location change (and reservations made) for DC meetup

We originally considered TGI Friday's in Foggy Bottom as the meetup location, however I stopped by TGI Friday's this evening to make reservations. I was less than impressed. They apparently don't take reservations, except perhaps if you call 24 hours ahead of time. The staff was not so helpful, and the menu has hardly anything vegetarian which is an issue for some people.

So, I checked out the Bertucci's pizza/Italian place across the street (21st & I St NW). Their staff couldn't have been more helpful, think it will be fairly quiet so we will be able to hear each other, and is a very suitable place for us. So, reservations are made for Bertucci's at 5pm on Saturday. I hope you can make it to the meetup. --Aude (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Audited content"

Being as I've seen you use this on multiple RfAs very recently, I'd just like a little more clarification about what exactly "audited content contributions" means, whenever you get a chance. Thanks. GlassCobra 04:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Presumably GAs, FAs and DYKs..i.e. anything which can be reviewed or "audited" by someone else. I had seen "recognized" used elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought too, but I was made unsure by seeing the "audited content" vote pop up here, where the candidate has 6 DYKs. Just checking for clarification, I suppose. GlassCobra 13:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"List of Star Trek: TOS Episodes" peer review

David, I've set up a peer review for List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, and since you seem to be the resident Trek FA writer, would you mind weighing in if you have the time? I've done a big overhaul on the article, and I plan to put it up for Featured List status soon. Thanks! -- Aatrek / _^TALK 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Aatrek / _^TALK 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS problem

Thanks for your help. I want to be cautious about these, because the ticket doesn't have an assertion from the author of the email that they are the copyright holder - only that images on site X may be used. In these cases, of course, we need to be sure that the owner of site X is also the owner of the copyrights (or has permission to license on their behalf). I'm very suspicious at the moment, especially because there was mention that some of these are owned by the temples. This is why I want links to investigate further. I don't want to just "rubber stamp" OTRS tickets; honestly, I see this happening too frequently.Эlcobbola _talk 18:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was starting down the list, then I saw your comments and decided to hold off. I'll wait and see how it pans out. Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I juz dropped by to leave a message regarding tagging (Iv tagged most of the images as well as 5 I uploaded today the way u guys suggested). Let me confirm, The email says "Permission to use all images and information of Original Swaminarayan Sampraday on Wikipedia". This is from the admin of swaminarayan [dot] info, the main website of the Swaminarayan Sampraday. The Swaminarayan Sampraday has over a thousand temples world wide and several of them have own small websites, giving information local to the particular mandir. Take for eg swaminarayansatsang [dot] com. Website of London (Stanmore) temple. [1], here they say they are under the temple in Bhuj. The Bhuj temple in turn comes under the temple in Ahmedabad(notice the picture of the Ahmedabad Acharya on their website, ([2]), which is the headquarters of the Nar Narayan Dev Gadi and swaminarayan [dot] info is the official website of the Nar Narayan Dev Gadi. Bhuj Dham [dot] com too mentions that it comes under the Bhuj mandir at the bottom of the page. In case I want to use any images/info from the Swaminarayan Sampraday if I have to get an email from each and every temple, it would be juz a burden of work that would never be completed. This is why Iv got permission from the main admin which should suffice. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Solid Snake

I saw you delisted Solid Snake. But what did you rate it now; you kept it a Good Article. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Populous: The Beginning

The external links you keep removing from the Populous: The Beginning article should be kept. Although it is not an official site, the official site is gone, all the community uses that site, the site has more content than the "official" site, various patches and services are provided by the site, and the developers of the game have even contributed to the content. For this game, this is where people go in replacement of an official site, so it would be relevant for Wikipedia to include it as an external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksevio (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What was the problem with my entry on the Stargate SG-1 episode "200"?

I added valuable information about Claudia Black, and also elaborated on a secret file that was mentioned in the episode. Everything I've added is fact, why was it removed please? I understand that I should be expecting a reply to my talk page. I'm afraid I don't yet have a user page on Wikipedia so I would appreciate you copying and pasting the reply and simply sending it this way: refaelba -at- g mail dot com. If the problem was with presentation then please describe it so that I will be able to better myself. Thank you! - Rafael.

UPDATE - I added a resource, the Smoke and Mirrors screenplay, from which a few quotes are taken. I hope that after giving it a look you will understand that I did not post original research but facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.94 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "little / no article building" objection at RfAs

I've seen a few objections from you on such grounds in recent RfAs. I think you need to be more discriminating about how you use it, otherwise you risk becoming another DougsTech ("too many admins"). OTOH if a candidate has done little article work it would usually be fair to ask whether s/he will stay out of content disputes (incl all types of deletion) until after s/he has done significant content work, preferably including a few contentious topics. --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

please...

...refrain from using other editors as examples when you're making points in RfAs. I have removed part of your commentary as per the request of another user. If you have issues with my edit, please take it up with me on my talk page and not on the RfA in question. Thank you, Kingturtle (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

I left you a short little question at Mazca's RfA. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way - I marked that edit as 'minor' by accident :). Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Halo3 ODST-box art.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Halo3 ODST-box art.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cause of the "legislation around the world" section removal

Hey! Could you have a look at it? :) Hołek ҉ 08:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

italic title

Hi. You recently undid my edit to the article Halo Wars which added a template that italicized the article. Could you explain why you undid it, as the italicized article would complement the italicized spelling in the rest of the article for consistency? Thanks! --Spotty ¹¹²²² 09:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As for implementation, I don't known if it will work on other browsers. It seem to work fine for me on IE and Firefox. It is a relatively new concept, and a massive undertaking is currently underway in italicizing article titles that have scientific binomial or genus names. There have been talk about it here and here. As stated in previous discussions regarding the use of italic titles, it is proper to do so for scientific names, but it is also (IMHO) necessary to all other articles that consistently use italics within the article. This includes plays and game titles. True, it will be a massive undertaking to complete, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. I can start going category by category, and a large number of articles can be updated. There is also a bot request, Polbot13, I think, that would automatically italicize article names. There is a point to it though, for consistency throughout the article. Tacky may be, but still technically correct. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Then is there a way to propose such a change to article titles, such as in a central discussion pertaining to forms of media/entertainment like a wikiproject of the sorts? --Spotty ¹¹²²² 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested the change in the titles at their respective wikiprojects. Thanks for your help! --Spotty ¹¹²²² 20:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA question

You stated that audited content contributions reveal a user's temperament. In my case, couldn't you learn about my temperament from my prior RfAs? It seems like a reasonable alternative. Please respond here. Sincerely, Enigma^msg 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I did read through the old RfA's, and the concerns brought up there did not allay my concerns either way. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there were concerns raised in the opposes. What I'm saying is that my temperament when under pressure was on full display. Enigma^msg 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to bug you with this

But I'm planning on copying a significant chunk of The Final Fantasy Legend's text regarding gameplay into Final Fantasy Legend II, and I could use an eye to go over the first game to make sure the prose is okay. I still need to update the manual refs and I'm probably not going to go for FA, but I'd rather avoid copying over content just to fix it in two spots or leave a headache for someone else to fix.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Halo media

I think this change brings your retention periods for the Halo media topic up to date. Hope that all looks right! rst20xx (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter feature

Hey, I feel like an idiot. I'd forgotten that you already wrote a feature for the newsletter a while ago. I didn't check the newsletter draft before asking for features. Do you have any issue with using SharkD's for the upcoming newsletter and saving yours for the next one? Really sorry about the mix up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the understanding and sorry again for the mix up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

The number of the beast

I just thought it was funny that your edit here added 666 characters to a discussion of Theology. --Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can get to Halo soon. I think I checked it previously when you asked and someone had just gone through it? --Laser brain (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy David Fuchs/Archive 27's Day!

User:David Fuchs/Archive 27 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as David Fuchs/Archive 27's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear David Fuchs/Archive 27! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Stargate literature GAN

Why didn't you give me time to fix the problems?

The books does not have any reception info, all of the books are un-notable on their own, thats why its an article named Stargate literature --TIAYN (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed all the problems now, i think... --TIAYN (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Halo: Uprising

I noticed that your page was listed at GAN under lit for over a month now. I am willing to review it. However, I have incredibly high standards and am very demanding. I wouldn't want to put someone through my scrutiny unless they are welcoming of it (or, are boasting about how great they are and need to be checked :) ). Just drop me a notice and I will go through it. I am use to FAC, but I will try to dull down my standards a bit. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Halo: Uprising/GA1. Just remember, you asked. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you find yourself stuck on any of it, just drop me a note and I can provide suggestions. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Should I put the article on hold (with that silly thing that notifies that it is being improved for GA)? Or I can just withdraw my review if you feel it is too overwhelming. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. :) I'll just leave the GAN notice as is and you can take your time. I just didn't want to keep you from getting another reviewer if you needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking from your edits, you did more than enough to improve the article to GA status. I am sure that the article can always be improved, but it is definitely "good" at this time. Good luck, and you can have the honor of bumping the status up to GA on the various wikiproject items if no one beats you to it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming Nicholas Meyer memoir

Just a heads up for your FAs. [3] Alientraveller (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Hello David, Congratulations on your WikiProject Films Award! Keep up the good work! Cheers! --irshgrl500 (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

From Jarry1250

Hey David. Just to let you know that, given your worries about my inexperience here, you are more than welcome to check over my first few administrator actions. Indeed, I would thank you for doing it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bluntness is a virtue in this world, I find. See you around. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering

Was that comment aimed at me? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I should have added more smileys to the end (I was trying to say it in a frustrated-but-amicable-and-I-was-going-to-support-anyway tone). Please accept my apologies if you were offended, and feel free to redact it or change to a support and cite this diff as my permission to. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DotA

Are you going to keep reverting the anon? —LOL ^T/_C 01:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning The Reversion of my edit

I was wondering what you felt was inappropriate about my 2/19/09 edit about Halo 2 Vista that caused you to make this reversion? I just noticed it when I went back to the article. I am still fairly new to the editing side of Wikipedia, dealing mostly with minor edits. Was it because it seemed too much like an add for the game? The Original Juggernautical (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, alright. The reference in the following line confirmed my edit, but that's fine. I got another one, and redid my edit. Thank you for your help. The Original Juggernautical (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template:Halo Story Order

There's one for the Metal Gear series and the Metroid series. I realized that the Halo games are now jumping around in chronology (such as Halo 3: ODST set before Halo 3). I thought that it might be helpful for those who might be more interested in the story of the games. On top of that, it's not too large a template and fits well into the story/setting subsections of the articles. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)