User talk:Indubitably/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Half Barn Star
|
The Half Barnstar | |
| For doing such a great job on working on getting Hogettes to DYK status, I hearby award you the other half of this barnstar. I look forward to working with you on future artucles.--Jayron32 |
RfA Thanks
Dear Indubitably,
______ __ __ __
/\__ _\/\ \ /\ \ /\ \
\/_/\ \/\ \ \___ __ ___\ \ \/'\ __ __ ___ __ __\ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ _ `\ /'__`\ /' _ `\ \ , < /\ \/\ \ / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\
\ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\
\/_/ \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/ \/___/ \/_/
/\___/
\/__/
For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.
|
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
FL Main page proposal
You nominated a current WP:FLC. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual main page will resemble either an excerpted list format or an abbreviated text format. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
your name please...
hi may i know your name please. is it rose nicol. if not then simply reply no on my talk page. i just wanna confirm it. thanks, Sushant gupta 09:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Request
It seems you are quite a bit involved in Gwen Stefani articles. Keeping that in mind, i am making this request. Can you please give her fashion line L.A.M.B article a GA review. I would be greatful if my request is heard. Thank you sooooo much! Indianescence 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
RE: Discographies at FLC
Give me some good reasons as to how the Fallout Boy Discography format is superior to the format being used by any featured discography. It's not that I personally don't like it for aesthetic reasons—it's a confusing mess in general. The colors serve no purpose; it's a bulleted list that conveys information without any tact or poise whatsoever. In fact, you say you used Powderfinger discography as a guide but I don't see this discography emulating any of it's positive elements. And Powderfinger discography has many. You seemed to take only it's negative elements for inspiration. You've taken valid and important information and displayed it as though it's an indiscriminate collection of random facts. I strongly recommend that you use some sort of box template and simply the script as much as possible. If you're unsure of how to accomplish this, please enlist one of the many people who aren't. As I said, I'm not being deliberately indignant. If you install some sort of table on the discography you'll likely see me recant my opposition. Best of luck. Grim 18:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now look. You said that FOB discography "lists all necessary information". That's perhaps true, I have no way of knowing that for sure because I know nothing about the band—but let's assume it's true. Is that the only criterion for being a featured list? You could expose the page script and that notion would still be true. Featured lists are supposed to showcase Wikipedia's best work. FOB discography comes nowhere close to that. And you know it. If you took away the colors (which I'll hold off ripping into for now) the discography would basically be as simple as it gets. This is an insanely simpleton list. In view of that fact, the "ADVANCED TABLE SYNTAX" being used is nothing short of a Rube Goldberg monstrosity. The only purpose using advanced syntax serves is to discourage potential editors. And that is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.
It's outrageous that in formatting this list you've forgone basic standards of common sense because you find them "ugly" and "boring"—no, strike that, we all have different opinions of ugliness and boringness-It's outrageous that you've forgone basic standards of common sense and simultaneously expected this article to get featured. I'm sure you'll forgo common sense again by ignoring this statement. And hell, I don't blame you. Who wouldn't ignore an abrasive rant? This is whyI'll be citing Wiki policy that contradicts your article very shortly. All apologies. Grim 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)- Ok well, I'm not going to go digging into the annals of Wiki policy, because this isn't really worth my time. I say that your list's failure of featured list criterion 1(f) is about as drastic a failure as I've ever seen. I know there are other failures and policy violations that are there to be listed, regarding the colors and whatnot, but as I said, I don't care about finding them. As far as I'm concerned, Fall Out Boy discography is just one poorly constructed discography in a sea of millions; but if you really care about improving it, then my advice is remove the colors and install a wikitable. Another word of advice if you ever choose to submit an article/list to featured status again: You need to be much more concerned with accommodating and empathizing with the criticism being offered, rather than trying to attack the validity of the criticism. If it's obvious that taking the advice of a reviewer will improve an article—as my advice (indisputably so) would've improved Fall Out Boy discography—then you should take it. Prioritize improvement over argument. It wasn't merely bad luck that your FLC failed, and hopefully that's clear to you. Best of luck in all you future endeavors—I'm sure our paths will cross again, so hopefully we can put this disagreement behind us. Grim 06:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now look. You said that FOB discography "lists all necessary information". That's perhaps true, I have no way of knowing that for sure because I know nothing about the band—but let's assume it's true. Is that the only criterion for being a featured list? You could expose the page script and that notion would still be true. Featured lists are supposed to showcase Wikipedia's best work. FOB discography comes nowhere close to that. And you know it. If you took away the colors (which I'll hold off ripping into for now) the discography would basically be as simple as it gets. This is an insanely simpleton list. In view of that fact, the "ADVANCED TABLE SYNTAX" being used is nothing short of a Rube Goldberg monstrosity. The only purpose using advanced syntax serves is to discourage potential editors. And that is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.
Infobox Artist Discography: Fields
Copied from Template Talk:Infobox Artist Discography#Fields. Can there be fields added for "Covers/Tributes" and "Soundtracks"? Also, is it possible to make the artist name have the option for an image so logos can be inserted (when not fair use). Image:FOBtourLogo.png, for example, is not copyrighted. Lara❤Love 05:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll get on it. --lincalinca 06:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. I also added a parameter for each line to allow the person to change the location where the diagonal arrow links to (I've taken the liberty of applying both of these functions already over at the Fall Out Boy discography, since you seem to be interested in that one). Let me know if that's how you wanted it. --lincalinca 11:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! That's wonderful! Lara❤Love 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- My pleasure! I actually originally intended to implement something like this anyway, but just wanted to get it live and would later tweak it, but it's a good thing you prompted this because it potentially would never have happened. So now, thanks to your prompting, I have a sense of achievement about the whole thing. Let me know if you think the documentation page is cohesive and flows well enough. I was more focused on making the template work, I have pretty much just thrown a doc page together. I'm glad you like the Infobox, though! --lincalinca 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! That's wonderful! Lara❤Love 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the Elvis article.
Some things I spotted that need clean up in the notes:
- The nested notes (with the bullet list) look OK. I actually recommend this to avoid having 10 footnotes after one sentance. Theu are clear and unambiguous.
- Note 65 (the YouTube video) I question, if only because the video in question uses what may be copyright footage, and we have no assurances that the footage is used by permission. Thus, it is a link to a copyvio, which is a bad idea. Plus, checking the statement it references, this is such a common idea (that his gyrations were controversial) there has GOT to be dozens of better sources than this.
- For the DVD's, it would be helpful to list more information: The publisher of the DVD and the catalog number should allow the EXACT DVD to be referenced, much like a ISBN would a book.
- Note 211 lacks a page number.
- For consistency, I would pull all of the full "book" cites out of the notes section and put them into the references section, leaving behind the author/page# only.
Other than the last thing, which may take some time (its just grunt work) this article is VERY well referenced, and I see no other major problems. This is a very good article. Once the references are cleaned up, I would send it through a MOS check and send it on to FAC. It is really that close to being great. User:Brighterorange has a nifty script he runs that corrects the banal MOS crap like MOSDASH and MOSNUM and MOSDATE that most people miss. Otherwise this seems close to FAC ready. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't add any of these references or citations, I've simply jumped in to format all of them. For that reason, I can't add page numbers where they are missing. I'll check out the YouTube video. If we can't use it, perhaps I can track down what documentary it's from. I'll also get the info for DVDs. And I started pulling all the book references out, I just hadn't had time to finish that task yet. Thanks for the input! Lara❤Love 04:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
FA break?
I see you are on an FA break, which is fine. However, at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Seattle, Washington#Tracking some of the specific issues, I think we've addressed a lot of your issues. It would be useful if you would indicate any of the issues that we think we've addressed (mainly citation) that are still not addressed to your satisfaction. (Still work in progress, so no rush here.) - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's no problem. It's a GA break, not an FA break. I'm heavily invested in GA, not so much FA. Anyway, I looked over the progress table. Progress looks good, but I see there are still some areas that haven't been worked on yet. I'll look back over the article in a couple days. Lara❤Love 03:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Lara, Seattle has been at FARC for quite a while now, and soon it will be time to enter "Keep" or "Remove" declarations. Can you revisit Wikipedia:Featured article review/Seattle, Washington for a progress update of your concerns? Thanks, best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Infobox Artist Discography discussion
I thought you might be interested in this discussion, as you've been part of getting the infobox to where it is now. --lincalinca 10:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I've read it. Looks like you've pretty much got it covered. I'm so annoyed right now that my FLC failed despite the fact that it met all criteria and did not violate any policy that I know of. But whatever. Let me know if you need anything. Why are the singles fields in some uses of the templates twice as high as the other fields? Lara❤Love 17:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
LaraLove, I know that you are busy, but this isn't urgent (you can or cannot do this; it's your choice), but I have improved the article significantly since the failed GA review. I am not entirely done with the article, (I have 13 founders pages to make as well as fill in some gaps concerning the sorority's history). Your input is very important; however, don't rush, because it's kind of low priority at the moment. Just giving you a heads up. Cheers and thanks. Miranda 04:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Copyedit Nancy Reagan
Hi Lara. I don't know if you remember me, but you heped us out wiht the Ronald Reagan FAC, and now Nancy is up for it. One of the reasons someone opposed was because they thought the article needed a "thorough copyedit"; User:Ling.Nut told me you were the best one for the job, so I was wondering if you could take a look. Thanks so much, Happyme22 06:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
LoCE
I like what you've done to the main page. Nice job ;) EyeSereneTALK 08:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Lara, if you don't mind can you please give a GA review for this article after your GA break is over. i would really be grateful to you. (also if you don't mind i have updated a page in your userspace, plus your userpage looks too good in safari (its a browser) too.) thanks, Sushant gupta 09:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: Website you wanted me to check
It looks legit, but get confirmation from independant sources FIRST. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed image
Hey Lara, would you mind explaining to me why you've made this[1] edit? Thanks. ForrestSjap 19:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure,no problem. Betacommand asked me to help him clear a list of non-free images being used against Wikipedia policy. I may have mistakenly cited WP:NFCC#8 as my reasoning, when I meant to be putting WP:NFCC#9 which states that any such fair use is only appropriate in article namespace, but I think in many instances in which I used #8, which states that the image is used only if it "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", fits as well. Lara❤Love 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok but I still wonder; if #9 applies, why does the use of this image not qualify as fair use? And if #8 applies, why should it not apply to any of the other coats of arms? You removed only the Ichkerian coat of arms. ForrestSjap 20:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- 9 basically says that you can't use fair use images in templates. Article namespace only. As for #8 and why I only removed the one, it's the only copyrighted image. The rest are freely licensed and not against policy.
- Ok, fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to explain! I'll see if I can find someone to make one and release it into the public domain. ForrestSjap 09:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok but I still wonder; if #9 applies, why does the use of this image not qualify as fair use? And if #8 applies, why should it not apply to any of the other coats of arms? You removed only the Ichkerian coat of arms. ForrestSjap 20:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
My (KWSN's) RFA
Thank you for commenting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. I'll try to make some changes based on your comments. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: Andhra Pradesh seal
Hi! Your template post [2] regarding Image:Andhraseal.png, where you had cited that the image I had uploaded does not have a fair use rationale. Now I am curious what sort of fair use rationale is it that is necessary? It is clearly mentioned that it is a seal of a state of India. Government seals are by default non-free and I think we all can exercise a little more common sense here. :) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Big Brother Logos on Templates
Hi I just wanted to leave a little note that I fixed the two templates used for the American and British Big Brother pages so the logos won't appear on the two templates (US, UK) but the correct logos will appear on the main page in the necessary spots on the template. I hope this is ok. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)