User talk:Drewcifer3000/Archive 5
 | This page 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. |
Congratulations. Gwen Stefani discography was among the leading votegetters at WP:LOTD and will be recognized as list of the day twice. If you have any date preferences get back to me by the 26th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Melissa Auf der Maur picture
Hey, when did you take that picture of Melissa? It says that you were the original author Speedboy Salesman (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nah it doesn't matter that much, I just wanted to congratulate that person on taking an amazing photo, of a very gorgeous woman ;) Speedboy Salesman (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge
Hi. :) Just wanted to point out that when we merge an article, we place it into Category:Redirects from merges by adding the template {{R from merge}}. I'm working on adding it to this little run of NIN songs, so you don't worry about that; this is just in case you run into this situation again. That keeps the articles from being deleted, which is necessary for GFDL compliance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I've run into a lot of these merges, so I've gotten used to them. :D There's about a billion different things to remember, it seems, when editing Wikipedia. Just about the time I get one process down, I run into a whole new one I get to figure out. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Carrie Underwood discography
I'd closed the FLC nomination because obviously, there was still dispute over the way the article should be presented. I'd noticed you suggested we should vote on the format, which I must admit was a good idea. So I was wondering if you would perhaps voice your opinion at the talk page here. Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk) 09:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nine Inch Nails Project
If you meant the stray marks at the bottom, I removed them. And the new template should be updated about twice a week to reflect the current status of the articles. If you meant some other variation on the preexisting page, I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. John Carter (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not sure what you mean. In the prior version as I see it, the assessment box was aligned to the right with the members box below it and aligned to the left. Now, the assessment box and members list are both aligned to the left. But let me see if I can change the locations of the boxes back. John Carter (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your concerns. Please close items that have been resolved. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
GA Sweeps update
This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
Further to your review of the above, there is a new debate raging on its talk page about one user's attempt to change the name of the "Government actions" section to "Government propaganda". Your views as a GA reviewer would be much appreciated. Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Thanks for your time (do I owe you a GA review now!?). I think all your stuff is done. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words and sorry the FLC was unsuccessful. I had a couple of ideas that may help improve the list - you may want to see about making it a sortable list. I also thought about adding the film grosses to the list itself as a last column. I also think at least one ref per table would help with the citation concerns. I would be glad to look at it again after you have improved it. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Spanishness
Sorry, I have been busy at work and have forgotten about Wikipedia for a while. Did you get that Spanish stuff taken care of, señor? :) --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot translate that for you, because it's Italian. Haha. No wonder your translations are not working. However, since Spanish and Italian are so very similar, derivatives of Latin as they are, I can understand a vague gist of the message. Which is basically, "Sure that's fine, just as long as you give me credit." --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jed Bartlet (talk • contribs)
Spanish
Do you still need that authorisation letter? I haven't been logged in for the last month so I just read that you needed it--Shadebug (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC) No, wait, just read your archives. Sorry I couldn't help this time round, but let me know if you need any help with spanish in the future--Shadebug (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Italian
Sure, no problem ;)
Just paste the things you want me to translate on my talk page and i will do it right away! Zisimos (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I think I can do that sentence translating, as long as they're not hard, even though I have been under training, I have forgotten some of it. But I think I can do it for you. I'll try. --RoryReloaded (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
He actually already gave you the permission.
He literally says: 'Hi, I am happy that you're using my photo on wikipedia. I'd also be happy to give it with a gnu license:the only thing I ask is to be given the credit of the photo.'
So he pratically gave you the green light ;)Zisimos (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
FLCs
Hey Drewcifer, thanks so much for your in depth scrutiny of my currently featured football manager lists. I've responded to your comments and, in most cases, I'm working on their solution if possible. I'd be extremely grateful if you could could agree/disagree/comment further on the points you've raised in each one so that the FLC process can carry on smoothly! I should have just started with one list and acted on the comments across the others before I nominated them but I got too keen for my own good! Cheers again for your time and comments... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again dude. I think I'm done. Can you confirm or deny that for me?! Cheers again... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support and comments so far, I've reworked as many of the citations on the CWC article as I can find... I hope it meets with your approval! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ghosts I-IV
Here's a good source for the album I just stumbled upon: [1]. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Year Zero
You were kind of right about teh comparison between song and album. Anyway, I'm sorry it was closed too. I don't think enough editors responded/returned to reconsider their votes, and I'm not sure why. Tinker with the article some more and then if you nominate it again, maybe notify person's associated with the the Album Wikiproject or Trent Reznor to see if they will review it. Best wishes!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:LOTD
Congratulations! No Doubt discography was selected as a List of the Day for April. Let me know if you have a strong preference for a date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Tenacious D discography
Great suggestions. Have I carried everything out. I'm afraid I found aligning the album/EP columns impossible. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I sorted out the tables and tried to deal with your other concerns. I hope I have addressed all of them. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edits. The new cites are fine. I did not replace the dates with years, but I hope you are okay with this. I realize this jars against elsewhere in the article, but I felt the ability to order by date was important. Also the dates in particular have more significance as these are live performances, not really releases. Would you be willing to support? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Huge icons on your user page
FYI the icons on your user page are huge. I think Template:click changed syntax recently or something, because it doesn't accept px anymore in heights/widths. Gary King (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- WOW! That's crazy, thanks for the heads up. I'll try and fix that. Drewcifer (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In need a GA review
Hi. I worked with you in the GA nomination of the Batwoman article and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing Janet Jackson since the nomination page is back logged. If you decide to, I thank you in advance. If not, don't worry about it. Have a great day! Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Thought you might be interested in this indopug (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments. Please comment. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Bloc Party discog FLC review
Hiya. I don't know ow to say this, really, bu I think the discog you were looking at wasn't Bloc Party's. Nothing you metioned appears in that page. I think you might have looked at Crowded House discography by accident. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
A request for some input
First, thanks for the comments and help towards improving List of songs in Guitar Hero as an FLC. Those helped a lot. Now, I'm prepping the GH2 song list at List of songs in Guitar Hero II for the same, and so I've already created tables for everything, but there's one aspect I'm looking for an opinion on, specifically dealing with masters vs covers. In the first game, this wasn't a problem: all songs of one section were covers, all others were masters, but that's mixed in GH2. In the past, non-table version, the trick has been to bold the song and artist in the list to indicate the master recording, but in a table, one can use {{y}} and {{n}} checks and x's to indicate this, and gain sorting on masters. One editor has expressed that this approach is not as clear, and the sorting on master-vs-cover is not as much benefit. So, not so much as reviewing for an FLC but just as a second opinion, if you could check the GH2 song list and let me know which way you think is better (compare to, say List of songs in Rock Band which uses bolding), that would be very helpful. --MASEM 23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Hey thanks for the review. I'd like to point out some pretty major things that are wrong with it though. Style/influence/controversy sections are not required for GA (belive me, GA bands differ alot from FA bands). Maby check out some other heavy metal GAs to see what I am talking about. The lead is alright because it is a pretty short article. If you really think it should be expanded, I can do that. There are really no need for any other reviews in the history section, I mentioned one band review in The Crusade section. That kinda goes back to what I said about Style sections that are not needed for a GA. The rest I can take care of though. Also, your review of The Crucified had some of the same issues. I don't know if you saw the discussion above the GA review, but there was kind of a consensus that the refs were fine. Please take another look at them and other metal GAs and reconsider. Thank you very much. Cheers, Burningclean [speak] 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. I don't know if you looked at all, but there really aren't any other sources for the Crucified. I kinda thought that if it is written to the best of its ability it would be a GA candidate (any thoughts on that?) I didn't really realize how many do have additional sections. Sorry about that. You are actually the very first reviewer of mine that has mentioned anything about additional sections in a GA. I personally don't like to have style sections in GAs becuase usually they are written very brief and leaves you with not much info at all. That is my reason for beliving it should be in FAs, where they are very informative and cool. Thanks again, Burningclean [speak] 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, thanks for the support. :) Burningclean [speak] 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Brotherhood of Man
Thank you for your comments regarding the Brotherhood of Man article which I have rewritten. Lots of interesting points and I have taken a number of them on board. Certainly I have now expanded the opening paragraph and moved around the refrences within the text. Unfortunately a bit late to check all the sources again to state their origins. I did attempt to move the discography to a new page, but unfortunately, I got a bit carried away with the detail and now the sister page is probably longer than the main page! So I've brought the discography back to where it was, to even out the new page I've done - I think it's okay. Just one point I sort of don't agree with however (not a big one though) is you say the dates and places of birth are unnecessary. Surely in a biographical article, these are usual? or have I got that wrong?
Never mind, I appreciate your speedy review. Thank you very much.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
List of cities in Israel
Thanks for the comments, Drewcifer, I've addressed them now apart from I cant seem to work out how to center the numerical data. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed most of your typo issues
I didn't run Brightorange's script, because I didn't think I'd have to until the FA nom. It does raise a question though; what is the difference between a GA and an FA? I am getting the strong feeling that, even though this article is still B-class, reviewers are treating it as if it were an FA nom. If an article that has 98 scholarly references can be classed in the same category as articles with no references at all, I have to wonder what the purpose of the GA category is. If this issue of alternate theories is a deal breaker and you cannot accept the article as is, then you may as well declare the nomination dead, because such an addition would require far longer than a week to do. It would require locating some very difficult to find sources and expanding the article by at least 50%. I was hoping I could address the issue by focusing on the nebular hypothesis, but it seems this is a real stickler. Serendipodous 13:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry if that came out a bit harsh; I've been rather frustrated over the last few days. I think I need a wikibreak, Serendipodous 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with mentioning earlier hypotheses, such as religious beliefs, is that to apply the term "Solar system" to those periods is anachronistic in the extreme. The Bible makes no mention of other planets in its creation myth, and tells the story of creation from a geocentric point of view. You can't speak of a "solar system" until the heliocentric view became predominant, which didn't happen until the late 17th century. The term "solar system" isn't recorded until 1704. Even then, we aren't strictly talking about a "solar system"; what we now call the Solar System was still considered the entire universe. The idea of a "solar system" didn't really stick until the 19th century, when Father Angelo Secchi discovered that the Sun was a star. Such early ideas belong in an article about the creation of the universe or the creation of the world, but the Solar System, being a purely modern concept, should be discussed in purely modern terms. Serendipodous 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)