Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:35, 8 May 2006

User talk:Zzzzz/Archive1 - 5 march 2006 User talk:Zzzzz/Archive2 - 3 april 2006

Good article

You removed the 'good article' tab from the article photosynthetic reaction centre. Is there any way of getting it back on?--Miller 16:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the Wikipolicy in this case? Is there anyway of getting thelabel back?--Miller 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

rapping featured article nomination

I added more to the subject matter section, but hold to my view that the content wouldn't make sense as prose. What more could I add to it? Thanks,--Urthogie 12:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing those redirects to Conspiracy fiction. Tom Harrison 14:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good article delistings

I see you've been doing some work on the good article list, which is always appreciated. I like the fact that articles do get kicked off it - I think it is a good quality check. This is just a request really, but could you remember to sign on the talk pages when you delist an article? Also, the explanation for delisting should really go in a new subsection at the bottom of the talk page, even though the {{DelistedGA}} template is at the top. Well done for spotting the back-to-front filmographies - is this a problem most articles on actors have? TheGrappler 12:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine a lot of people blindly copying IMDB. One of the things that is great about the "good article" system is that a lot of these have already been corrected in an effort to keep GA status! There's probably less of an incentive on featured articles. Well done for your work on Hong Kong action cinema: looks like a dead cert at FA. TheGrappler 12:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Filmographies

Could you direct me to the Misplaced Pages style page that says filmographies should be arranged from the earliest film to the latest, and not the other way around? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 17:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

FAC on Ward Churchill

You make a number of good points on the article in your FAC comments. I'll work on improving many of those. I confess that I sort of don't expect it to pass this nomination, but the one other article I worked extensively on through a FAC nomination got many good comments, and was recently promoted on second nomination. So I believe the process will help in either case.

On thing you mentioned is about peer review. I'm afraid I'm not as aware of some administravia as I should be. How do I get the article under peer review, exactly? Is it an "automatic" thing if I put a request/nomination somewhere, or is it just sort of "if someone is interested". If this is a thing I can make happen, and you think such is best, I might withdraw the FAC while it's under peer review... I just don't really understand the procedures and advantages well enough right now. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Perfect Dark

I expanded the section that you felt was holding the article back. Feel free to check it out. Soo 10:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Due to the rather clumsy Misplaced Pages comment scheme, I've totally lost track of your outstanding objections to the article. Can you look through and pick out what you think is still holding the article back? Soo 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: FAC

Thanks so much for your effort. I've made some minor edits to the article. :-) — Instantnood 15:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. :-D — Instantnood 14:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The KLF

Many thanks for your analysis of the current state of The KLF, which is really useful. The mythology section is certainly on the cards for an extensive rewrite, including motivations, the Illuminatus! comparison in some detail, etc. As per your other comments, you spotted a nice few things that hadn't occurred to me. Many thanks again for casting a fresh eye.  :-) --Vinoir 15:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, thanks very much. We've already put some of your suggestions into action. Much appreciated. --kingboyk 21:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrae (film)

Thanks for your suggestions re: improving the Tenebrae article. In case you didn't read my comments posted on the peer review page, I'm pleased that you seem to think so highly of the article as is. I've already made a few changes, including expanding the lead paragraph, slight expansion of the "Response" section, minor rewrite/cleanup of plot summary (including the "metal sculpture" sentence that you and Soo found so clumsy), and the addition of numerous citations. I did all this before I noted your comments on the talk page of the article. What do you think of the changes so far?

I have a question for you: What do you mean by "fairuse images need fairuse rationale"? I was under the impression that movie posters and screen captures were fine as long as the image edit summary fully indicated what the images were? I did do that; is something additional needed?

• You are absolutely right that Tenebrae seemed to directly influence a Brian De Palma film, mainly Raising Cain, which copied the "hidden behind the head" shock from Argento's finale. I don't believe De Palma ever acknowledged the steal, but regardless it should be at least mentioned. This could be briefly discussed in the "Legacy" section you proposed.

• Not sure if Tenebrae was ever classified as a Video Nasty in the UK but that should be very easy to find out.

• I love the film's musical score and agree that it should be remarked upon in the article, with one or two reviews quoted.

• Themes: I will reread McDonagh's superb chapter on the film as well as Tim Lucas' two separate reviews and see what either writer reveals/discusses re: aberrant sexuality, etc. I like Alan Jones as an interviewer/journalist but I don't think he ever really digs particularly deeply into the movies he reviews, so I don't believe he will be very useful in this regard.

Any other issues/ideas please discuss and feel free to add/edit the article itself as you see fit.Hal Raglan 21:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your suggestions. As you probably know, my article is now a Featured Article. Thanks again.Hal Raglan 20:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles

I don't know if perhaps you don't like userboxes, but there are ones for having written featured articles: Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Wikipedia#Other. Not sure about for translating, but it seems like there could be. Шизомби 17:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

CSD:A7

Thank you for your support and encouragement in the {{db-web}} TFD debate, when you wrote: "Keep per GeorgeStepanek." There was some resistence to creating a template that didn't exactly match the policy description, but I have discovered that the policy description does not fully reflect the policy proposals that have been approved. I have begun a discussion here. GeorgeStepanek\ 09:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Articles Colab

Can I ask why you seem intent on removing referals to or highlighting of WP:GACo where ever you see them? --Barberio 10:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by 'non-policy project'. As far as I can tell, there is no such animal as a 'policy project'. Can you also clarify what is inapropriate about advertisement of the project? --Barberio 11:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Barberio 11:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even worried about 3RR—learn from my mistake—but about generally being annoyinga nd going against consensus even when asked to stop (being a dick). It's a good idea not to use popups here, because these are controversial and you don't get to have an edit summary explaining yourself. Also, explaining your reasoning on the talk page does not give you the right to revert back. Wait for a response (the admin who blocked me said that there was nothing urgent, but apparently to you, there was). It's a good idea to follow WP:DDGLO even if it isn't official yet.

Continue to do the above—break 3RR or be generally uncooperative—and you could very well find yourself blocked for a short amount of time (15, 30,60 minutes, but that could easily get longer if you don't stop).--HereToHelp 12:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for editing, requesting a peer review for, and nominating for FA status the Halloween (film) article I rewrote. (I consider this highly ironic since you flunked the Padmé Amidala article I rewrote when it was a GA nominee. But, alas, I must confess that you were correct in doing so.) Anyway, thanks again. Dmoon1

Halloween (film) was promoted to featured article status today. Thanks again. Dmoon1 19:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for the high quality feedback on Final Fantasy X's FAC. I was wondering if you could take a look at everything and see if we've addressed your concerns. For a list of what specifically was done, just check the FAC. Thanks again. Ryu Kaze 01:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to look things over. At first I didn't understand why some of the things you didn't strike out were still up, but after looking things over some, I did still see room for improvement as well and have tried adding more information on each subject. Check it out if you can, please. I'd appreciate it, and thanks again for your help so far. It's really improved the article, I think. Ryu Kaze 13:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. We've since made more changes:

• I really think that the article now emphasises the difference between CTB and ATB.
• Some information on programming has been added to the Development section: "Final Fantasy X also features innovations in the rendering of facial expressions on characters, achieved through motion capture and skeletal animation technology. This technology also allowed animators to create realistic lip movements, which were then programmed to match the speech of the game's voice actors."
• There's been various other changes to the Development section.
• I don't have any info on how the competition reacted to FFX, sadly, but its legacy did lead to the innovations made in voice-overs and motion capture -- as well as the change from disproportioned overworld maps to proportional field maps -- becoming standards of the series. Also, there was another reference added concerning the sequel following because of the original's popularity.
• I noticed that you seemed pretty satisfied with the Critical Response section, but I thought I should let you know that I've ordered the issue of EDGE that featured their review of FFX (issue 107) and I should have it within the next week. Once I have it, I can add more information to the Critical Response section.

Please let us know if all this has been enough to crack a hole in the Objection, and be aware that we're willing to do more if it's necessary. Thanks for all your analysis. Have a good one. Ryu Kaze 16:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Halloween II

Thanks for the suggestions and helpful objections about Halloween II (film). I've tried to respond to almost all of them and was wondering if you can give it a look and cross out the objections that have been satisfied. Thanks again. Dmoon1 18:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see if these changes address your remaining objections:

• Further clarified statement about original setting of Halloween II (I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for with this).
• Took out even more Halloween IIs; most of them are now in quotes.
• Merged a couple of the 1-2 sentence paragraphs.
• Incorporated a comment made by Rosenthal about Carpenter's changes to the film. Dmoon1 13:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Addressed the last of your concerns:

• Deleted "also."
• Expanded "Mr. Sandman" paragraph with comments from reviewers.

How does it look now? Dmoon1 02:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror

I've noticed your edits to horror-related articles. Dmoon1 and I are thinking of starting a Horror WikiProject. Would you be interested in helping with something like this? Please see User:Myleslong/WikiProject Horror for a temporary project page. Thanks for your time. --Myles Long 19:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Please don't use unexplained reverts (such as this one) for good faith edits. Thanks, TheJabberwʘck 01:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be more careful what you are reverting is really vandalism. Titoxd 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, please explain your reverts of good faith edits. If you want you can use the popupRevertSummaryPrompt=true option in your monobook.js to prompt you for an explanation. TheJabberwʘck 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference interviews was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Playboy Staff. "Final Fantasy X (ps2: 2001): Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 26 April. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |work= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)