Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaroncrick (talk | contribs) at 11:02, 9 June 2009 (→York Park GA: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

October, 2006 to May, 2008 3 June, 2008 to 28 June 2008 28 June 2008 to 31 July 2008 1 Aug 2008 to 17 Oct 2008  ??  ??  ??  ??  ??  ??

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Invite

Hi there Philcha!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

DYK for Turbellaria

On 31 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Turbellaria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

North Sea

SriMesh has smiled at you! Thank you for taking the time to review the North Sea, your comments have both helped the article to come along, and have increased my understanding of how to edit an already started article. Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I think steve walling = vantucky after a name change

see comments at the forum you posted... Ling.Nut 10:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Do you think that an article on a literary work, just like a film, comic book, video game, etc. should have a "Critical reception" or "Critical analysis" or similar section to pass GA? If you have an opinion, and I would like your honest one for my own betterment, would you weigh in on Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Stability on the Origin

Sorry about the number of edits, essentially it was a rewrite of the lead which had not yet been commented on, and seemed to have been superseded by the revisions to the content sections it summarises, and a large number of very small grammar or spelling fixes, mostly keeping the past tense consistent in the content section. Apologies, that's me done now and will leave it alone unless requested to make edits. My aim now is to take the lessons learnt to other articles! . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Yes, it could do with more hands, and if you would like to help raise standards that would be great. I estimate that FAR has a lag of about 18-24 months on the average FAC in terms of difficulty. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Moo2BuildMenu400.png

Thanks for uploading File:Moo2BuildMenu400.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "A deletionist proposal"

moved from user talk ikip:

Your "American Idol" post at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#A_deletionist_proposal was bad tactics:

• American Idol is an entertainment, not a news or documentary or educational program, so it's not a reliable source. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has posted that point at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#A_deletionist_proposal before I've finished this message.
• The way to make extreme deletionism look bad is to present moderate counter-arguments in a moderate way, not be as extreme on the other side.
• You've deflected attention from Pixelface's thorough demolition of the proposal. --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

removed before anyone commented, thanks for the heads up. Ikip (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GAN review

I want to apologise for seeming so adversarial earlier today. It hasn't been a good day for me, I've been tied up in research for coursework most of it. I know you're acting in good faith, and so I apologise if my attitude seemed inappropriate earlier. Hopefully we can reach some form of constructive conclusion with this review. -- Sabre (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm halting this review. Apology above still stands, but I have severe grievances with your understanding of the good article criteria, and your overzealous application of WP:V. We aren't going to see eye-to-eye, so its just going to be a waste of time us continuing. I'm marking the article as having failed. -- Sabre (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll vote for 3: "Old FAs should be held to the same standard as new FAs; old GAs should be held to the same standard as new GAs. That is, some FAs and GAs should be delisted, if they do not meet the current standard." In theory that's what's supposed to happen now, but we have plenty of comments above that FAR does not apply current FA standards. --Philcha (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well kindly help out at FAR, or in the case of FAs in your sphere of interest, help to renovate them. It only takes 2 minutes to nom an ancient FAR if you are offended by it sharing the same status as a new FAC pass. I can think of a few FARs that are being partially improved and will probably scrape through by dragging its heels even though it would not pass at FAC or would be held up there until done properly. I could jump and and down about it on teh explicit articles, but then I wouldn't be able to close it and Joelr31 closes things more leniently than I do so it might be pointless if I cited all this stuff myself anyway. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

speaking of the FARC theme, there are a few that need attention. Since people are complaining about accountability.....

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Mumbai/archive1
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Prostitution in China/archive1
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/William Monahan
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Opera (web browser)

YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How users read on the web

In reference to the link on your user page, it appears that I am twelve years too late. Just as with music, why is it that all the good ideas have been done before? At least it's nice to find that there's some good old-school support/evidence for my "hypothesis". Back to the drawing board again... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 04:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Jstor and others

Thanks for the offer. Excepting this article, if you could find anything on Chat Moss or Carrington Moss, that would be excellent. Jstor has entries on each, and other Google Scholar results lead to similar inaccessible sites with interesting material. I'm particularly after anything discussing the plant or animal life on those sites. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Have emailed you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

, , , - would be great Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Received, thanks. Will update the articles accordingly. Many thanks for the help! Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:GA review of Paddy Bradley

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review the article. In relation to your query on the talk page as to when I'm most active...I do most of my editing in the evening (Irish time). Derry Boi (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Think I can do all I can for the time being. I've left a few questions on the review page. Thanks. Derry Boi (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Γειά!

Σε ευχαριστώ! I don't speack Greek really, but, I studied Koine Greek. Thanks for signing though. And a favor, can you review Trombiculidae?

Kareena Kapoor

Hi. This article has been GA for sometime. As you are one of the best reviewers on here would you be so kind as to read the article and offer some advice on how it can be upgraded to FA. Its not easy writing about an Indian actress especially from Bollywood and it is difficult to avoid it sounding like a blog in parts. It uses the most reliable sources on the subject anyway. My concern is that some people may find the article a little uninspiring. Let me know what you think at Talk:Kareena Kapoor. Best.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, very much appreciate it otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I was one of the editors along with User:Shshshsh and User:Dwaiypanc who actually promoted the Preity Zinta you have referred to to FA and we are well aware of the difficulties in doing so.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Note though that the India vs US sources debate came up over the Preity Zinta article. IN the end it was shown that the most reliable sources on the subject were those in the mainstream Indian media given that the coverage of Indian cinema in the UNited States/west is rather pale in comparison. It is about an Indian actress so the sources as in the Zinta article were finally approved of after a lengthy discussion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was incredibly tough and people pick up on a great deal which is mostly why I don't go for more FAs than I have done as it can be very stressful. I have about 7 FAs so far but my last was actually the Zinta article because it was so stressful. Having worked a lot on the Zinta article we are aware of what is required but it will take a lot of hard work sorting it all. If the main editor of the Kareena article was here I'm sure we could work togethe ron it. As it stands I'll do my best to gradually improve it and fix those dead links etc. The Encyclopedic Britannica India is indeed the source so that should be OK.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A word or two on the sources. The Encycklopedia Britannica published book can be seen here. Sources from the Indian media are used precisely because we cam to a consensus with other FA reviwers and in general that for Bollywood a great of other web content is found in fan blogs and commercial sites which may jeopardize reliability and integrity of the sources. This is why we rely on the Indian media and the two or three mainstream Indian websites which are considered professional. Having a source or two from New York Times for instance on how her films and performances were rated overseas is always good but given that it is about an Indian actress national sources are considered the best. For instance an article about the Indian community in New York we would generaly always use American sources and probably wouldn't even consider using any Indian based references such is the bias. Remember also that many wikipedians on here are Indian too of course although us English and Americans make up the majority.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem of course it that many websites which appear to mainstream plagiarise material from wikipedia see this for example.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sam & Max Save the World

Sorry, I did not mean to step on your toes or anything, but I just completed the GA review for that article. I didn't see anyone doing it over at WP:GAN, so I put my name down there and got to work on it myself. If you have anything to add to it, feel free to do so. Again, sorry, MuZemike 19:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Helpful evidence

Hi Philcha. Thanks for contributing to the RfArb: evidence of Mattisse responding well to disagreement is particularly helpful in order to place the cases where she hasn't in context. However, I think the arbitrators would probably appreciate it if you provide some more diffs in your evidence so that they can quickly verify your comments. Geometry guy 19:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. I don't have "GeometryGuy's saintlike patience" either, lol. Some editors just haven't encountered me when I'm really annoyed... :-)

BISVietnam

Thanks for your comments. I suppose that my original quick fail was a bit brusque, but to me the fact that the article was written like an advertisement and was a substantial copyright violation seemed to automatically disqualify it from GAN, since it is at least arguable that it should be listed at AfD. If it had just been the referencing, which is not grounds for a quick fail, I would have been more constructive. I have to say that had I realised it was written by a 15 year-old, I might (just might) have been more gentle. I'll step away from this article now. jimfbleak (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you read the comment above yours, and my response, I can be constructive even on severely defective articles! jimfbleak (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just seen your GAR review comments, they are very good, thanks again jimfbleak (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

MuZemike 08:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bart Sells His Soul

I'm not the nominator, but I have given the plot section of the article a complete overhaul. I did not regularily refer to your list of concerns, so some of them may still be in place. -- Scorpion 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, no rush, but when you have time, could you please revisit your review of the article? Thanks, Scorpion 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer - is it OK?

I hope you don't mind that I volunteered your name in my current arbitration as a member of group of editors whose judgment I trust, since you already fulfill the role of adviser to me. User:John Carter and User:Malleus Fatuorum have agreed to help me with this issue. I aso named User:Geometry guy, who already fulfills the role as you do. My idea of having a "panel" or group of editors to advise me on judgment calls is to avoid the burden from falling on any one editor. I would like to be able to ask your advice in situations in which I am unsure, or fear that I am getting in over my head. Please let me know if this is not OK with you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I did warn Mattisse that I may not be the best possible choice she could have made, but she bravely decided to go ahead with it nonetheless. :-)

To be serious, although I've had some difficulties with Mattisse in the past, her contributions far outweigh any of that for me. I'll support anyone with Mattisse's content-building skills no matter whether I can get along with them or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge 3RR into Edit War?

Hi, you were previously involved in a discussion about merging 3RR into WP:EW; please comment at WT:3RR#Merge 3RR into Edit War?. cheers, Rd232 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

clades & Orthozanclus

Hello Philcha,

Inadvertantly, I made the same change twice to the Orthozanclus article, and in turn you reverted it twice. I didn't intend to start an edit war. I'm still not clear why the change was reverted, though. When you have time, could you have a look at my comment Talk:Orthrozanclus?

Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User page

I am thinking of drawing up a "Retirement Statement". I cannot image my joy in editing articles returning, now that it seems that I am not entitled to have opions also. When I started editing articles, I did not register opinions, once I learned that AFD was a receipe for getting on sockputppet lists. However I notice the longer people are here, the more they spend chatting on talk pages rather than editing aritlces. I find I am starting to fall in that category, and for that I will dspise myself. I fell my era of productive editing has ended here at Misplaced Pages and would like to draft a retirement statement that conveys my thoughts without being self serving. I find what User talk:TravisTX wrote in his retirement statment rather close to what I feel. I also resent the "two tier" systme wher editors like Giano and George are protected by arbs and admins. That is intolerable to a person at the bottom end, like me. What do you think of a "Retirement page"? This would not be deployed instantly but only when circumstances become clearly impossible. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, User:FlyingToaster's retirement page was rather sad. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

FotBS

The fossils page is an easier goal, and I think is appropriate if we are still aiming for front page coverage. If we FA that then it should be relatively easy to bring BS up to speed. The stratigraphy page may take some involved editing from me!

I will hopefully have some free time to dabble tomorrow morning (I have the internet at home again!) so I'll conjure up a battle plan then. We could probably go straight to peer review then FA review to avoid the bureaucracy of GA. I have to warn you that there may be some significant reworking in the pipeline... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor articles

Problem is, I realised that nominating an article for "Poor article" status and reaching consensus as it its cruftiness would actually be far more complicated than simply fixing the issues in the first place. "Poor article" status would only really be useful in situations where cruft removal and misleading material were constantly being reinstated by zealous users, and there are already other mechanisms in place to deal with them. Serendious 09:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be a useful alternative to deletion or merging. If an article is too notable to delete but not good enough to preserve, slapping a "BA" or "PA" shield might be a good idea. But it would have to go through the deletion process (the BA equivalent of a GA review) before consensus is reached. Serendious 09:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a clearer post over at the deletion review page. I think we may disagree on one thing. There is a difference between articles that are simply poor and articles that are genuinely bad, ie they are personal promotional essays masquerading as encyclopedic articles. BA status, for me, would apply only to those articles. Serendious 09:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on GAR and PR

Hi Philcha - you should provide links to discussions you refer to at RfArb. I looked in the archives and could only find brief discussions of PR and GA at WT:GAN. Am I missing something? Geometry guy 13:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

York Park GA

Thanks, don't worry I doubt there will be any conflicts. All the best, Aaroncrick 05:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you been to Tassie? Aaroncrick 09:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite a bit, but I was wondering If you had come across any of those "Tassie Jokes" Aaroncrick 09:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha yeah, spot on! We even have two heads!! Aaroncrick 09:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a real problem with referencing in the History section because a detailed article on Aurora Stadium had to be removed as an unreliable source, therefore that's the reason why some sentences aren't referenced properly and I'm struggling to find any others, so it's looking like some sentences have to be removed. Aaroncrick 04:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Here is the article

Thanks for your patience. I again went to the library yesterday and found virtually nothing on York Park's history in Launceston/Tasmanian books. I was surprised by the amount of Tasmanian books out at the moment and also after waiting nearly 30 mins the council said they were busy. Shame really, maybe in a few years a book on Aurora Stadium may come out or it's history could become more prominent in Launceston books. Thanks again for your suggestions. Aaroncrick 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good morning, well reading it again it sounds that way but that's not exactly what I was meaning, sorry for the confusion. Later tonight I'll go through all the refs and see what I can find. Aaroncrick 06:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Were you going to fail it? Aaroncrick 07:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I'm currently trying to find a ref for "becoming the Launceston Showgrounds in 1873" It's currently the site of the show but can't find reference for that year. Aaroncrick 10:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be done by then. Think I've made a breakthrough! Cheers Aaroncrick 10:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should become mayor and get someone to write a book on the place, then source the article and expand it! ;) Aaroncrick 10:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Silly rules, who wrote them! Could just remain anonymous, or even just throw that idea out the window ;) I think the referencing issues are now fixed. Aaroncrick 11:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is a school computer

Sorry about that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.82.181 (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't catch the reference

Hi. I'm not sure what you were getting at w/ the "political opponents"/"enemies" bit. That's clearly a reference to something, but Google isn't clearly directing me to it. More to the point, I don't know whether that's a criticism, or... what. -GTBacchus 17:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

He's certainly welcome to any reservations he may have about me. I have suggested that his bout of gloating (considering its effects: blocks, drama, etc.) was somehow counterproductive. If that suggestion gives him reservations... I'm comfortable with that. I'm also pretty comfortable that most readers are not drawing the same meanings from my words that Malleus was. -GTBacchus 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Moo2ColonyList400.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Moo2ColonyList400.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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) 05:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OTOH

IMHO, it is better to ignore (and thus marginalize) disparaging comments than highlight them. Accentuate the positive, right? :-) Geometry guy 12:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In disputes I agree about marginalisation of disparaging comments (unless I consider it appropriate to nuke, sterilise, vaporise, and annihilate). In the case of the category "FAC fails that fall short of GA", my concern is a practical one - FA reviewers who do not know WP:WIAGA and disparage GAs are quite likely to waste our time with articles which fail FAC but are decent GAs. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but articles can just as easily be removed from the category as they can be added: see the text here. Geometry guy 13:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm always uncomfortable with this distinction between GA and FA reviewers. I not infrequently stick my oar in at both places, for instance. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

brakes

• Things are already starting to look chaotic to me. Step 1 is for Mattisse to publicly reconfirm that she agrees to the mentorship, and to publicly name her selected mentors. A nice set of brakes needs to be applied to all and sundry else. Cheers Ling.Nut (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Brake everything. Names of mentors first. Ling.Nut (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1

Could you take a look at the article again? Most of your concerns have probably been addressed. TheLeftorium 14:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a look at your recent comments, so could you please re-evaluate? -- Scorpion 19:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse & forums

...too many forums! Everything is spread all over Misplaced Pages. Can we all agree to talk in one and only one place? Ling.Nut (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In Mattise's plan page. We should stay off her Talk... Ling.Nut (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at WP:FICT

I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. Hiding T 10:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom and User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom

Hi Philcha, Many thanks for your help in our attempts to come up with a proposal for ArbCon. What you have written so far seems directed at the mentors rather than to me. Could you come up with a list of behaviors that I should or should not engage in? The list on User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom seems mostly directed a preventing specific accusations of bad behavior, some of which I have only been accused of once in my over three years at Misplaced Pages. I need help in recognizing the more frequently occuring situations that cause trouble before they become a bonfire.

1. It seems to me I need to know clearly what a personal attack is and to stop making them.
2. I need to concentrate on the article content rather than the behavior of editors.
3. I need to make only a few comments and then drop out of a thread. Can you think of more?

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Rossen

Hey. Based on your GA review and the nom's response, it doesn't seem like the work is going to be done. This plus Silktork's comments on the page make e think that it's probably best that you fail this article, though I know you're not a fan of doing that. I don't see the fixes happening soon, since the editor's clearly active. Wizardman 16:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Exploration of Jupiter/1

Nergaal (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the great in-depth review. Have you had time to go through the replies I have left to part of your comments? Nergaal (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On the Origin of Species has been nominated for FA

The nomination is at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/On the Origin of Species/archive1. Given all the effort you put into improving the article with your GA review your participation in the FAC process would be much appreciated. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/GA1

Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares is now on hold. Check the review page to see whats wrong.--Next-Genn-Gamer 23:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Civ 3 Tech Tree Era1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Civ 3 Tech Tree Era1.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have posted the following response to User_talk:Stifle:

I have added {{di-replaceable fair use disputed | The only possible replacements which would not constitute ] would be: (a)screen shots from similar games; (b) copies of images from manuals of similar games. The only question left is which game you use. This one is suitable because the colours and contrast are readable at a size that fits the page layout.}}

If you disagree, I expect you to explain why and allow reasonable time for a response. I have posted this on your Talk page because, if the file is deleted, there will be no record of the objection. Since this message appears on your Talk page, from which you are free to delete messages, I will also copy it to my Talk page, from which you are not free to delete messages. --Philcha (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

--Philcha (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted. This is replaceable by a generic tech tree that someone could create for a theoretical game. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My resp:

Re "This is replaceable by a generic tech tree that someone could create for a theoretical game", that would be WP:OR, so its use in an article would be subject to removal, then the image would be an orphan, ... --Philcha (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW you've repeated that comment on the file descr page - should it not be on the file's Talk page? --Philcha (talk)

--Philcha (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "This is replaceable by a generic tech tree that someone could create for a theoretical game", that would be WP:OR, so its use in an article would be subject to removal, then the image would be an orphan, ... --Philcha (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW you've repeated that comment on the file descr page - should it not be on the file's Talk page? --Philcha (talk)

I'm not sure about that. We'll leave it to the closing admin to decide. Since your comment is on the file description page, I have added mine to the same place. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1

Not to sound rude or anything, but I don't think your most recent comments have been of much help. "Thanks for the update, I'll keep watching. However I think you need to make some effort yourself:", we've been trying to address all of your points, and all you said was that there are still problems (without citing any examples) or telling us if our recent edits are on the right track. I know we shouldn't expect you to do everything, but you can't just put it on hold and keep telling us to copyedit it without any new comments. The point of the review is so that you can help us attain GA status, and if there are so many errors that you can't list them all, it should just be failed. It's frustrating when we respond quickly only to have to wait a week to hear back from you and when you do respond, you don't even tell us if our recent efforts did any good. -- Scorpion 23:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken care of most of the issues, but I didn't bother responding point by point because there were so many. The article has practically been rewritten since your initial review, so it would probably be more helpful for you to re-review it. Also, I know GACs can take a very quick amount of time, but how can it possibly go quickly when we address your comments the same day they are posted, leave a prompt on your talk page, then have to wait a week for your response? When you signed up to review the article and didn't fail it, it meant that you felt it was passable and had some specific concerns that needed addressing. However, to be frank, just suggesting we find a copyeditor is taking the lazy way. You are the reviewer, and when it needs that much help, it should just be failed. -- Scorpion

No, I'm not suggesting you fail the article. I'm suggesting you actually take another look at it. What I meant was that if there are so many concerns that it needs this much help (even after 2 re-writes, you maintain that it has a long way to go, although you haven't actually suggested anything), it should have just been failed. -- Scorpion 01:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried copyediting the page again . Could you please re-review it this time, instead of assuming it's not good enough and just suggesting we find a copyeditor? Thank you, Scorpion 15:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you have ignored my request for re-review again. I want to apologize for my above comments. I started off on the wrong foot, and I have taken an unnecessarily mean-spirited tone, and I can easily see why you haven't been responding. You see, I was already frustrated by how long the nomination was dragging on - after all, we have a GTC that just needs this article - and your comment "We can't let this drag on forever - I posted comments on 19 May, 19 days ago" made it sound like you felt we were not working hard enough to address your concerns. In actuality, we always responded within 24 hours (and in every case, we left a prompt on your talk page) and hoped that you would return. And when you finally did, your comments were of now help and my frustration boiled over. Again, I apologize for my comments. I feel that the article has improved quite a bit since your first review, and I would really appreciate it if you could take another look at it so we can finally move on. Thank you, Scorpion 22:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that I had basically re-written the article (without referring to your points very much, although I just looked through and the majority of them have directly/indirectly been addressed) and I didn't want to go through and check every one because I'm sure that many of them no longer apply. That's why I wanted a fresh review done, so that I would know what is left to do. -- Scorpion 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, because I want to get this done, I will go through and respond to every single point (by the way, that's what I normally would do). -- Scorpion 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Could you please re-review it now? Thanks, Scorpion 23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

response Bart Sells His Soul

Please allow me some more time to do some (additional) copyediting myself, on top of what has already been done. Perhaps also other copyeditors will come in from the notices I put up recently. I will post a notice to your talk page to reevaluate, soon. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes thank you for the advice, I saw you mentioned that already, at Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1. Cirt (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks

... for picking up that wrong link on my page. Tony (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! Leaking tent (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bart Sells His Soul - update

Philcha - I regret to tell you this but it appears that before I have had a chance to go through again for some additional copyediting, the article Bart Sells His Soul has been subject to disruptive edit-warring from other users. At this point in time the article is no longer stable and does not meet point 5 of WP:WIAGA, and so I think the best thing to do would be for everyone to take a breather, unfortunately close the GA Review, and reevaluate at a later point in time. Thank you for your help and advice and input. Yours, Cirt (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd really rather just close the GA Review as I've been a bit put off by the edit-warring and instability in the article by other editors. If it's alright with you I can close the GA Review myself as unsuccessful at this point in time. It will also give myself and other interested folks from WP:DOH/TOPIC more time and less stress and decreased pressure to improve the article without being under the gun about it. Cirt (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ;) Cirt (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. We'll see where we are and reassess at that point in time, but yeah I always think it's best for those sorts of things to get a fresh set of eyes. :) Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Whilst I appreciate you have every right to revert my amendments to Misplaced Pages:NOT#PLOT, I would be grateful if you would care to discuss your own views at Misplaced Pages talk:NOT#Protected_Edit.3F when you do, so all the editors contributing to the discussions can get some constructive feedback.

The only way editors can reach consensus on this issue by putting forward a proposal that can be agreed up. Simply labelling the policy as "disputed" without saying what you want is not constructive.

If you are unhappy with the current version, why not propose an amendment to the text to reflect what you yourself would like to see? By doing so, your own views are made explicit, as I am sure you have an important contribution to make, you may find that your proposal will get support.

Whist I would agree with you that the consensus is yet to emerge, my revisions are supported by existing framework of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, so if you are proposing similar or alternative wording, then we would all benefit from you making them known. If you have any reservations or doubts, lets discusss them at Misplaced Pages talk:NOT#Protected_Edit.3F before reverting.

Many thanks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)