User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions with User:LuciferMorgan. 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 main page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Kirlston

(To LuciferMorgan) Hi - It seems we had a bit of a spat over in Wikipedia talk:featured article candidates

I have appreciated input from you and did not act in bad faith deriving from your comments regarding my allegation of improper nomination - in fact my relationship with you goes back to when I read your comments regarding something different - I quoted you in fact - please see wikipedia talk:featured article candidates#Greater FA process Transparency. Furthermore I was pleased by your attempt at a Friendly Notice in the form of that topic in WP talk:FAC. I hope we can cooperate constructively in the future.

I understand my comments are hard to understand sometimes. I am often not very clear - I hope you will note my lack of clarity when I am unclear rather than respond aggressively sarcastically or in a similarly unconstructive manner. I am somewhat inexperienced, and I can very well learn from any mistakes, especially if you are civil.

Sincerely
--Keerllston 11:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Inexperience I suppose goes towards explaining your allegation of improper nomination. As concerns that, each situation needs to be independently reviewed. If there was a cast iron rule saying that editors can only nominate X amount of articles, it'd work in some situations and not in others. If a new editor nominated two articles, I would agree with their nominations being scrapped. When it comes to an editor like 17Drew though, well, he has a few FAs under his belt. When you've written a few, they're easier to handle.

I've noted the lack of clarity in your FAC comments, and hope this is something you can improve upon. A good idea would be to highlight specific examples to support your point. If the editing is poor for example, highlight a specific instance of this within the article. As someone who's been on both sides of the fence at FAC, I can say that nominators really appreciate specific criticism. Anyway, you're not a really bad commentator and I'm sure this will improve over time.

Editors will tell that I am not a civil or uncivil editor - I call a situation as I see fit at that specific time, and a spade a spade. Sometimes it lands me in hot water, but it doesn't bother me. I hope you appreciate me being honest, as opposed to lying through my teeth like a lot of other Wikipedia editors who adopt a nicey nicey approach. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you can be honest :D -
I'm glad we talked - I'm glad you can be patient.
I hope I can improve in terms of clarity.
Sincerely,
Thanks,
Keerllston 19:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[PS: I wasn't kidding about the request for a request for copy-edit - at least try to get a notable copy-editor to review - I'll ~~Strike-through~~ my oppose if that results in an additional support for South of Heaven]

If I knew which specific part needed a copyedit, that'd be especially great. I'm hoping 17Drew can take another look at present. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much - I believe there's a copy-editing league inside wikipedia?? - I believe Tony1 is a great copy-editor as well. Drew17 - I don't think he's quite a "copy-editor" by nature or notable as a copy-editor - although he has made FA quality articles - I'm certain he could be beneficial as well all the same.--Keerllston 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This copyediting league is largely inactive, which is unfortunate. 17Drew had expressed concerns, and I value his work as an editor - more so than most copyeditors. He's written several FAs in the music category, so has a much better understanding of how a music article is generally set out. Tony1 is a great copyeditor whom I've spoken to on a few occasions, although he is very much in demand (more so than anyone). I consider him the authority on the 1a criterion - if a million admins said one thing about grammar, and he said something else, I'd go with what he said every time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that 17Drew's two current nominations both needed copy editing - which makes me doubt his use as a copy-editor. I have great appreciation for Tony1 as well - he is very much an authority in FA quality in terms of criterion 1a and would be my choice as "notable copy-editor" - if he supports I would definitely withdraw opposition and maybe even declare my support.--Keerllston 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Inexperience - yes it does go some way in explaining what I do - I have really been contributing around 3 months or so - and have less than two thousand edits.
Have you read the section on Friendly notices in WP:CANVASS?
--Keerllston 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read that specific section. I've also read the section on votestacking also, which the article categorises as "ending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote." This specific editor sent notices to editors that were registered with a specific WikiProject, which I would interpret as being "on the record with a specific opinion". I'd like to note also that this page is only a guideline, and I didn't vote on this guideline. As opposed to citing X section of Y article, I think editors should come forth with their own opinions for a change. This isn't a court of law, so I don't feel people should keep using guideline articles to strengthen their viewpoint.

Furthermore, he didn't ask them to review the article but asked them to vote. If there's little discussion on an FAC, I wouldn't really agree with messaging over 50+ editors. Also, you're supposed to acknowledge if you're an editor of the same project an article falls under the same scope (like Ceoil did at my FAC for example). I don't think people should worry about little feedback at FAC either - at the end of the day, the aim is to improve an article. I think the nominator who I feel votestacked got carried away, and acted as more of a politician attempting to lure votes as opposed to a Wikipedia editor wishing to improve an article. Sometimes the attraction of an FA star gets in the way of the real goals. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

hmmm... I think too little feedback anywhere is bad - especially so in terms of PR and others, but also in FAC - where not enough consensus of support or too few comments can lead to an article not getting promoted or getting promoted erroneously. And since (at least supposedly) opposes count for more than supports - that counterbalances the effect of lots of non-FAC reviewers commenting/vote-stacking.

I do agree with Friendly Notices. - I did not mean to use it lawyerly- although I want to stress that lawyerly-ness has it's benefits, and helps in clearly stating a case.

I think your attempt at exercising your duty as a part of wikijustice was admirable.

In regards to that specific case I also felt rather strange in regards to whether it was or wasn't an innocent "friendly notice" or was canvassing of an objectionable sort once I finally read the comment left on users talk pages... I am rather sure that the directorship is one of court-manners and preferences instead of army-manners and execution - :D - I'm not sure I like either of the two options as I stated them.

--Keerllston 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Too little feedback at PR is especially bad, I definitely agree. Your point as regards FAC either promoting an article erroneously or not promoting a worthy one is definitely valid too. Another problem would be a non-FA worthy article, but where an editor is willing to address the concerns. Sometimes those concerns are not stated clearly enough, which then makes it much more difficult for the nominator. A oppose tends to count more than a support only when that oppose is valid according to the criteria - if one is more clear in their objection, this can strengthen the validity of it. Lack of good FAC reviewers is a shame - I know for a fact that when Tony1 wasn't reviewing at FAC for awhile (early this year I think), editors felt that a few articles with questionionable writing were promoted. The lack of reviewers has also been prevalent in my FAC nominations - in my latest FA nomination, three of the supporters have voted in my past FACs. While I didn't message them, it still gives the impression that if you can collect a few editors together, you can push an FAC through. However, if an article has glaring issues then editors will notice it. If it isn't up to standard, there's always the FAR process too.

My concern with the canvassing was the amount of people being messaged, but more so whom was being messaged. For example, you would message someone with the calibre of Tony1 if writing was an issue. His example of objection is to be heavily recommended, so please read it. When he objects, he states his case very clearly. Wording is also important in messaging people I feel - I would prefer nominators asking for a review of the article, as opposed to asking for a vote. I also think that fellow Project members should state they're Project members when voting. I'm glad you reviewed the specific case in question, although it's best of course to review each one on their own merits. Especially objectionable I thought was the fact an editor who hasn't edited in 16 months voted support. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your topic on Sarsparilla's action. - I hope to help.

17Drew made a comment which I felt was very strange - something like the greater good of turning an article into FA status was the important thing - I felt this was strange because the star helps little - FA quality and Reviewing help a lot. - While I can't say I am a great reviewer - I also can't say that most nominators do a great job.

"In my latest nomination, three of the supporters have [...]" - FAC seems to have some problems/issues... or at least room for improvement. - I hope we can work towards a better FAC together.

--Keerllston 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on FA

Congratulations on getting FA status for South of Heaven--Keerllston 15:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Long time no talk

Will do Lucifer, but gimme a few days, am in FAR hell at the moment. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support last night; I'm having a wiki pint of guiness with Wesley later on if your interested. Have a good christmas, and talk to you later. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think a lot of people do listen (sadly of course a lot don't), but you need to be cool about it and not use inflamatory language if you can avoide it - we had the same discussion about this before. I don't always take my own advise about, you've probably noticed in the past, but as hard as it is on that board, its best to stay as toned down as possible so that the discussion does not get deflected to your incivility (sadly a common tactic around here). I'm not convinced that incivility is such a great crime as its made out to be, and I think is defined here too widely, but... Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

R.E.M.

I plan to take care of all the points mentioned at the peer review this week, as well as give the article a final tune-up. Do you think there's anything I'm missing from the article? The only thing I know I need to add is description of the band's lyrics. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Godsmack

Thank you, although it is not featured yet, I think. So far the review is really good.
Thank you,
Skeeker _[Talk] 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap it is! Woo my first! When is the article history going to be updated?
Thank you,
Skeeker _[Talk] 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Internationalist (album)

I've acted on most of your comments here. Thanks for reviewing, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again, but I did what you suggested. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record...

I blocked the IP for disruption, not for voting. And I've already apologized to the IP for doing so. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? First of all, I had no idea Sarah had further threatened to block him; I removed the IP's talk page from my watchlist after he refused my apology. Second, the IP wasn't a critic - as we had determined at this point, the IP was a well-known block-evading editor who was trolling the ArbCom elections. And third, I have no idea what "accusations" you say I now have to "live with". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

In case you are looking for an 'outlet' to end your album format struggles... User:Rock Soldier is likely a alterego for permanently blocked User:Alterego269. Several discussions about the edit similarities between the two... especially the fascination with band member lists... have occured already. Admin Cholmes75 is familiar with Alterego269. If the two are linked then Rock Soldier created the alternate account to push through edits that were not supported by other editors (kinda like your Slayer album formatting issue) After Alterego269 got the banhammer the Rock Soldier persona began to take over the edit 'agenda' of the Alterego account. Wiki doesn't care too much about socks unless they are involved in vote stacking. But when an editor is permanently blocked from using one account already... the use of a different account could also be frowned upon. Just thought you'd like to know in case other editors (or IP's... look at Alterego's sock list... he's used many IPs in the past) start doing edits similar to RS. Merry Christmas. 156.34.211.133 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rock Soldier

Please stop harassing the user. If you aren't planning on making a RFCU or a SSP Report, then there is no need to continue. Assume good faith when dealing with other editors, please. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] It is clear you have learned nothing from your last civility block. And I'm the one who has a problem here? I dont think so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you. I am not trying to gain anything. Do not re-add comments I remove from my talk page. I would have only removed the personal attacks and incivility, but chose just to remove everything, as that is my choice. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I'd be more than happy to assist you in filing a report if you really believe the user is a sock. I just hope you understand where I am coming from here. None of the proper channels to deem somebody a sockpuppet have been met here. It very well may be a sock, but we just don't know. I apologize if you believe the message I left was uncivil, and I suppose I can understand that, thus I've struck it out. Reading the harassment policy, it does state that repeated personal attacks could be considered harassment. The fact that you calling the user a sock, when there has been no proof, could be (and I did) see it as a personal attack. Like I said before, the user might be one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

the block being discussed

is now at AN/I DGG (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar School

Hello. Earlier this year you voted to demote this article from featured status. I have recently been working to improve it and re-nominate it as an FAC. Please take some time to review the article's current form, as any feedback for further changes would be greatly appreciated. Harr o5 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice in Chains peer review

Hello, I took care of everything you listed on the peer review. Thank you by the way for reviewing. There are not a whole lot of metal bands that are at FA ststus, so I'm really working on getting some there, I don't like to stop at just GA! I was thinking that the big time metal editors (EX: You, M3tal H3ad, me) should all work on the founders of metal, Black Sabbath sometime in the near future. What do you think?
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I have them taken care of now. I see what you mean with Sabbath, they have such a vast history it would be hard to do. I don't get how you promote songs and albums to FA, it's funny how you get so much information into a small subject.
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand how you get so much information on recording and lyrical themes. I was reading Christ Illusion (although I don't particularily care for Slayer, they are interesting, Seasons in the Abyss rules, you should work on that) and I thought holy crap! The only album I have really worked on is The Blackening which was mostley done by M3tal M3ad.
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, would you mind commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains again. I fixed anything that was needed from the previous nomination and expanded it vastly.
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done.
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Will you comment again, hopefully a support? Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already commented, and my concern remains unaddressed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Good christmas? Were you at any gigs? Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi mate, long time no see - how are you?

I'm cleaning up The KLF discography with the intention of resubmitting it as a Featured List Candidate. Since it's eerily silent over there, I could really use your help and input. Please see Talk:The_KLF_discography#Formatting_issues_and_data_needed for the most pressing issues. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Chevelle

Hello, would you mind reviewing Chevelle and commenting here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Chevelle, please and thank you.
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 10:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on the above message. I would like to get as many reviews as possible so I can skip GA and go right to FA. Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Three editors have commented on the peer review - before requesting further input, it's best to address their feedback first. I don't wish to reiterate any comments they have made. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This day

It's like the lunatics have well and truly taken over the asylum. 'Nuf said. Jeffpw (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that Jeffpw, but watch nobody tries and takes your comments out of context. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note

First, that thread was closed. Posting personal accusations or attacks against someone into a closed thread is poor form, as it forces the accused to have to also post into it to defend himself. Second, that thread was closed for a reason: there is an ongoing request for arbitration, where all related statements should go. Third, your personal attack against me was unwarranted. Focus on the message, not the messenger. Crum375 (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you consider urging people to stop provoking Z, and for Z to stop responding, and for all to take it to ArbCom, "careless behavior", I guess we have a difference of opinion. Please focus on issues, not on people. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If editor X believes he is being stalked by editor Y, X is allowed to complain about it. Obviously having good diffs and other evidence would help. Whether X is right or wrong, and even whether X is himself stalking Y, should not be addressed by other people posting wild accusations and name calling. The proper way to handle any such dispute is to take it through the dispute resolution process, all the way to ArbCom if needed. Once the case goes to arbcom, that's where it belongs, unless rejected. It is extremely unhelpful, and in fact very damaging to the project, to have bystanders fanning the flames. I'll give you one important hint: AGF. Consider that anyone who claims he's being stalked may actually believe it, regardless of the circumstances. Crum375 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do assume good faith on everybody's part, and I assume anyone can be right or wrong. In reality, the truth is probably multi-faceted, with many misunderstandings thrown in. I don't know and haven't interacted before with any of the parties you mention. All I want is a quick and fair resolution, with minimal collateral damage, so we can all get back to editing. Crum375 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your ARBCOM statement

Good statement. You might want to add, though, since you're explaining the conection and why Slim is has reason to pursue this arbitration and use Zeraeph, something about the Wiki Review and how Zeraeph was openly attacking her there. Had Slim read that thread she would have seen in an instant how this could be used to her advantage. I also find it odd that LessHeard popped up in that Wiki Review thread, saying he had emailed Zeraeph, and suddenly is involved in this arbitration, working with Slim and Z. Give it some thought. Jeffpw (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)