User talk:Zeke, the Mad Horrorist/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Your GA nomination of From the Ages

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article From the Ages you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of From the Ages

Resolved

– Article passed; see below

The article From the Ages you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:From the Ages for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of From the Ages

The article From the Ages you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:From the Ages for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doctor

Done

– Responded there to oppose.

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Doctor. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/From the Ages

Disregard

– This is just my first DYK, it might not even pass, and while I could do a QPQ I'd rather just sit back and watch how things are done first. WP:QPQ says it's not a requirement for me at this point.

I fixed the formatting. I have no idea whether you need to do a WP:QPQ. It may not be required, if you have five or fewer WP:DYKs. However, it is considered good form to do one even if you aren't required to do it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for From the Ages

FYI

– Achieved 2300 hits because of DYK. Now I see why DYK is important. I only wish I had known I could have taken advantage of it when Prior to the Fire had just become a GA...

On 19 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article From the Ages, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the album From the Ages is over an hour long and was recorded in just two days? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/From the Ages. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2015 Newsletter

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 21 people who signed up, eight copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: The blitz removed 16 articles from the requests list, and we're almost done with December 2014. Many thanks, everyone!

Drive: The month-long March drive begins in about a week. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Robot Chicken episodes

Disregard

– No opinion.

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Robot Chicken episodes. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Earthless album articles

I've recently resumed editing Wikipedia after a long absence, and notice you've merged several of the Eathless album articles together into Earthless discography. Why, may I ask, did you do so? Reading over each section, it seems to me there are enough sources for each album to merit a separate article. I really don't see the need to pile them all together in one article. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I did so because, at least at the time, the articles themselves were very small and little information existed on the topics. More has come up in the meantime, but it's still not enough for a few of the topics.

That being said, I did split From the Ages off from it and it is now a GA. That's something I'd very much hope to achieve with the rest of the topics, but that's much easier said than done - the main band article is in a horribly-unfinished state and may remain like so for a very long time because there's only so much you can find on Google, and who knows where to find what's missing? In particular, their very early history is mysterious and many holes remain in the puzzle.

I'm also looking at perhaps giving Live at Roadburn a chance to be its own article again (if you'd like, see here, but please mind the template at the top). The merging was done to provide a more satisfactory experience for both readers and editors; instead of having multiple tiny articles with grim odds for expansion, it is better to have one larger one containing them all (I did the same thing for Scale the Summit). If something doesn't have notability on one level, perhaps it exists on another. It is an experimental form of article, and it's difficult to categorize as a list article or prose article. I went ahead with list, but I am splitting the topics off as I can.

I would greatly appreciate any help you can provide to make the topics more complete. I don't have access to the materials needed (e.g. print magazines) that never appear on Google. I also don't pretend to own the topic area, so please don't assume I'm trying to monopolize it. For the most part, I've been working on my own, and almost no one has come around to help. I am perhaps the sole reason anything has changed in that area at all. Lazy Bastard Guy 01:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

All that being said, apparently the album cover images are up for deletion because they can't be used this way. The rationale, from what I can gather, is that if the subjects they, as non-free images, illustrate are not significant on their own they are not significant at all. This is utter BS to me, but I'm doubtful we could do anything to change WP's mind. Lazy Bastard Guy 02:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, I had no idea this was even prohibited. I am, to say the least, quite upset about it. If I had known I would have thought twice. Lazy Bastard Guy 02:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I glanced at the histories and saw you've put a lot of effort into those articles. It's good stuff, and I'm glad you're working on them. In my opinion, having worked on numerous album articles, if there's enough information for a paragraph or two on the album's creation and at least a small handful of reviews from which to write a short critical reception section, then the album warrants a stand-alone article. The threshold for stand-alone notability is not high; merely significant coverage in a few secondary sources, and there are plenty of GAs and FAs that are short but still cover their topics in-depth. I think Rhythms from a Cosmic Sky and Live at Roadburn have enough content as-is to stand alone, and should be re-split. Sonic Prayer is tougher; being an earlier release, it's harder to find good sources. I live in San Diego and keep pretty close tabs on what's going on with local musicians, particularly those within the Rocket from the Crypt/Swami Records family tree, so I've followed several of Mario's acts with interest. I'll keep an eye out for any coverage in local print magazines or online publications, and if I come across anything I'll happily contribute.

Great work on these topics so far. In my experience the best work on these things is often done by one or a few editors who have a passion for the topic and dedicate a chunk of time to improving the articles. I'm doing just that right now for the Descendents and All branches of articles.

I don't think the use of album cover images in the way you're using them is prohibited. The prohibition, as I recall, was specifically against using them in discography lists, and what you've created goes well beyond that. There's plenty of sourced critical commentary on the albums that it's well justified having the cover images to identify the works under discussion. I think that easily passes the non-free content guidelines. All you have to do is go to the image pages and change the names of the articles in the rationales. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. That means a lot to me. And I see your point, in that the article goes beyond being a discography list. I suppose I could see Rhythms and Roadburn split back off, and we could just keep an eye out for anything that could be used to spruce 'em up (they might talk more about these albums later on down the line). I suppose there is something to be said for their WP:POTENTIAL, so while I personally advocate the article as is, I'm open to maybe splitting things off and growing them with sources as they appear or are found, and remaining confident in the meantime that they'll turn up if they haven't already. I look forward to working with you, and welcome back. Lazy Bastard Guy 02:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Prior to the Fire
Thank you, gnomish editor with a chaotic muse, for quality articles on songs and albums, such as Prior to the Fire, for edit summaries that are a pleasure to read and for knowing limits, for missing a "great contributor", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 784th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roy Moore

Done

– Responded there. Neutral, but left a comment.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roy Moore. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

Done

– Responded there. Location of shooting is irrelevant - if the film's action even briefly occurs in a city, then that city can be claimed as its setting. Even if it has multiple such settings.

Hello, I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

--Request for Further Comment--

Hi LazyBastardGuy,

I saw your answer on the Glengarry Glen Ross talk page (thanks for responding!). The RfC is about to close, and I wondered if I could get you to amplify your comments before it does.

You mentioned that you didn't want to slog through the entire thing. I don't blame you. If you want a good overview of the issue, I suggest that you read the first two posts in the RfC thread (the first by SummerPhD and the second by me).

Yes -- events shown by both sound and image occur in New York. See the list in my post on the RfC (license plates, NYPD police cruiser, detective's badge, phone booth, subway station, character dialogue, etc). No event occurs in Chicago, as far as one can tell by watching the movie.

BUT here's the catch: three out of four secondary sources mention (in passing) that the film was set in "Chicago." A fourth secondary source says New York. I personally suspect that this is the result of confusion caused by the fact that the original stage play was set in Chicago. But that is only my speculation.

SummerPhD insists (maybe correctly) that we can look only to the secondary sources -- to look at the movie ourselves and read the location tea leaves would be forbidden original research. If SummerPhD is correct, then we are in a bind: it appears to be raining outside, but 3 out of 4 secondary sources say that it is sunny. Under these circumstances, it is true that looking out the window would be original research? I can see SummerPhD's argument, and it is an interesting question . . .

If you cared to comment further, I am sure it would be appreciated by all.

Best, -Xanthis (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Disregard

– I could go either way on this one. I'll go with the flow.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead)

Disregard

– I know nothing about The Walking Dead.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Username

Just wanted to say thanks for changing your username. I'm not sure what your new one means exactly, but it's better than the other one. ;) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, I didn't change it because of peer pressure - it's a bit of a long story, but suffice it to say most of my reasons were personal. Besides, when this one popped into my head, I couldn't not use it - it's just zanier, that's all. There's no meaning to it. Plus, I suppose nearly any alternative is better. ;) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} 03:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy

Disregard

– Oh please, no. This looks like an absolute nightmare to have to wade through. I have no intention of dipping my toe in here.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter

March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here!

May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for all the hard work you do over at WP:RFD. I for one very much appreciate it. I know we will disagree, but always in good humour/humor, and always to try to make the encylopaedia/encyclopedia better. I disagree with your views about people writing correct English, but then I do have an original of H. W. Fowler's Modern English Usage propping up me telly, so who am I to say? Speak as you damn well please but write properly, I try to. My accent is appalling, I have a terrible cockney accent, and I speak very quickly, so living here in Hungary I have to slow it down and enunciate properly. God knows what my Hungarian accent is like. My French is quite good and I was just translating Afrikaans earlier. But you would think I just came off the boat, if you heard me speak.

Again, thanks for contributing to RfD. I for one appreciate it. It's a bit of a backwater but you get the most intelligent people there. Si Trew (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! My note on my userpage isn't about getting annoyed that people speak/write differently. In fact, I put the American English box on my page precisely so I could help out in this endeavor - those ones are useful because it helps people avoid seeing each other's writing as having errors in it. We are, as they say, divided by a common language, so someone unfamiliar with one dialect might be tempted to correct it without realizing, "Hold on, I come from X, this person comes from Y, and there they say/do things differently than we do over here."

That, at least I thought, is what those userboxes are for. But then I see ones like "This user does not understand the American "English" "language" artificially created by Noah Webster in 1828 for no other reason than just to be "different" and bloody well doesn't want to." And I do have a sense of humor (humour?) so I understand some of this is probably meant in good fun, but just statistically there are definitely people who use it without irony, and to me it's just unnecessary and confrontational when people put these on their userpages. It serves no purpose - it is, as I said, jingoistic. (And for the record, it definitely goes both ways - there's one on there that says, "This user honors Noah Webster for saving the English language from the Saxon hordes.") If people write/speak differently, they should just say so - no snark, no commentary, no bullshit. It, frankly, just brings my piss to a boil. We're here to come together, not form our little cliques and alienate others.

As for us disagreeing, it is by no means personal. We agree, we disagree. That is how we come to consensus. Sometimes I have the right idea and sometimes I don't, but that's how I learn what Wikipedia does or does not do. If I find Wikipedia does something and I don't agree with it, I just let it go - there's so much else Wikipedia does right that it does not bother me (at least not enough to prevent me from dropping it and persuade me to continue bringing it up again & again, causing disruption). Our discussions are educational and I enjoy them. I don't take it personally and I don't mean to get personal; sometimes I post many times because even I have a hard time writing something I can understand (I know what I mean, but it's often difficult to put it in words) or that encapsulates my entire stance on the issue.

I also find that when people disagree, they may have reasons I would not have thought about otherwise - that's the value of discussions, and that's why they're so central to Wikipedia's identity. Whether someone's beating a dead horse into the ground or if they say something that hasn't been thought of before, it still adds to the conversation and can be very enlightening.

And I could go on & on, but I'll leave you with this: I hope we can all work together to make Wikipedia a well-oiled machine. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Soulja Boy discography

I would like to know why you, without an edit summary or really any attempt at discussion whatsoever, completely undid my work at the article I've linked. I will explain what I did here and why:

Replaced TBA in his studio albums table with Loyalty and removed TBA (the source attached to Loyalty later in the article confirmed that this was the album to which TBA referred). Looking at it now, it occurs to me I should have also removed it from his digital albums table.

Answer: First of all with Loyalty it is a digital retail release it was not release through any physical markets & though Soulja Boy previously mention it was gone be release through Universal Music Group it was not release as his fourth studio album nor less promoted as such, it was released digitally & independently through his self owned label Stacks on Deck Entertainment really also making it a independent release not a studio release. So if you gone at least revert my edits because there not to your liking at least get your facts correct. Also the reason I kept a TBA fourth studio album to be released was because obviously since Loyalty is not his official fourth studio album, i'm just assuming that he is still planning & working towards releasing his fourth studio album in the future.

Lowercased "digital retailers" Basic capitalization rules - "digital retailers" is not a proper noun.

Answer: Second of all that was a simple mistake, was that really needed to be mention, because honestly I really don't think nobody would care.

Moved Unsigned to his studio albums table because that is clearly where it belongs. A digital album, which as I understand it can only be purchased online (whether you download it or have it shipped to your house as a physical copy) does not, in any way shape or form, prevent it from being a studio, live, remix or other type of album. It is completely illogical to try to disambiguate between a "digital album" and a studio album - they are apples & oranges. The rest of the entries on that list appear to be mixtapes and/or VA compilations and should be dealt with accordingly by a subject matter expert; I freely admit I know little about Soulja Boy, but I am acting based on what I do know for sure, and I am quite certain that having a "Digital albums" heading in this article is a complete waste of everyone's time, not to mention that it doesn't actually communicate anything about the nature of the albums themselves (i.e. it tells us nothing about what is on the albums, only how they were sold, and in some way all albums are "digital albums" because they can also be sold this way).

I would have just reverted your edit and been done with it, but I saw you did a lot of other things at that article too, so a simple reversion would do to your work what you basically did to mine - which I feel was totally disrespectful. You really need to break your habit of not using edit summaries; they are there for a reason - you are to use them to justify your edits, including (and especially) edits that utterly undo the work of others (such as our case in point). Not using edit summaries comes off as very passive aggressive and pushy, almost as if one hopes the article will be made the way one wants it without anyone else noticing.

Answer: Third of all yes it does & how is it like comparing it to apple & oranges, with a digital retailer release it's less likely a chance it's a artist official studio release unless they plan on doing a later re-release album with physical marketing, most likely as far as the hip hop genre is concerned it's gone be either a retail mixtape or just a digital album & yes you are partially right but also incorrect at the same time about in some way all albums are "digital albums" because they can also be sold this way because sure most albums can be sold digitally even with physical release, but no these album were only sold digitally no other way just digitally with the exception of Unsigned and Still Major: Da Album Before da Album which I now do believe did have physical marketing done for it.

I will restore my edits to the page manually, but if I see you've undone my work again without any attempt to reach me or other editors in general, I'm taking you to WP:ANI for being disruptive. I am more than happy to work with others, but the keyword there is "with" - it doesn't work if my contributions are completely removed. Please don't do this again, especially if you neglect to explain why.

Answer: I understand & I am also happy to work "with" other editors as well but don't under mine me because you feel my edits don't hold too to your liking, especially when I been the main editor working on this specific artist discography page for years. MusicLover1Hunnid ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Visual Collaborative

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Visual Collaborative. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paranormal activity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paranormal activity. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News

May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)