User talk:Laser brain/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Laser brain, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

THanks for your review of the article. I have either taken care of or addressed all of your concerns, so could you please take another look at the page? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

I hope you didn't think I was being rude in the FA discussion, and I have taken your criticisms to heart and I will try solving them when I can. Anyway, thanks for your support.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully the closing admin will take into consideration what everyone is saying, though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can get that essay, that'd be great. Anyway, I managed to add two more sources to the literary analysis section.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Isis

Thank you for your kind words! Yea, I love both writing and hurricanes, so Wikipedia has been a natural outlet for the last few years. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Odyssey

It wasn't your Oppose, Laser; even without your oppose, it had failed to garner Support in spite of an extended stay at FAC, so was on schedule to be closed anyway. Your review will be very helpful to the nominator when s/he is ready to re-nominate. Thanks for the good review work you've been doing; giving the nominator something to work with is much better than the alternative, which would have been to close it today with no feedback for the nominator. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid you were feeling responsible :-) FACs can't run indefinitely, so if they don't garner Support, they eventually have to close, and 11 days is more than enough. The other reviews that are that old have all garnered some Support. Please keep the good reviews coming !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you transclude {{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} to the top of your talk page, you'll know which ones I'm begging for input on or for which there isn't enough input for consensus to promote or archive. I keep that list updated; if I get no input, I eventually have to close them with nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Link's Awakening FAC

I believe I've addressed your concerns. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR

Laser, if you're interested, help is really needed at WP:FAR. It's a whole different game there, where we let reviews run a long time (at least a month) if there are editors working to address issues and save featured status. We also need review and input on those that aren't receiving attention. There are about ten stalled at the bottom of the list that could use addditional eyes and input. I wouldn't want FAR to take you away from FAC, because FAR operates at a more leisurely pace, but if you're bored sometime, maybe you can have a look at FAR, beginning from the bottom where several are running overtime and have no input. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. When there are no involved editors, there's not much we can do except "vote" to Remove, but when editors are willing to improve, we often dig and help with the work ourselves, with the goal of saving as many as possible. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, pls don't let PMAnderson's comments about his unique interpretation of WP:WIAFA bother you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For example, this one looks like it only needs some text massage to be a Keep without moving to FARC. Would that be something you'd want to work on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Great ! There seems to be another editor hard at work on it, so you might drop him/her a note, so s/he knows you didn't just fall from the sky :-) Saturn V is after Apollo 8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I see Marskell is taking a bit of a break. FAR has been frustrating lately, as not enough people are weighing in there with Removes or Keeps. If you have some free time, you might pick up a few reviews from the bottom (the oldest) and see if you think they are keepers or removes (some of them are on hold per editor request). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Apollo 8

No problem at all - I welcome the assistance! To date, I've completely rewritten the Saturn V section, much of the Crew section, The film section, and maybe half of the Planning section - but the rest could use some attention. You're certainly welcome to have a whack at whichever section(s) you choose. I'll turn it around on you, if there are any sections you don't get to, let me know and I'll take a swing at them. Apart from work items today, my main agenda is to get a good start on Saturn V, which is also up for FAR and has been sitting for a long time. Thanks again for the help. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you're keeping a list of your major contributions on your user page, I thought you'd like to add a for your work on Apollo 8. Thanks again for pitching in! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oooh thanks for the suggestion! Glad we could all work together to save this FA. --Laser brain (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Glorious First of June

I have now replied to your comments on the FAC. Thankyou very much for your help here and I hope that the article has improved to the standard required for you to support. If there are any outstanding issues, new problems or further comments then please don't hesitate to contact me. All the best--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your comments and support for the Glorious First of June article which has just passed FAC. Your input was much appreciated. --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FU concern

Sandy indicated that you might be able to provide some input. Her Majesty's Theatre is up for FA and I have concerns regarding the fair use of one of the images (I’ve opposed the FA for violation of criterion 3). I’ve marked Image:Phantom.jpg with {{fairusereview}}, so if you could stop by Wikipedia:Fair_use_review and/or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Her Majesty's Theatre (my reasoning is on both pages, although more clearly articulated at fair use review), your comments would be appreciated. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Villa recent history

At the old FAC of History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) you indicated that it needed a copyedit from a non-soccer person and that you would still oppose it. It has had a copyedit by GrahamColm now and I was wondering if you are still opposed before I re-nom it. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) once again finds itself on the WP:FAC page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present). Your opinions would be welcome given your previous interest. Thanks. Woody (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust

Thanks for your comments at the FAC (particularly the first one :) ). I'll try to find another source for the fact that some sources misspell the title of the episode. I also responded to your other points at the FAC discussion page, in the order that you brought them up. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: -- I added more sources for the mistaken episode name thing, and noted it at the FAC discussion page. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and thanks for your comments and quick responses! Cirt (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I couldn't have gotten those "stars" without the help of many different editors. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image on Reactive attachment disorder

Hi. I don't understand this image thing at all. I found it by going to WP:IMAGE and then looking under sites listed there. This one was from stock.xchng or SXC which is free, subject to the license conditions which are shown. I don't understand why it can't be used. What do I have to do? Fainites ^barley 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How weird. How could this ever be commercial? Also - why is this company included in the lists of sites to go to if putting their free images on Wiki counts as commercial use? I'm even more befuddled now. Fainites ^barley 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Odyssey Number Five

Hey there...I finally got around to satisfying myself that everything you said at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Odyssey Number Five/archive1 has been dealt with. Could you please take a look at it and leave any more comments you have on the talk page? I would like to have another shot at FAC at some stage. :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied on the talk page (incase you don't have it watchlisted), and I'll probably go for FAC again soon (if you have any other commentary, gimme a yell!). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bone Sharps

Not sure why mine was archived while older ones are still hanging around, but whatever... thanks for the comments, and I will be sure to address them! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust FAC

Hello, you commented at the the recently closed FAC for The Last Temptation of Krust. It was closed with 2 comments and one "Support" after 2 weeks, and I'd like to start another FAC for it soon. During the FAC I had left a note on your talkpage that I had done my best to address the points you brought up in your comment at the FAC - you then were the only 1 of the 3 commenters that came back to the FAC, responded to my responses, and then changed your "comment" to "Support". The article is the same as when you last "Supported" it in the FAC. Do you feel you could "Support" the article in its current status, if I started another FAC for it? Cirt (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, started another WP:FAC for The Last Temptation of Krust. Cirt (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RAD

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

A glass of whisky

many thanks for all your help. Fainites ^barley 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Melee FAC

I think that I've addressed your concerns adequately now. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your new comments now. Thanks for taking the time. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If only... I was old enough to drink! : ) Regardless, I'm glad you've taken the time because you've raised valid issues that had gone unnoticed. All the best. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bernard Fanning

Hey, I've replied to your comments here. If you could take another look it'd be great. Thanks for the review, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I just noticed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee, and your comments...for what it's worth, I can attest that IGN is probably the most reliable internet VG resource, if not one of the most (including offlines). Most of WT:VG could attest to that too, for what it's worth. Regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fully neutral but I'd be happy to copyedit, if you could wait a bit (and if that would be OK). Otherwise, AndonicO (talk · contribs) is someone I've worked with on VG in the past who's neutral here, but who would probably be happy too. Casliber (talk · contribs) is awesome in general, if you want to get him. Tell him I said hi. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		To Laser brain, for high quality reviewing at FAC Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Trafford

I'm glad that Trafford got promoted to FA, but the discussion was closed before you said whether you thought the new explanations or rural and urban districts was sufficient. Sorry to bug you, but I want to improve the article, it's not just about the little star. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Nev1 (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

1. Please link me the FAC that you don't understand;
2. Are you saying that I can't vote or that I can vote only leave comments? I leave comments such "if it's possible, please add the bibliography, so the article is complete". I know that the bibliography isn't a criteria, but with that the article's complete.

MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

I finally got around to going through the article you sent me. I tried copying all of the notable information that discussed Flagg and not just recapped his character, and pasted it at my sandbox. If you could offer any suggestions as to what should be used and/or how it could be integrated into the article I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was 16 pages, but I trimmed down anything that wasn't either a recap or discussion of the genre. I may have missed something, so if you don't have a copy I could send you mine.

I was thinking about integrating it into the analysis section.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Lawson (architect)

Laser, keep your eye on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Robert Lawson (architect), because Marskell is trying to cite it so it can be a save. Thanks for offering to help Zscout on Belarus; he does a lot of good work. Usually I'm the one giving feedback on FARs, but I just don't have time anymore to do as much as I used to do there. He may need a lot of MoS guidance, and ce help as well. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal Blue (B&O train) FAC

Hi Laser, Thanks for your FAC comments, which I've incorporated into the article (including the rewording of the Lead and the footer reference in the Wikitable). JGHowes ^talk - 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Elderly Instruments

Hi, LB, best of luck with the FAC. I love guitars and your article was a joy to read. I hope you will forgive my nitt-picking.--GrahamColm^Talk 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations LB. Nice work. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 14:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Gmail Group

Ping. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC comments

Hey, I believe I have addressed your comments on this FAC, please state if you have any more, thanks! Hello32020 (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your support on my request for adminship. It passed 92/2/2, and I look forward to proving myself to the trust of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, sorry to bug you. I have an article on FAC right now - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America. User:SandyGeorgia requested for a look-through of the article, as it is close to passing. Do you think you'd be able to give the article a look? Thanks if you can, but if not, no problem. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I just gave it a look-through. In the second paragraph of the lede, it says how it underwent major expansion, and then it says into mail order. Was its major expansion through mail order? If so, the wording should be revised a bit. Is there an estimate on how much money it makes per year? If so, that'd be a good addition to the second lede paragraph. Is there any reason "folk music" in the first paragraph of history is in quotes? I removed some facts that were fairly unimportant to the article, such as who they leased their first store from. Also, the history doesn't really delve too much into how they become so popular. It says that they did mail order, but I'd imagine that several other companies did the same. Was there anything they did unique? I recommend merging the "business model" section with the history section, as they sort of go hand in hand. "...one of the larger vintage instruments dealers" - is there an actual number for that stat? That'd be good. Also, in the history section, is it needed to include the type of building that the company bought? It'd be nice to see what percentage of its sales were from a particular model, but I realize that info might not be available. Also, I notice that the company is merely called "Elderly" many, many times in the article. Is that another official name for the company, or is it more of a nickname, so you don't have to write out the title every time? "Many notable guitarists..." - such as? Is there anything on the Old Fogey Distributing between 1988 and 1997? All in all, it looks pretty good. Good luck with the FAC. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Song Thrush

Thanks for your kind words. What I find particularly galling is being made to jump through hoops by reviewers who don't then change their votes, or worse, don't vote at all. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

GFDL

Being a little nosy here: I don't think User:Laser brain/Belarus is compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. --maclean 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're correct - my bad. --Laser brain (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opeth

You concerns have been addressed. Burningclean _[speak] 02:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriousness

Regarding your comment here... I sort of regret having voiced my opinion since the conversation quickly became non-productive, but figured I owed you some sort of response. I've actually never encountered submission guidelines to anything that were as detailed and went into as much minutiae as our Manual of Style. I've also never heard of journals rejecting good work for small lapses. I mean, formatting references in Chicago instead of MLA and having to resubmit is one thing. Rejecting a paper because of a non-breaking space? Maybe that sort of thing happens in your experience, but in mine I've honestly never encountered that sort of thing. I'm certainly not opposed to the whole Manual of Style, the way some editors are, but I do feel that it goes so far and is sometimes presented with so much hostility, that it becomes counterproductive. --JayHenry (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with what you've said. I have not had papers rejected for anything as small as a non-breaking space, but most journals have some criteria that would be considered minutiae in most realms, especially relating to images, tables of data, and works cited pages. I wish we could find a happy medium, and I wish our MoS was such that contributors didn't feel intimidated or frustrated by it. The overall message I was trying to convey is that ultimately we should be serving our audience. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with this too and I see now that we are in the same camp. I'm not opposed to the Manual of Style, and think many types of consistency are helpful for our readers and essential for our credibility, but I just wish it didn't have to be the locus of so much vitriol and contention. Should have gone with my usual instincts to ignore an MOS dispute. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment at FAC for USS Bridgeport (AD-10)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article, and I appreciate your support. I also linked the two terms you mentioned. I was able to replicate in Firefox (not my usual browser) the formatting glitch in the Infobox you mentioned. In order to try and track this down, what OS were you using when you looked at the article? Thanks — Bellhalla (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Voynich Manuscript

I did look into some books at my university library, but perhaps it was the daunting task of referencing the entire article that stopped me from bringing the books back home. I can get some referencing done, but it might take a while. I'd appreciate any help I can get. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes

Hi. I've just submitted, for PR, the list for a little known French/Canadian children's cartoon called The Bellflower Bunnies. I think I am the only Wikipedian who knows so much, so far, about the show and its original book series material.

I'm also willing to submit this as an FLC in a few days. Tell me what you think of the page, and I'll address concerns soon. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed. Nice work! --Laser brain (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Review

Laser, do you have time to review Ima Hogg at FAC? Most of the active FAC reviewers worked on it, so it needs an independent review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I will provide a review today. --Laser brain (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Double Seven Day

Thanks for the feedback. I've made some tweaks and replied. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1988 PHS FAC Comment

Do you have any locations online that would allow me to do research from archives of these sources. I couldn't find anything helpful other then what I posted on the article from the hurricane archive (which has an archive of some newspapers that have information about tropical cyclones in it). I looked up Lexis Nexis and it doesn't seem there is anyway to register, maybe I just can't find the registration page. If there's no way I could do it, would you please assist me with this by adding some of the information from these sources. By the way, I'm going to sleep now so I will be out of contact for the rest of the night. Thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Lexis Nexis is generally only available through libraries that subscribe to it. You should be able to access it either through your school library or local public library. A librarian can help you learn how to search it effectively, but it is pretty intuitive. I'm really sorry, but I can't take on any additional projects right now as I am working on finishing my Master's thesis. --Laser brain (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Miss Ima"

	Nice job on "Miss Ima"!
	To all of the excellent editors who were part of the Karanacs-led collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status, it was a pleasure working with you on such a fine article about a great lady. Thank you so much for your contribution to this fun collaboration. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gilberto Gil

Wondered if you'd like to take a look at the Gilberto Gil peer review, as you listed yourself on the volunteers page as willing to review "Any arts-related topics." Thanks, --Kakofonous (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how far do you think the article is from FAC, since you do so many reviews there? If it is (or could be soon) I don't see any reason to keep waiting for the GA. Best, Kakofonous (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would do two things before bringing it to FAC. First, I would check with a subject matter expert to make sure the article is comprehensive and you have not missed any major sources. Perhaps you can find someone who knows a lot about Brazilian music or Latin American music in general. Second, I would try to get one more substantive peer review from someone who is a "prose" expert just to get that last degree of fit and finish. I would recommend User:Tony1 but I'm not sure if he does reviews on request. Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I just asked Seegoon for a copy edit (s/he said "I am willing to be exceptionally anal if need be" on the volunteers list, which I thought would be appropriate)—Tony hasn't listed himself and I don't really want to bug him. I'll review my references for possible missing content, as it seems like it would take less time than searching for a Brazilian/Latin American music expert. Thanks for the advice, Kakofonous (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Anarky

After having worked on the article for nearly two years, I am interested in shifting my attentions to other articles. To that end, I'd thought to cut all ties to the Anarky article. However, you are right to remind me that articles must be maintained. I will continue to watch the article in the future, though I will not likely make edits until new information surfaces. That isn't very likely, given the character's absence.--Cast (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Following Tel Aviv's third failed FAC, I have worked on the issues brought up and renominated it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley

Thanks for your constructive comments on the FA project page, I'm dyslexic so some of my poor english may have slipped in! Unfortunately due to some allegations published in the UK this article has been given protected status. I think I will have to withdraw my nomination, however I am sure that your time wasn’t wasted as I will try and get someone to help me with making the corrections to the grammar at a later date. Once again many thanks Tommy turrell (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez, what luck. Tabloid allegations right in the middle of your FAC. Well, talk to User:SandyGeorgia; she can probably advise the best course of action since you can't work on the article currently. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The timing could have been better. I've been working with Tommy on the article. Since the FAC is now closed, I've copied your comments to the talk page and responded there. It'd be great if you could comment on my comments. The article won't be locked for ever, and I'm told that we can get an admin to do uncontroversial changes (like those you suggest) in the meantime. If you have time to go through the rest of the article it would also be much appreciated - it's not that long, although it may feel like it. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

4u1e, I will look at your comments today; I'm also confident that we can get this cleaned up quickly once the hubbub blows over. --Laser brain (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Sorry about that. Guess I just needed to vent a little. It's been a while since I went through the torture test of an FAC, and getting that same comment every time is just a little overwhelming. Hope you don't take it personally. There are some very good copy editors at WP:Louisville; hopefully one of them will stop by shortly. Unfortunately, I'm about it for active editors in WP:KY that aren't also in WP:Louisville, and WP:Bluegrass Region is all but defunct.

And yes, the goal is to make the article better, and yes, most of the FAC comments usually do. It's not even the volume of the comments, but getting that same one over and over. As much as you know it's for the greater good, it still makes you go "OK, I get this every time. I must suck as a writer." I'd probably have been over it by tomorrow anyway. Thanks for your comments, and I hope after a good copyedit or two, you'll be able to support the article's nomination. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

That is an old comment, from the height of the Date Wars, and is intended to be taken strictly. I oppose all efforts to impose exactly the same style on all articles (for example, declaring that the year of publication must go first, [or second, or last,] in a citation; a stupidity not beyond some proposals at MOS).

Could a style guide be useful? Yes, of course. (You will find some thoughts on this at WT:WPMoS#Five layers of MOS, which is more current on this matter than my userpage.)

Should a style guide be "clear, concise, simple-to-reference"? Yes. Do we have one such? No.

Should it reflect the range of English suitable to encyclopedias, which will therefore very with the editor and the subject? I think so; some do not. The alternative is to have FA comments of the form "Gotcha; you spaced your emdashes, or used periods after long sentence fragments." Let's not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad, I suppose, to be considered an interesting case. I have several objections to the present system.

1. We are not a corporation. I presume your employer, likewise, has decided whether it speaks British or American; WP has a longstanding and consensus guideline, which you doubtless know, against making any such decision. We will have a range of editors, from a range of disciplines, backgrounds, and nationalities; we should not attempt to suppress the resulting diversity, if only because it will not work.
2. We should not give any MOS the position which some editors claim for it, of being the Rules with which featured articles must comply. Doing so leaves us two choices:
   • either we must write out exact top-down rules which precisely capture some given aspect of English (consider, for example, the rules on whether to spell out numbers or not; there was an edit war over them in the last month, and yet they are obviously incomplete from that point of view.)
   • or we will be, in any case which the Rules do not contemplate, demanding and rewarding bad writing.
     • In brief, guidelines should guide, not prescribe. Even the best MoS needs "common sense and the occasional exception."
     • I should add that even the best MOS will probably be irrelevant to most actual reviewers. It was only the other day that I had to persuade an FA reviewer not to oppose because the article omitted serial commas; Commonwealth reviewers are equally provincial. The only hope here to make MOS so concise that it will actually be read.
3. We should not give this MOS, that haphazard collection of prejudices, any special authority whatsoever. It is not clear, not concise, not well-written; in many places it does not describe the whole of the English language; in some places it does not describe any English language.
4. Emphasis on MOS encourages trivial reviews. Counting periods on captions is much easier than actually evaluating English prose (and, as we both have seen, the latter is tricky). Evaluating prose is much easier than evaluating content. FA gets a lot of the first, a little of the second, and much too little of the third.
5. FA is a device by which one editor can impose his prejudices on many, whether those prejudices are the spacing of exponential notation (see Template talk:E, or the True Point of View. (Note I say can; it is possible to overrule such blackmail, but it works too often.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that will do to begin your analysis, Doctor.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Making MoS a set of non-binding recommendations ("many editors avoid spaced emdashes") would help; making a list of advantages and disadvantages (r"spaced emdashes may be seen as too long a mark") would help more.

Actually, my chief take on audience is that there is a minority for whom our established decisions to be inconsistent on color/colour or Harvard/footnotes are already damning; and a vast majority which doesn't care whether we are consistent across Wikipedia in dealing with emdashes. I belong to the majority; my proposed language above was an effort to express the views of others without being damaging to the encyclopedia.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As a secondary matter, much of MOS in determined by a handful of editors who appear to have no conception of the diversity of our audience. Chinese characters in text are normal in discussing Chinese; but one editor is in a snit because they don't communicate anything to him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; but I disagree. If we were consistent between articles on much more visible things, this might be a concern (I'm not sure how much of one); but we are not. In viewing any dozen articles, the reader is likely to see at least three different citation styles; if they are ancient history, he will see both BC and BCE; he may well see varying usage on Anglo-American spelling, serial commas, and other things on which we agree to disagree. He will see both unspaced emdashes and spaced endashes. Spaced emdashes are going to instill a crisis of faith?

Looking through a dozen printed books will provide the same range of variation. Does this induce unconscious skepticism too? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails live performances FAC

Thanks so much for your thorough review of the NIN live performances page. For some reason the FAC was closed just after I addressed a bunch of your concerns. Oh well. I haven't had a chance to address all of them yet, however, but am hoping to soon. I plan on renominating the article eventually (sooner rather than later hopefully), and by that time I'll do my best to address all of your concerns. I'll drop you a line when that eventually happens. Thanks again. Drewcifer (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995 Japanese Grand Prix

Many thanks for your comments at the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix FAC. I have responded and changed some portions of the article per your comments. If you feel any of your comments are resolved and need no further adjustments, could you please strike it out, so I know what bits still need work on. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll inform you when the next FAC for that article begins. :)) D.M.N. (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've renominated it. The discussion is located here should you wish to participate. Thanks! D.M.N. (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

History versus route description first

I don't necessarily agree that history should come before the route description in road articles, as you advocated in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 174. I've posted why I feel that way on that page. Please either reply there or we could move discussion to WT:USRD so that the relevant WikiProject is more aware of the debate. Thanks! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC query

I know you're busy, but can you possibly carve out time to thoroughly review Michael Jackson? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did what I could, but I am under the gun (actually, several guns) right now so I can't do more. Sorry! --Laser brain (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to return to the FA review, some of your suggestions are simply not possible, i would like to discuss them further. Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the article has had a MAJOR overhaul per your request. It nearly killed me but i think ive managed it. I changed the FOX news sources per your request, i completely overhauled the financial section, its very detailed now, i created a large themes and genre section, i added some "negative" info on his dancing noting that its rather sexual and has caused controversy etc. I would like your views on this, also im a little nervous about tackling the physical appearance section without crossing pov. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 13:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look today and strike/respond as necessary. --Laser brain (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx, i have taken note of your advise and have acted accordingly, certain things that remain, i just need i little more clarification on what direction to take. I think you will agree its improved though. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, i have a rather good picture that shows jacksons physical change over 20 years. Can you do fair use rationals? If so we can has a really neat picture that shows him change. Whats really good is the pictures are all taken at the same angle so comparisons are really fair. Let me know. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, I have stricken some of my comments and replied to some others. Your dedication to this article is amazing, and I thank you for your efforts thus far. On the question of the fair use photo - it really depends on the use. A fair use photo that shows Jackson's change, accompanied by critical commentary, would definitely be a benefit to the article if done correctly. --Laser brain (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ill will get it all done as long as people dont rush to close the FA, i work hard, even though i still have a majority support at the FA, i take all critism seriously. Ive replied to your comments. Shall i show you the picture, it doesnt come with commentry but i spoke to an admin who believe it would be of use to the article and was well worth a fair use rational. Additionally since youve been away a few hours i managed to get those three sections copy edited by a third party. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have stricken some more comments and asked a couple more follow-up questions. I don't need to see the picture; I'll check it out if you decide to add it. I won't have time to work with you on it at the moment, unfortunately. What I meant by "critical commentary" is to make sure the article discusses the picture. --Laser brain (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah on second reading i realised thats what you ment, ok, i will try to find something on his music videos damaging the quality of music, ive heard it once or twice, ill look for it and see what the source is. For the surgery, the book i have talks about why jackson wanted surgery, the events of the first 2 on the nose, the chin cleft and why he wanted it, the amount of surgery he had a different points and there are some statements made my the media proffession. As for his skin alteration the book has tones of medical stuff on that. Im discussing it here with you because the FA page is really messy now, i cant find my way around it at all. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the update, i cant find anything on the negative effect on industry, your more than welcome to look for a reliable source yourself, otherwise i think youl just have to call that resolved. Second, ive added tones to the physical appearnce section, it just needs a copy edit. Take a look at that and see if you are happy with the content itself, Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have stricken my other two itemized concerns - for now, I am still opposing based on 1a, professional prose. Have you had any luck in locating an experienced copyeditor to go through the whole text? I think if you do that, Tony and Karanacs would review their opposes. --Laser brain (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One person has, he's only done certain sections tho, i can ask him and others to do it all, then you will support? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations !!!

Well there, congrats; how does it feel ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I feels like my university can now pad their stats for non-traditional (read: too old) students. But, what a huge relief to be done! Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est

Thank you for your comments at the FAC. I have responded to your points, at the FAC discussion page. Cirt (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked through lots of various database archives when searching for sources for this article - I did not come across any sort of reaction from Erhard or his business associates to the book's publication. Cirt (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Any help/suggestions on how to work on comprehensiveness? Like I said, I have gone through lots of databases searching for additional sources, but the list in the References section is pretty comprehensive as far as sources go. The material in the article then pretty much reflects those sources and coverage given, especially as far as analysis of the book in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking, what was your strategy for researching this? Did you do different types of scholarly searches (like Academic Search Premier or Lexis Nexis) that are normally good sources of critical review? --Laser brain (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I searched in an index of book reviews. I searched at a university library, in the databases you have mentioned. I searched online in google. I searched in an index of mentions in other books. I searched in archived news sources/mentions in three different databases. Cirt (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just triple-checked Lexis Nexis again, no new sources turned up that are not already used in the article. I will go back again and look through the other databases again. But honestly I have been checking and re-checking for additional sources all along. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Did another few searches through Academic Search Premier, again, did not find any additional sources that aren't already cited and utilized in the article. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a search too and didn't come up with anything new. I've changed to support since I'm convinced you've researched it thoroughly. --Laser brain (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, I've done some additional searching and still haven't come up with anything further on the book itself, though I did add a brief bit more biographical info about the author. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I live in Davison, and can tell you 100% for fact Moore was born here.

I went down to the county hall of records to check, he was born here. So please do not threaten me. Lemonhead414 (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How is that not reliable??? You're citing online sources less reliable. This is ridiculous. Lemonhead414 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NeXT

Hello. Thanks for the feedback. I have personally fixed quite a few of those errors. I have requested help from several copy-editors, and in addition I have submitted a request for copy-editing at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Please strike through or move the resolved issues into an "issues resolved" comments box like the other editors have done. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please review again - it has been copy-edited by User:Gusworld. A lot of context has changed - and a lot has been reorganized into the proper chronological order. — Wackymacs (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• The last of your issues have been resolved. Thanks for all your help! — Wackymacs (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Has been copyedited. Gary King (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The return of Gilberto

I've finally taken the plunge at FAC for our old friend Mr. Gil and wondered if you had any comments to make, as the ones you gave at PR were so helpful. --Kakofonous (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Parallel computing

Can you please revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parallel computing? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing

Hiya, I was wondering if you could help with an article I'm working on? I've taken Dirty Dancing through two peer reviews, GA status, a rejected FA nom, and literally scores of hours of work, but no matter how much time I put into it or who I've asked to look at it, the FA reviewers keep saying "not good enough". I'd still really like to get it to FA, especially before Patrick Swayze dies.  :/ If you have time, could you take a look at it and see what magic you could do, to make it more "wiki"? Thanks, --Elonka 14:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I will take a look at it this week. --Laser brain (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi! Could you please have a look to the Wikipedia:Peer review#Gojira (band) and make a small review for that article please? Thank you.--  LYKANTROP  12:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That is all I need to know :) --  LYKANTROP  17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese characters

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Japanese_characters_are_totally_inappropriate and at FAC. Tony (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard

I have taken care of all your concerns on this FAC. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will revisit shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC ciscussion

I see that you are already aware that the FAC discussion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est, which you had previously commented on, has since been restarted. Would you care to carry your !vote/comment forward from the FAC before it was restarted? Cirt (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cartridge photos

Hi - a photo (or scan) of a copyrighted work is a derivative work and thus subject to the same copyright issues as the original. They should be tagged with the {{Non-free 3d art}} or {{Non-free product cover}} copyright tags. Best, Black Kite 06:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

5/7 DYK

On 7 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sarcos, 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.

--Bedford 18:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

See if your FAC requests (but the passive) were fulfilled. igordebraga ≠ 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ocarina of Time FAC

I've expanded the Development section at The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, per your comment at the Ocarina of Time FAC. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and let me know what you think. I apologize for pinging you so quickly—I normally wait at least 24 hours—but I'm leaving town in a day and most likely won't have Internet access for a few days. Thanks, Pagrashtak 06:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1

Please review Macintosh Classic if you have the time. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments left. Interesting article! --Laser brain (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I have addressed most of your issues. Please strike as necessary. — Wackymacs (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was lucky and came by a bunch of academic journals/news sources on Infotrac. As a result, a lot more information has been added to the article (see the History and Reception sections). You'll also be happy to know you were right -- there was an education price - it was $800. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Zinta

Thank you so much. I only had one observation -- the fact that Kal Ho Naa Ho was a tearjerker is very important because the movie was mostly recognised for this kind of content as well as Zinta's role itself. I hope you don't mind. I'll now add a source for The Hero. Thanks for the great comments and great help. I must say I wanted to turn to you yesterday, but did not know if you are willing to go through the text, as your history indicated that you were busy. Thanks again and best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey again! Blofeld and I have worked on The Hero bit. What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Hi, could you work with me to de-game-guide-ify The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess? I'm going to remove some information from the Gameplay section that is not very important, so that it doesn't feel too in-universe. Gary King (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit. Thoughts? I have cut down the gameplay to the first three paragraphs of the Gameplay section; the rest talks about differences with previous games, and the technology behind the game. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me do another read-through and I'll let you know. Oh, and Elderly Instruments did have a peer review page.. the editor just happened to write his comments on the article Talk page. I copied them over there for posterity's sake at the time. --Laser brain (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on the article? I feel like it's improved, but is it enough? Gary King (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary, we're still missing criterion 1a by a fair margin. It's just not there, I'm afraid. --Laser brain (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1

I was lucky and came by a bunch of academic journals/news sources on Infotrac. As a result, a lot more information has been added to the article (see the History and Reception sections). You'll also be happy to know you were right -- there was an education price - it was $800. — Wackymacs (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a suspicion. Well thanks for digging that up. The prose is looking great. I wonder if a Mac expert might be able to point out any other things you might be missing. --Laser brain (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I might add a thing or two to the Features section, but I am very happy at how its turned out. It's up at GA nominations at the moment. I think it's now broad enough to be featured as well. Again, thanks for your help.— Wackymacs (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Heads up; I'm copyediting now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/PowerBook 100/archive1

When you have the time, of course. Thanks for your help with the NeXT and Macintosh Classic articles! — Wackymacs (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do, sir. You're a Mac-writin' maniac! --Laser brain (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:-) Thank you for the comments. All sorted, unless I missed something. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Krulak Mendenhall mission

Hi there. Can you check another of the paragraphs? The lead was the only part that I had forgotten to copyedit last week and I have done so now, as well as expanding it, Thanks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I always read the whole article before commenting. If I spot problems easily, I tend to move to "less detailed" reading where I am looking for other major problems. I will be happy to run through it again on my next pass through the list. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Episode One and such

Hello, Laser brain. You have new messages at Gary King's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm almost done. Hang around for a few minutes longer... Gary King (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be better now. Could you take another run through? Not quite done yet (you can watch my contributions to see the progress) but I think it's improving well. Gary King (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix FAC

Hi Laser brain. I've replied to your comments at the FAC. If the FAC has been archived/not promoted by the time you get to it, would you be kind enough to make in-depth comments on the talkpage for me? Thanks! :)) D.M.N. (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Peer Review of Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock

If you have time, could you please take a look at Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock and post any suggestions for improvement that you might have at Wikipedia:Peer review/Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock/archive2? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have time to visit this after your other reviews and candidacies have closed. --Laser brain (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Metroid Prime 3: Corruption#From main page

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Metroid Prime 3: Corruption#From main page Gary King (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Master Juba

Hi, Laser brian. If you get the chance, could you drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Master Juba and revisit your comments? The article has now gone through three copy edits (by Jmabel, Tuf-Kat, and myself), and the prose and clarity problems you mentioned have all hopefully been addressed. Thanks again for your feedback, — Dulcem (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the heads-up. --Laser brain (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Prose review

I wonder if, when you get the chance, you could look at James Milner for me. Thanks Buc (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assata Shakur

Thank you for keeping your objections detailed and actionable, laser brain. I appreciate the effort you have put into your edits to the article so far as well as your comments. I believe I have remedied most of them, but a few of them I disagreed with. Please check back at the fac page at your convenience. Savidan 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply to the issues. It speaks well of your dedication to the article. I will revisit within a few hours. --Laser brain (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Have fun !

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 21, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: VG editing guide

Thank you for the feedback. The size is certainly a concern, however, a lot of early feedback we got from less experienced editors at the VG Project was the guide was not in-depth enough, and that it didn't really prepare them to write an Featured or Good article. But I do agree something needs to be done about the size. One idea I've been considering is to break it up into subpages like chapters. The main page would be more generic and the subpages could give the in-depth information some editors are looking for. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Please take your time, the whole VG Project wants this to be a useful and practical guide. Regarding your question, if I had to pick one, I would say it is meant to be read as a whole. But, certain parts are designed to be read casually; like the bulleted lists and various tip sections. When writing it, we figured people wouldn't read through the whole thing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Concerns regarding The Orange Box FAC

I'm slightly concerned about your comments regarding the article on The Orange Box and it's FAC, particularly the following:

...but substantive work has not been done to bring this up to FA standard before being posted here and it shows.

The previous FAC can be found here. Following on from that, I contacted SandyGeorgia on how to proceed. She reccomended that I arrange for a peer review and contact the original opposers for further advice, which I then organised. The peer review that we held can be found here. In that, a number of issues were brought to our attention that we worked hard to rectify, before bringing the article back to FAC. Based on this, I would appreciate an understanding of what would qualify as substansive work to bring this up to FA standard, as I would prefer to avoid repeating missing the same steps in the process in future. I can understand that videogame FAC nominations are suffering from a lack of preparedness and clogging up the system and this is something I would like to avoid if possible. I can appreciate that you give your time voluntarily to the project and would value your thoughts, in order for me to avoid a repeat of this in the future. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if this comment seemed unfair or harsh. I actually didn't see the video game peer review - I looked at the general peer review which is empty. I need to learn to look in the WikiProject banners, clearly. To answer your question (and I'll answer at the FAC as well) about what qualifies as substantive work to bring an article up to FA standard: Usually it means going through the article with a fine-tooth comb several times, with a copy of the featured article criteria for reference. In the case of video game articles, it almost always means involving a non-video game editor. If I see an article written, reviewed, and GA-passed all within a single WikiProject, it is almost always badly in need of an outside review/copyedit. Again, sorry if my tone offended. I'm more than a little run ragged from dealing with other unprepared video game articles. --Laser brain (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I can really appreciate that you're being stretched thin at the moment and want to do my best to minimise my pull on your time. One of the mistakes I made myself was not performing a final copyedit before nominating it, which I should have done. I also wasn't aware of the distinction between a wikiproject peer review and a general one - something I'll bear in mind for the future. I'll try to give the article a deep clean over the next few days, once I've completed my review of Grand Theft Auto 4. As a side note, Dihydrogen monoxide (talk · contribs) has agreed to help mentor me through GAN reviewing, as I'm hoping to be able to catch potentially troublesome articles before they even hit the FAC pages. If you can offer any help or direction in this area yourself, please let me know. Once again, many thanks for your time, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're a gentleman and a scholar. Greater minds than mine have worked hard on compiling advice for preparing an FA candidate. Check User:Cla68#Advice_on_preparing_a_history_article_for_FA and User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for all your FA-writing and reviewing needs. --Laser brain (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well now I feel orphaned because I don't have a mentor like everyone else. Hey Laser, adopt me!! In any case, I just finished a full sweep of the article and hopefully preemptively cleaned up issues, not giving you the chance to raise them. I also attempted to address the concerns you raised at the FAC, so please do have a look at your earliest convenience. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't want me to adopt you.. I'm even a bad influence on my cat. :) I'm massively busy for the next couple days but I will head back to The Orange Box when I get back. I almost bought it today but I decided I didn't have time to play that many different games and just bought Half Life 2. --Laser brain (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Musical instrument

The History section of this article is saying:

Eventually, some cultures assigned ritual functions to their musical instruments. Those cultures developed more complex percussion instruments and other instruments such as ribbon reeds, flutes, and trumpets. These labels carry far different connotations from those used in modern day.

Can you please clarify which cultures it refers to? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I will add that information as I work. Do you have a pressing research need to know right away? --Laser brain (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Passage to Freedom

hi there Laser brain. I was able to fix your requests this time! Thanks again! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macintosh Classic

Just thought I'd let you know...You recently helped peer review Macintosh Classic. Its now up at FAC. P.S. NeXT is now a featured article. Thanks for all your help! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

M-35 FAC

I replied to your comments at the FAC a few days ago. I was wondering if you had seen them or had any more comments? Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied at the FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Finetooth appears to have completed his copyedit. I would appreciate another look. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

I've fixed your concerns and left comments in regards to your opposition. I have also copyedited the plot section, so please give that a look and leave some comments as well. And if you're completely satisfied, a Support would be greatly appreciated! (Just a suggestion.) Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 03:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I withdrew the nomination. But you know, I've worked VERY hard, and mostly by myself, to bring the article to a respected class, and now it looks like that'll never happen. What do I do? Should I give up? Start on another article? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 13:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt you worked very hard - it definitely shows! I don't think you should give up. You should take the comments you got seriously and probably work with an experienced copyeditor to bring the article up to FA standard. Bringing an article to that standard by yourself is nearly impossible - I have rarely seen it done. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Musical instrument

Noticed your great work on the article and wondered if some info about percussion that I have the (somewhat obscure) resources for would be useful to you. If so, drop me a line, if not, I'd be glad to help in any other way. --Kakofonous (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Laser brain. You have new messages at Kakofonous's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Kakofonous (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Elderly Isntrument

Please- this article is a shocking and overt example of advertising. Discussion page consensus clearly corroborates this view. Furthermore- what proof can you possibly offer as not being a vested interest of this company? Starstylers (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't get rough now dude. What this article needs is some improvement, not personal criticism. Cheers, Face 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Elderly Instruments

Thanks for your comment. I'm happy to help improve the article in any way I can. Let me also say that I think your contributions to the article are mostly very good. I'm not one of these people who thinks this store isn't notable or that businesses can't be FAs. I just think this article's promotion to FA status seems to be premature. I'm sure it can be turned into a great article in short order. --D. Monack | talk 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate

Hi, I've reviewed your concerns and gave a thorough copyedit of the article. Could you please review the article's GA nomination for me? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 22:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC for Civil Air Patrol

Your oppose at the FAC for Civil Air Patrol has been addressed. Please evaluate the article to see if it now meets your standards. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Elderly talk page

I thought the issue of procedure was relevant to the case, but if you insist, fine. What do you suggest would be a better venue? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cheers, I just moved it to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it's a good article, I'd just like to point out that my criticism wasn't directed at you. I’ve just made a comment on possible reform of the TFA system on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article, I’d appreciate if you had a look and perhaps weighed in. Cheers! Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For all the crap you took while Elderly Instruments was on the main page. I feel for you. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I came to say the same thing...makes me not look forward so much to when I finally get onto the Main Page. Hope you're dealing with it OK, mate. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you have gone on a wikibreak. I hope you don't feel discouraged to contribute after this. Love, Face 07:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just giving my support. Elderly Instruments is a fine article. I've dealt with at least one of those individuals on a similar issue and after 2 days of reading their vile insults I almost walked from the project, but then refused to give them the satisfaction. Don't let them get you down. Not a single one of them would ever say that to your face.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another drive-by comment: I think the article was solid as well, and it's unfortunate that the reaction went the way it did. Keep up the great work when you come back. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you did a great job on Elderly Instruments; I hope that after the naysayers and trolls turn to the next victim that you will return your talents to Wikipedia. Best of luck! Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate main-page day with a passion, because it invariably turns into something like that. Kudos to you for doing a great job of remaining calm and civil, even in light of the not-so-nice (and some nasty) things that were posted on the article's talk page. Enjoy your break, and we'll be happy to see you when you get back :) Karanacs (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another drive by show of support. It seems like every single day an article comes to the main page that isn't a city or history or an A-list celebrity, there are pages of "WHY IS THIS ON THE FRONT PAGE" discussion. This time they got wayyyy too personal. And that's pretty BS. --Smashville^BONK! 21:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing I don't understand is why, if people cared that much, they don't get involved in the TFA nominations. It's like crying wolf after the horse has bolted, or similar. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to express my support too. The article definitely meets our Featured Article criteria, and I'm sure that the concerns around the sources will be short-lived. It's sad that some complaints around the nomination of this FA became personal, but your work will have been viewed and appreciated by a lot of people around the world, this is I think an exceptional honor that shouldn't be saddened by other considerations. Cenarium (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to echo my support. Where are these people beforehand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopularOutcast (talk • contribs) 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In blissful ignorance that some people were being malicious. I'd have jumped in with both feet if I'd known about the controversy. Sorry... Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if anyone will come back to this section to read it, but I wanted to posted my sincere thanks for the supportive words. I can tell this is an outstanding community just from your actions. Now let's get out there and write some more FAs! --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• No rest for the weary: you have an assignment here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Elderly Instruments

I assume that there is a discussion somewhere of the debacle that is Elderly Instruments, though I haven't been able to find it. In any case, I wanted to write to you personally to express my shock and profound anger at your action in creating and promoting this article. I have been an occasional contributor to Wikipedia over the years, and made my contributions on the understanding that I was working on a collaborative, non-commercial project. I am very angry that Wikipedia has been subverted in the way that the Elderly Instruments article does, particularly in its promotion to "featured article" status. The work that I did on a specifically non-commercial basis has now contributed to a blatant advertisement that has been visible to millions of people around the world. My work has been stolen and used for a purpose that I did not authorise. I would encourage you to at the very least make a public apology to your co-editors. RomanSpa (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are out of line. If you had tried to find the discussion, you would have found it in the most obvious place as well as here, and at the time of your post that last one (with subsequent replies) was still on Talk:Main_Page, which makes it even easier to find. And you've been around long enough (since 2006, apparently) to know how to find those discussions. Furthermore, at no time did you submit content to Wikipedia with the understanding that it would not be used for commercial purposes (the GFDL summary beneath any page's Edit box says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."). Your implication that Wikimedia/pedia/whomever is profiting from this article is invalid, since the article was not paid for by any interested party. The only way that WP "profits" from the Elderly Instruments article is that the free encyclopedia is one article closer to being the most complete encyclopedia in the world. Finally, flaming the editor of an article that may need work – especially after so many editors have already indulged in such flaming – is counterproductive; a far more mature and, dare I say it, civil response would have been to attempt improvement or continue discussion of the article in question. ...If I have in some way misconstrued your words or intentions, or if I have wrongly assumed that you could easily find the policies and talk pages which support my statements, I apologize. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 03:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd like to reply in order to avoid misconceptions or misunderstandings from both sides. We have articles on numerous businesses, for example google, the only condition for inclusion on Wikipedia is that it meets our specific notability requirements (and is not in violation with one of our policies like WP:V or WP:BLP). The featured article status is only a sign of quality. The today's featured articles are selected among our featured articles, this selection process is regularly debated. Laser brain has edited a lot of articles, his contribution to this article is one among countless others on various subjects. Laser brain has not proposed that the article be put on the Main Page, nor attempted to promote the article in any way, but tried to improve its quality. Your frustration is understandable, but please consider that the intentions of Laser was to achieve a quality article, not to get it promoted on the Main Page. This may appear to be advertising, but some of us also think that any quality (i.e. "featured") article should have a chance to be featured on the Main Page, regardless of other considerations. The issue is debated (see the links by Aylad above, also here, here, here, here and many other places), don't hold your grudges on Laser, but rather on the process if you think that it's against the spirit of Wikipedia. Cenarium (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Indeed, there is no reason at all why Laser brain should make an apology, public or otherwise. He has been extraordinarily civil and composed throughout this affair, where others (and I include myself here) have not always managed to be so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I second JB's comment on Laser brain's position in this matter. TONY (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I third it and suggest we archive this sort of thing faster. It does no good and plenty of harm. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No reason for Laser brain to make an apology?! Codswallop! He should apologise straight away for possessing the unmitigated nerve to improve Wikipedia articles and for his single-minded, obstinate pursuance of quality and the ever-elusive criterion 1a with callous disregard for the conscientious objectors who point out that improving certain articles instantly makes everything one adds fail neutrality guidelines and automatically imparts a conflict of interest. Numerous users have demanded such an apology and Laser brain ought to respect this consensus among the community or else—mark my words!—this issue will never be settled. In fact, I am not sure if just an apology will do any more. Laser brain may have to vandalise FA pages like Elderly Instruments, Macintosh, Microsoft, Bank of China (Hong Kong), Firefox, Maraba Coffee, and other wikinfomercials to atone for his willful and scandalous promotion of special interest groups as evidenced by his unrepentant improvement of their articles. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said, sir. Additionally, I wish RomanSpa had gotten the memo that direct personal attacks were supposed to go to my e-mail (well, with minor exceptions). The nerve! --Laser brain (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macintosh Classic

When you have the time, please take another look at Macintosh Classic which has now been copy-edited by four editors in total. See changes since your last comment at the FAC. Your support at the FAC would be most appreciated. Thanks. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

collaboration

I'm down for it. If you want to start it, I can add to it...--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a bot added something to the article's talk page, when mine made it to the Main Page. I honestly did not even realize there was a main page until that happened. Same with DYK...well at least until the second one I received. Looks like you got a good start! I'll add some about dealing with trolls/vandals/etc. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will do my best to make the 13th of each month a lucky day (for some backlogged peer review). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid

Just letting you know I've been working on this article for the past few weeks and hope to get it back to FA status. Just wondering what you think? Buc (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know of a good copy editor. Buc (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Madman Muntz

Although not my FAC, I'd just like to let you know that you should probably check this again. Lots of changes were made while you were away, and I changed my oppose to a support. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Good to see you (just as I'm getting ready to travel :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll be playing catchup for a while. Happy traveling to you! --Laser brain (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

good to see you back too! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to be back! I haven't looked at FAC yet.. I hope I'm not desperately behind... --Laser brain (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Great to see you back. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sixth-ed. (: --Kakofonous (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it was very disappointing to see you lambasted and trolled like this, and very heartening to see that you've stuck it out. Seems worthwhile to add my voice to those saying your work is valued, and I hope you don't listen too much to the negative nellies. WilyD 14:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So you've been back for almost a week now... how're you taking it over all? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC

All protocol was followed before bringing this article to FAC including posting a request on the League of Copy Editor's page. Several editors have visited the page doing exactly what you have asked here - their comments were addressed as well as yours. If you don't have specific examples to give to support continued oppose, that makes your oppose invalid. I really think you are being unfair to not even look at the rest of the article to point out any other problems. NancyHeise (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, per WP:CONS, which is a Wikipedia policy, not an essay someone wrote: "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted." WP:Silence and consensus is the wikilink within this official policy. I think it is more than just an essay, if not, it should be removed as a wikilink from the official policy page. NancyHeise (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RCC Nom

Now I've got back up off the floor - I have to congratulate you for integrity in this matter. Xandar (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making me laugh. I saw your comment as I was leaving a different message on Xandar's talk page. Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could be of service. :) --Laser brain (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to give us some guidance on the FAC page regarding capitalization issues - specifically: Do we cap the sacraments? NancyHeise (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

PowerBook 100

Hello. You commented on this at the peer review, it's now at FAC. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Hi, I noticed that you said you were listed at WP:PRV and willing to copy-edit any any arts-related topics. I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out ? I have put the Doggystyle article up for FAC and it has been requested that it receives a copy-edit before it can pass as a FA. A partial list of what has to be changed is at the FAC page, but I think the article would need a complete copy-edit to ensure it has good grammer and that the prose flows well. I personally don't know what to look for, so I would really appreciate your help. Can you help me out ? Please get back to me soon :) - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of everything that's been brought up, I think it just needs a copy-edit to bring it to FA status. Do you know any other editors who could help me out ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Musical_instrument#Improving_this_article

I've left some comments and I have also added a list of good sources which are freely available on Google Books. Hope it helps - how is the rewrite going so far? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would love to help with the writing, but I'm trying to fix Synthesizer at the moment (along with a load of other stuff listed here). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually hate writing these types of 'generic' topics, because there is so much to write. Another one I'm doing is a rewrite of Tourism in the United States, which is currently in my user space here. But anyway...when I came to Synthesizer a few months ago, it looked like this, so I naturally started to improve it. It is looking decent, though it still needs a lot of work doing. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

responding to your comment

He basically called all the support votes on the page idiots. I am not upset with his critique of my work, I am upset that he disparaged all of those people who came to the page, spent time reviewing it and decided to support. I know one of them is an editor for an journal and is a Yale graduate student. I think Tony's manner is abusive and discouraging to other editors, he should not be reviewing Wikipedia if he can't act like a gentleman. I think this is one of Wikipedia's own policies that no one seems to be enforcing. NancyHeise (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Because when a reviewer comes to the page to review the page, he states his own comment and reasons, he does not tell everyone on the page that their votes are stupid. NancyHeise (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Admin?

That's very nice of you to offer. The previous experience did discourage me and for a while I had one of those "I'm not an admin and don't want to be one!" infoboxes on my user page. I'm more open to the idea now though. Thing is... would I really use the extra privileges? I think I would prefer it if you nominated after I have completed the stuff on my to-do list, as I am in the process of rewriting several articles and cleaning up a few existing ones of mine. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe...I do come across a lot of vandalism and so it would be useful if I ever need to block an IP or, as you said, to sub-protect pages. I also think you are fit to be an admin, although you are quite new to Wikipedia - Do you think you'll consider it in a few months time maybe? You've learnt everything a lot faster than I did. It took me ages until I consistently used edit summaries. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do have that option selected (only discovered it within the past month when I also altered my signature's appearance). Thanks for letting me know anyway. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support vote at Roman Catholic Church NancyHeise (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse

I just checked the MTV News links, and they appear to be working again. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

• Hi. I expanded the lead as you requested. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

Down a few pegs

Sorry if my sarcasm came across like pouting. It gets the best of me sometimes. Although I admit I did feel a little silly doing an "exercise", and I do think the sentence is worse because of the changes, it's really not that big of a deal. I do appreciate your comments, and would of course like to see much more where that came from. Most of your other comments were spot-on, so I know the article on the whole has already been improved so far because of your comments, and will continue to be improved if you choose to participate in the FAC further. And of course I want to get that ugly "Oppose" out of there too! But seriously, I'm a big boy and can handle whatever you throw at me, even if I get a little sarcastic from time to time. Thanks so far for the help. Drewcifer (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate

Hey, the article passed a GAN with flying colors. Do you think it's ready for FA class now? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to look it over tonight, but I will do so tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the comments that were left at the article talk page, and they're starting to get me annoyed. All of your comments were good, but I don't understand the reference comments. Why are Pantagraph and About.com bad sources? They're fine in my opinion. Also, I've added a "Chocolate in popular culture" section to the article. Can you give your thoughts on that? Also, more comments would be appreciated.

P.S. JimDunning is started to get on my nerves. He's reverting my edits just because I don't a give a super long edit summary. Why does it bother him so much? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 18:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my point was that for a topic as broad as chocolate, you should be able to find much better sources. We need to use the best sources available. Hope that makes sense. I don't really have time to provide another review at this time. Regarding JimDunning, he appears to be acting in good faith and with the article's best interests in mind. I hope you can work with him. Edit summaries are not required but they are certainly a common courtesy to your fellow editors. --Laser brain (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I AM looking at the criticisms, I just don't reply to all of them. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

VNQDD

Thanks for the scanning Laser brain. I've done some updating for you. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another thing about musical instruments

It is surprising that nobody has created that page yet. It makes perfect sense to have a separate history page. Good luck with it! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: FAC "votes"

I just wanted to comment that there's nothing illogical about my rationale for opposing the Seth MacFarlane FAC nomination. I don't know if you read my comments carefully, but I noticed that when the subject is a public figure whose career has only recently begun, the article is likely to be edited heavily as he continues to work on different projects. The nominator realized that I was right when he withdrew the nomination. In any case, I really feel that you should take it easy. Sometimes, I might not feel the same way about the article as others. That doesn't mean that my opinion is any less valid. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Assata Shakur

Thank your for your comments in this article's first (unsuccessful) nomination. I have recently renominated it. As the article has been somewhat expanded since you last saw it, would you mind re-reading it and commenting again? Savidan 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Calgary Hitmen FAC

Hi, I've responded to your comments at the FAC for the Calgary Hitmen. I appreciate your comments, and hope that I have addressed your concerns. Thank you for the constructive feedback, and please let me know if there is anything more that requires addressing or clarification. Regards, Resolute 00:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks your your detailed review of the article. It is appreciated. Resolute 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your excellent FAC reviews. I was most surprised when I found you had less that 2000 edits; well done! Maxim(talk) 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So... when's the RfA? ;-) giggy _(:O) 01:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2012? --Laser brain (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article review for San Francisco, California

Hi, I have started a Featured Article review for this article (located here). The primary contributor disagrees with all of my concerns about the article, so I was hoping you could look it over and give some feedback. If you don't have time, could you please recommend another editor that might be able to comment? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Comment

What about if it said "Therefore, Hogan and Savage were paired together to end their feuds with their respective on-screen rivals." There is no denying that they were. Nikki311 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did do a search of industry magazines at the University of Georgia library, but they did not have a single magazine. They had several books, though, which I already used in the article. There are several types of magazines. In general, they contain photos, a few interviews, editorials, and that sort of thing. The other type gives spoilers, rumors, and speculation, but in my opinion, those can't always be trusted. The last kind gives awards, like match or feud of the year. Nikki311 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

May FAC reviewer award

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		To Laser brain, For your superior reviews of at least 46 Featured article candidates during May, thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your careful work and thorough reviews to help promote Wiki's finest work. You are always willing to dive in to the difficult reviews and roll up your sleeves to help bring candidates to status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Special thanks to Ling.Nut—a retired editor who had a strong commitment to excellence in content review—for designing this award, and to Maralia for running the stats for May.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benjamin Franklin Tilley

I just wanted to drop you a note saying that I have addressed one of your comments and will address the second (the position of "master") as soon as I am positive I have the right answer. JRP (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I found information which at least allowed me to make a small stub: Master (naval) and I have wikilinked in the BFT article. JRP (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your user page

Aw, what happened to that nice picture that you had? –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo (series)

We've completed the items you specifically mentioned, and have worked on the grammar (I'm sure there's more) but was wondering about your complaint about jargon. Basically, I don't see how we could pass 1a of WP:FA? if we wrote the article from a non-gamer's idiots guide perspective. ex. "Halo is a console video game; that is, a game featuring computer generated animated objects moving in a virtual world on a box which plays said items..." That's why we have links! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure there's some jargon we can cut, but some of it is kinda necessary, I think :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record

If you have anything to say as regards me, ie. "Additionally, the way you and LuciferMorgan have treated me in this FAC makes the prospect of working with you pretty unpleasant", actually have the courtesy to say it on my page. Furthermore, I haven't "treated" you in any way. I have merely stated that I don't believe your concerns hold any weight, and I have the right to assert that opinion. When I mentioned "diatribe", I was actually referring to the FAC as a whole, and not one specific reviewer, just so you know. Such diatribe includes questioning Blabbermouth.net as a source, when articles which extensively use that site have already been passed. That also includes questioning the reliability of interviews, given the fact that journalist's get their 99% information from interviews. When they use information from a press release, that press release was written using group interviews. I'm sorry if you've taken what I've said to heart, but when FACs get to the point of questioning group interviews as a source for factual information, then those FACs are becoming absolutely ridiculous. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your statement as regards consensus, I can understand if this happens on one occasion. When it happens every time a metal article is nominated for FAC though, it does get pathetic. Also, I reserve the right to use that word if I feel it is warranted.

The process is not perfect, and isn't above criticism.

However, irrelevant of your opinions as regards consensus, I still feel questioning the reliability of interviews is ridiculous. If you had actually taken the time to read music FAs, then you'll know that virtually all of them use interviews amongst their sources. In light of those FAs, I personally think this has already established consensus on using music interviews as a souce. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Brian Horrocks FAC

Hi there. Just letting you know that I got the nominator to ask some people to copyedit this (Since I noticed you, among other editors, had highlighted the prose poor at the FAC). Finetooth has now copyedited it. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime

Thank you. I was trying to figure out where to go with the next step. This is what I'm dealing with at Burger King legal issues. I feel badly because I get the impression that this is a young person with the right purpose, but the damage is increasing. Limetolime was recently appointed a project coordinator for Film and I've been hoping one or two of the more experienced coordinators would step in. Let's hope things end well.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know (and someone should MfD that stupid awards page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

At some article Limetoline was pushing to GA a month or so ago another editor had actually asked her/him if she/he was involved in some assignment or contest.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew it had to be something like that. I also feel badly because he is a young person who is clearly susceptible to getting carried away with things like the award center (which I see has been twice nominated for deletion already). Well, I will be keeping an eye out. --Laser brain (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime

I am going to try and be calm. I am very annoyed that you, Laser brain, are saying that I'm being a disruptive editor to the users here. I am not. I'm trying to do well on the Chocolate article. The awards mishap was due to me having a bad day, not to annoy anyone. And YES, I will keep my coordinator position. Just because I hit a speed bump in my editing doesn't meen you get to take away one of my most prized positions. If I see more negative comments about me or any of my work, I'm going to have to report to an admin. Limetolime ^{I want an award! • look what I did!} 15:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I am just going to say this once and for all: I AM NOT SUBMITTING ARTICLES FOR A CONTEST, I'M ONLY SUBMITTING THEM TO RECEIVE COMMENTS AND/OR USEFUL INFORMATION ON THE ARTICLE. I've tried Peer-review, but no ACTUAL user ever responds; I only get a generated script. Please stop the rumors, I am only trying to help. If you want me to review WP policies, I'll do that. :) Maybe I need a wikibreak. Summer vacaction is on right now, maybe now is a good time. Limetolime ^{I want an award! • look what I did!} 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On more thing: I would like for someone to submit an AfD on that award page. I was extremely hurt when iMatthew took away my reward. Please try and understand. Limetolime ^{I want an award! • look what I did!} 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have "I want an award" in your sig, don't you? As far as I can tell, iMatthew was acting with the integrity of the awards page in mind. Further reply on your Talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean

I really do. Maybe Wikipedia is just too much for me. Do you think I should leave? Ask for some help when making changes? (I did try and do this; on the Chocolate talk page, I asked if a reference that I added was okay.) You saw this, didn't you? Please lend me some help, and I would like for you to monitor my edits to make sure I'm doing the right thing. Is that too much to ask?

P.S. Excuse the admin reporting threat, that was just the heat of the moment. Limetolime ^{I want an award! • look what I did!} 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ghosts

Hey Laser brain. Thanks again for your insightful comments at Ghosts I–IV's FAC. Unfortunately the FAC was closed pretty much right after your comments, but I suppose it could use a bit more work anyways. So, I was hoping I could ask you for a little guidance in that department. You seem to be a pretty unforgiving judge as far as prose goes, and I think that's exactly what the article needs before I renominate it. Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated, whether it be a copy edit or even a list of problem sentences you've found. Anything at all, really. And I'm a firm believer in reciprocity, so I'd be happy to return the favor in some way. Prose isn't my strongest point, but I'm decent at research and very good with technical stuff like tables, timelines, etc. Either way, thanks again for the help earlier, and keep it up! Drewcifer (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush at all. I'm going to wait about a month or so until I bring it back to FAC, so take your time. Thanks so much! Drewcifer (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo (series).

Thanks for the review, once again... I've reworded or reworked the specific examples you gave, and Andonic also went through and gave the article a copy-edit, so I'd be much obliged if you could take another look. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strapping Young Lad

Hi! Could you give me a list of articles about SYL from the International Index to Music Periodicals, if you have access to it/search in it? I want to see if there are more of them online, and whether I can use some more of them or not. Thanks in advance. Gocsa (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I could only find the first and the last one online, I couldn't find the ones from Modern Drummer, Billboard, and Goldmine. I'd appreaciate if you could send these (the text) in e-mail here. Although I'm not seeing much here, many of them are just news articles. But please send them, if you could. Thank you! Gocsa (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources, but none of them is useful. The Billboard review of Alien is good, but I have already used 3-4 reviews of this album in the article.. Anyway, I'd like to thank you for your effort again! Gocsa (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review reminder

Hi Laser brain, this is a requested reminder to look at a peer review without a response at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog or at one of the newer articles without a response here. Thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

NY 32 FAC

Daniel Case solved most of your qualms with the FAC. Could you please give it a lookover. Thanks for the comments.^Mitch32^contribs 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 28

I addressed most of the issues on that FAC, so it'd be great if you could take another look. Thanks in advance, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

This is a formal notification. Ignore if you have no further objections

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Brian Horrocks

Would you mind very much taking another look at the Brian Horrocks FAC please to see whether your copy concerns have been addressed? Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hi I'm wondering if you can help. I find all the rules about images and procedures for downloading pretty impossible to understand. I want to download and use these three images from the Congress Library site. [1] [2][3] Can you help? Thanks. Fainites ^barley 09:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks LB. I'll try and find them again and have a bash. Fainites ^barley 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix

Hi Laser brain. I don't know whether you remember, but last month, when the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article was at FAC stage, you said that the article needed a good copy-edit. I was wondering whether you had the time to give comments on the article ready for another stab at FA; or to run through the article, and give it a minor copy-edit. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you still give comments on the talkpage about the article, or do you think it would be better for someone else to do it? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley

Laser brain, I've noticed your careful prose reviews around FAC and I was wondering if you would be willing to peer review Mary Shelley before Qp10qp and I bring it to FAC. We would greatly appreciate it! Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Trumpet

Would you mind nominating the article for me? I would review it to make sure it is the best GA it can be. ~Meldshal42 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

i apologize for not being more specific. could you nominate trumpet at GAN (it will tell you what to do) so that I could review the article myself? ~~Meldshal42 (talk)'(contribs) 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. ~~Meldshal42 (talk)'(contribs) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Funny going-ons at GAN. Would you please help confirm that I am not trying to cheat articles but to actually review them. I apologize if this is something not supposed to be done, but I nominated the article n my own anyway. So, SandyGeorgia, take away the GAs I passed. But don't expect it to do any good. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I steal your signature?

Hi Laser Brain, I first saw your signature on Mitchazenia's talk page. Can I copy it? Can you show me how? I'm a newbie and I have no idea how to reproduce your sig. Putting bold around my four tildes doesn't even come close. Picardin (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Limetolime

User:Limetolime - Have you seen his bottom user box. That it a blatant person attack against you. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It was hard to find: User:Limetolime/LB, linked from User:Limetolime/ub. Speak up soon or I'm taking this to AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be taken to AN/ANI right now, that is a blatant personal attack and the fact that it was in a user box doesnt make it any better. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to wait a bit and see how Laser wants to handle it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure completely understand, my mouth literally hit the floor when I saw that though. Quite nasty. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's quite surprising, but the question is how to best get this editor back on track. Laser may prefer that someone talks to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the solution, I think the box should probably be removed ... now. Can an administrater just remove it? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as such an emergency, but anyone can remove a personal attack: I'll go do it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed and left an NPA note for Limetolime; if Laser wants to pursue admin action, we can take it to AN/I tomorrow, but I suggested to Lime that he db-author it as a show of good faith. (Laser, in case it's gone by the time you log on, it is a user box that says "This user hates Laser brain". A few boxes under his userbox that says he's a Christian.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I thought Christians didn't "hate" people. We leave it to you now Laser. Regards — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 05:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted the userbox. It clearly fits the speedy criteria, as an attack page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this, all. I will follow-up on this shortly after I have a few minutes to review Limetolime's block log and discover his future intentions. --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a very disappointing turn of events, im seeing a lot of behaviour like this in recent days. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas

Do you think Noble gas is too technical for FA? I haven't worked on a technical article before so I'd like some feedback on that... Gary King (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: User:Laser brain/AwardCenterMfD

I have had no interaction with the Awards Center and don't really care either way, but just to be devil's advocate: you can prove a few editors are abusing it, but what about the good articles that were passed/et al by the program? It makes sense to look at the whole picture. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, if I weren't busy just taking articles to FAC I definitely would be doing more GA reviewing, it's unfortunate some of this stuff gets through... I doubt that the net good outweighs the bad in this case, but always best to address the other side so as to crush them with the overwhelming grip of reason :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost thing

Sorry to butt in like that, but I had a free hour before a meeting. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

LSWR N15 class FAC review

Thank you for your evident interest in the article. I hope the vast majority of your issues have now been addressed. If there is anything else that needs editing, please pop it onto the discussion page. Please read my reasons for not being able to maintain a healthy level of edits on the article, also on the discussion page. Cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 343

Any chance you could give this article a lookover? Its shorter than what has been passed today, New York State Route 32, but I have had past luck with FAs around this size. Anyway, the article could use a nice lookover and I'd like a good detailed review before FACing this thing.^Mitch32^contribs 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, is something holding this up? Its ok if you're busy, but I like getting this reviewed a lot.^Mitch32^contribs 19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I solved all your comments already excepting the last one, which sadly has nothing else to it. Thanks again!^Mitch32^contribs 23:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed

I've closed out the above discussion. Please carefully read my closing rationale and bring anything questionable up on my talk page. Cheers — _Maggot^Syn 07:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This close was far to fast. The issue is an important one, and deserves discussion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That was a very alarming close, all things considered. I'm not sure I want to launch an AN/I/, but I'm also not sure this action should be allowed to go unnoticed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have left the user a request that he not close any more XfDs unless they have completely run their course and are obvious keeps. His response will determine whether I pursue an RfC. --Laser brain (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections, just be kind enough to toss me a link when its up and running. :) — _Maggot^Syn 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted

Maybe when you understand the term, you can use it and not appear like you don't. — _Maggot^Syn 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Thanks for the heads up about the MFD page for the AWC. I would totally have missed it without your helpful message. --Sharkface^T/_C 00:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So ... there's little oversight of the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Musical instrumentbox

Thanks for the pointer! I've left a few notes at User talk:Pipian/My Sandbox. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

PR?

Hey Laser, some more Powderfinger fun for you! Wikipedia:Peer review/Tea & Sympathy/archive1 is about to go to FAC, if you want to take a quick look beforehand... giggy _(:O) 08:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ping to my talk page) giggy _(:O) 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Mag requests: [4][5] if you can. giggy _(:O) 01:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Academic Search Premier

So, I was just wondering, how do I get in on this Academic Search Premier action? Is this some sort of subscription thing? Do I gotta sign up for something? Does it cost anything? It sounds like a good resource. Also, thanks so far for your always insightful comments at the YZ FAC. Drewcifer (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(Is also interested.) giggy _(:O) 08:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Musical instrument

Hey Laser brain. Well, I was wondering if you would like to work with me on musical instrument. I am going to start revising the article before i would like to nominate it for GAN. Thanks, --Meldshal42 (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My Sandbox

Well, i removed the stuff i put on musical instrument and moved it to my sandbox. I know that everything needs citations, but I just wanted to know how you though it looked at the moment. Thanks, --Meldshal42 (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas

Okay, I think the article is (almost?) ready for FAC. If you have time, I'd really appreciate some input on it; I've spent nearly a month and a few hundred edits working on it. Here is how it looked a month ago. My goal was to primarily re-learn some of the chemistry that I forgot since high school, but since then, I've taken it up as a challenge to see if I could get a very technical article to FA. Because you reviewed most, if not all, of my FACs, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this one and give some hard comments before I actually delve back in to FAC, which I haven't done in a month or two. Gary King (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

I continue to believe that Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) is the best article about a building under construction ever contributed to WP. I would appreciate your consideration at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) in regards to your opinion on whether it is now one of WP's finest articles. I hope I have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest thoughts. I continue to seek support and hope I have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My sandbox

I think I'm going to stray off a bit and use my own citations. Just wanted to let you7 know. Thanks anyway to you and Wackymacs. --Meldshal42 (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that i can add the info at my sandbox to the article? --Meldshal42 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources Dispatch

Laser, how about if you start this somewhere in your userspace, so we'll have it when we have an opening? It could reference WP:FCDW/June 23, 2008 and WP:FCDW/June 30, 2008. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do. --Laser brain (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laser brain

*whistles innocently* ;-) giggy _(:O) 10:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ((yes/no/maybe/not in a million years)?)

Could work...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some time down the road, gentlemen, but I don't now is a good time. Thanks though! --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Award center "reincarnation"

Needs to go to AN/I unless there is some sort of Project concurrence. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And possible migration to Featured Lists; follow User talk:AndonicO/Tzatziki Squad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

New news on caps

<shades on ... all that red! Make it blue so the Awards Center Fans can get busy opposing :-) > See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Template limit again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha :) Will avoid capping unless my comments are very long. --Laser brain (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Strapping Young Lad

Thank you! I'd also like to thank you for all the work you've done on the article, and for all the help you provided. You really helped a great deal, so thank you, again. Gocsa (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Crom requests your presence for a review

Hi Laser brain. I am getting critiques and comments for Conan (2007 video game) in an effort to make it respectable for FAC. In particlar, I am concerned over its prose, grammar, and sentence flow. Could you take a gander through it and judge if it requires minor copywriting or a heavy rewrite. I would also greatly appreciate specific pointers. Please leave your comments at its peer review. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PR experiment

Dear Laser brain, I'm writing in hopes of enlisting your aid in a four-month experiment at Peer Review (PR). The success of the experiment will depend on finding at least 10 editors willing to review at least one article a week through the end of October 2008. The experiment will employ a streamlined review process designed to insure that every nominator who seeks a review gets one and that reviewers do not waste time doing long reviews for nominators who do not respond to an initial short review.

The way it works is this: (1) Choose any article at Peer Review that lacks a review. Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date, especially the backlog list, is still a good place to find such articles. (2) Provide a short partial review based on your initial observations and wait to see if the nominator responds. Examples of short reviews can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Foreign relations of India/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Ed Stelmach/archive1. (3) If the nominator does not respond, the review is done. (4) If the nominator responds, continue the review as you see fit.

The experiment will require no noticeable administration. However, if you plan to participate, it would be helpful if you posted a brief note to Wikipedia talk:Peer review to that effect.

At the end of October, we can see how the experiment turned out and whether this process or some modification of it could sustain Peer Review permanently with minimal backlogs. If you can help, that would be great. If not, that's perfectly OK. We are all tremendously busy with a lot of different projects.

I have chosen to write to you in part because you've done peer reviews from the backlog during the past four months. Please forgive the form-letter nature of this note, which is more efficient than a personal note. With respect and thanks for your hard work on many projects, Finetooth (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hallo Laser brain! I've seen that you make peer reviews. Could you please make a review for Wikipedia:Peer review/Meshuggah/archive1 please? Thanks!  LYKANTROP  16:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha! I'll see them on this wednesday... With The Dillinger Escape Plan and Between the Buried and Me as support... Thanks for the review... --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's perfect! Thanks --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Laser Brain! Will you continue on Meshuggah article and the peer review? You did the copy-edits up to Meshuggah#Destroy Erase Improve (1995–1997). --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Hi, you commented at a previous FA review of the Michael Jackson article. Currently the article is at peer review and I will be renominating the article for FA at some point soon. I would really love to know what your opinion is of the articles quality now, either at the PR, the article talk page or even my talk page. The current PR hasn't drawn much attention so I'm in real need of feedback. I hope you can contribute an opinion to this article. Thank you, regards. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotes in footnotes

There's a quote= paramater in all the {{cite}} templates for this purpose now. I usually ask for a quote in the note when the source can't be verified by just anyone online. I know it seems like a hoop to jump through, but it improves our reliability to the average reader. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Greg & Steve

On 7 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Greg & Steve, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ghosts copyedit

Hey man, I was just wondering if you think you'll get around to doing that copyedit on Ghosts I–IV any time soon. I'm not asking in order to be pushy or anything, but I just wanted to see if you were still up to it. I'm gonna be taking a semi-wiki-break for a couple weeks, so I figured now would be good time. But I'd have no problem asking someone else if you don't feel up to it. No pressure either way, just wanted to check in is all. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool man. No big rush, I just wanted to see if it was still in the cards. Like I said a while ago, I'd be more than happy to return the favor sometime, so just let me know what I can do. Drewcifer (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Greencards FAC follow up

Hi! You weighed in on the The Greencards FAC previously, here. I'm fairly sure I've gotten I believe all the FAC suggestions remedied, and began a peer review as well. Would you mind taking another glance and letting me know on the peer review or my talk what else may need doing, before I go back to FAC? Thank you! rootology (T) 03:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Such Thing as Vampires

Thanks for the comments. I have fixed most of the raised points, so please take another look. As for the copy-edit, would you believe that around five different editors have copy-edited the article? Well thanks anyways. :-) Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 05:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

PR reminder

Hi Laser brain, it is the 13th of the month (for another 15 minutes or so by Wiki time) and this is the day you asked me to remind you to do a peer review from the backlog list. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse FAC

Pretty much all of the citations to the group's website have been removed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Featured Article Candidacy

If haha addresses comments and critiques tirelessly from the start of an FAC, we have 6 days of people with minor concerns or support, and then you drop this list on us, just like you did on my Metroid (series) FAC, what are Sandy and Raul to think? "This article has been there that long and it still isn't ready? Archive!" Instead of improving the process, it kills the FAC, so instead of copyediting and successful FA, we have a failed one. Also, after we clear up your specific problems, you still claim there are "prose issues", and try to use this vague justification say we need to find someone to copyedit the article. That is not helpful. As Ashnard does, list ALL of your issues so we can fix them; expecting us to find a non-video game copyedit person with free time before the FAC closes effectively kills the FAC. Do you see what I'm saying? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, help me understand what you want us to do. Here is a sentence from the lead:

Like its predecessors, the object of Brawl is to knock an opponent off the screen. It is a departure from traditional fighting games, notably in its simplified move commands and emphasis on ring outs over knockouts.

Now, as an example, do you want use to explain as the term first comes up what it is? Like ring outs, should it be ring outs (when players are thrown from the area of play), etc. I am willing to tear the article up, if you can be clear about what needs to be done. Indulge me a little, and I will try my best to do what you want. Sound good? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

Hi, since you are fairly familiar with FA album articles, if you've got time could you take a look at Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) and let me know what you think? A PR of the article is also open at Wikipedia:Peer review/Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)/archive1 if you feel like reviewing it. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright thanks. I think it's pretty well-written; I thought of asking you first because of your help with Diorama (album). I then noticed you were busy with SSBB above, so then wasn't sure if you had time for a review. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, sorry about that. I wasn't sure if you were going to review it or not when I didn't get a response in two hours... then I had to go AFK for an hour and a half so I decided to just submit it. After I sent you the message I copyedited it a bit, and I think it's at FA level now. If there are significant problems, I'd appreciate it if you could bring it up, but I don't think there are any. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks a lot, and thank you always for you feedback. Really, I don't see the point in submitting something when it's clearly not ready. It'd be like handing in a hand-written paper the dog tried to eat as a 10 page homework assignment. Or something like that ;) Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Brawl FAC

After seeing your recent edits, I now fully understand what you meant about "non-gamer". Errors like that are difficult for WP:VG members to catch. I think WP:VG needs to re-attempt to form that partnership with the Military History project... Anyway, thanks so much for your copyediting! It's really helpful. :) --haha169 (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get to them immediately. I believe I just finished addressing Sandy's concerns, primarily WP:PUNC. --haha169 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		Laser brain, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		In recognition of the extensive time you have taken to read and review Featured Article Candidacies, for your strong insistence that articles be accessible to the general public and not just specialists, and finally for your help in pushing over the top an article that has been reaching for Featured status for a long time, I hereby award you the Copyeditor's Barnstar. Keep it up! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I'd actually rather give you this. I know about your work on all the other FAC's...I occasionally scan the list, which explains why I know so much about the process :p. Anyway, the quality of your FAC review on Brawl was simply amazing, and I am quite certain that you do the same with other FACs. Therefore, I award you with the Tireless Contributor Barnstar, for working tirelessly without sacrificing quality. :) haha169 (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

July 28 ?

Wow, look at all those barnstars! July 28 query. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

When you're ready for Tony to look, you might move it from your user space to the FCDW temp page, where Tony can dig in. No hurry, because they always publish late. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuthatch

No problem, Delldot's done a thorough review with many suggestions, (don't know if that counts as a full ce), and I'm in the process of addressing those points. I'll do my best to fix issues raised by anyone, but if in the end it fails, that's it for nuthatch. I'll just get on with the next one and remember not to attempt genus level FAC again. I've not altogether given up hope yet, Several of my FAs have been promoted with an oppose vote from Tony, but it's not looking good at present jimfbleak (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleyway FAC

Responded to each of your points accordingly and offered fixes to the article as a result.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tackled both of the remaining issues and replied on the FAC page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

M-28 FAC

Has the image issue been resolved? Is there something further I need to do to help resolve it? Any further comments would be appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

Hey Laser brain, I currently have the article The Great American Bash (2005) up for Peer review. I come to you in hopes of you reviewing the article, as I'm aiming to get this article prepared for Featured Article status. I would really appreciate if you would take some time and review this article to the best of your abilities. Cheers, -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Halo (series) peer review

Hello, I noticed that you left some helpful comments on Halo (series)'s last attempt to become a featured article, which unfortunately did not suceed. If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you could leave comments on its current peer review page about any aspect that you can. Thank you! Blackngold29 03:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRV

I see your name in the arts section of Wikipedia:PRV. I think I remember seeing your sig at some recent FACs. WP:CHICAGO has two Millennium Park articles at WP:PR (Cloud Gate and BP Pedestrian Bridge) and one at WP:FAC (Crown Fountain). Please drop by if you have time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Laser, Michael Jackson has a 50th birthday approaching (Aug 29). I'm unaware if User:Realist2 will submit it at WP:TFA/R, but there was a complaint on my talk page that it had still had grammatical errors after promotion. Would you have any time to look it over in the next week or so? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I wasn't aware (and I don't usually miss things like that). Glad you're back ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse FAC

Because you reviewed the article during its May FAC, I thought you might be interested to know that it has gone through a thorough copyedit, and it should be ready for FA status. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Sebastian Shaw

Hey. I put up Sebastian Shaw, the English stage actor who played Anakin Skywalker in Return of the Jedi, up for a peer review after some changes, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking it over. I saw you were a volunteer. Let me know, thanks! -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Conan FAC

Yeah, I've just been swamped (getting ready for the fall semester, had to get my printer, hard drive, new laptop, and all the jazz plus the less glamorous stuff) but I am going to read through it again and make a final judgement. Is it going to get archived or something? I might ask Sandy for a stay of execution then... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with music sources

Hi there. It seems you're away at the moment, but when you are back... I am writing an article, and what I've done so far is here: Book of Love (album). Unfortunately, since it's an old album, I am having a real hard time finding good sources. There's no 'limited preview' books listed in Google Books which mention the album or its singles, nothing substantial comes up when searching on Thomson Gale's databases, and dozens of web searches have not yielded much either. Searches on Rolling Stone and NME did not bring up anything. Do you know of where I can look to find some sources for this? I'd be most grateful if you have any ideas. Thanks, — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying so far. The only ones that come to mind are NME and The Face. I contacted NME to see if they had any info about the band/album, but they have not replied yet. I thought Rolling Stone would have reviewed the album when it came out in 1986, but it seems they didn't take notice of it. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You can post stuff you can find at User:Wackymacs/Book of Love (album). Thanks again. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Email is fine. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Hello Laser Brain. I am planning to bring the article again in the FAC room sometime this month. I see your comments on the article's previous FAC rather critical so I would like to ask some inputs of yours before undertaking the abovementioned. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you can reflect them up on the talk page of the article. Ty. --Efe (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I replied there. However, there is a comment there that is very vague. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded Sir. --Efe (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for a review at Conan's FAC

Hi, seeing that you are a prolific reviewer of various topics at the FAC page, I wonder if I could entreat you to take a look at Conan (2007 video game) and give your opinions over the article's suitability to be a Featured Article (Conan's FAC). Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! I will try to get to it tonight. Thanks for asking! --Laser brain (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for taking the time to look through the article. I am sorry to hear that you have stopped at the Gameplay section. However, I have taken actions to rectify the issues you have identified and hope that you can review the changes and continue with the other sections of the article (where I can assure that it is unlikely the main cause of your concerns would occur).

Regarding your main concern (that of the interchanging use of "player"-"Conan"), I was trying to follow out-of-universe writing guidelines and had accepted such language use from the recent FAs. AnnaFrance, the copyeditor, seemingly had no objections to this use as well. Perhaps we can discuss on this issue further (on the FAC page?) and find solutions to this, but I hope this would not deter you from reading the later sections. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I did change the "player"s you have pointed out. Regarding the changes about the "titular" hero/character, I am a bit unsure on how they sound on reading, so hearing your thoughts on the changes is very much appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I have addressed the two remaining items on your current list of issues. Thank you for suggesting "commercial success" (why did I never think of that, I would never know), it helped in locating two published sources. Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could we continue to review and shape the article to FA standards? I have opened up Talk:Conan (2007 video game)#Pre-FAC threshing out session for this purpose. Jappalang (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. Is Conan up to standards? Is there anything else that would hinder a "support" at FAC? I am planning to nominate the article by Friday. Jappalang (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for some non-VG eyes

Hey Laser brain. I'm planning on sending Mario Power Tennis to FAC, but have listed it at peer review first. I don't usually target people specifically, but am wondering if you could give it a lookover from a non-VG perspective for the PR. Of course, if you don't have enough time, then I understand. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi again! You were the only one in the "Arts" volunteer list that said "Any arts-related topics". Would you mind dropping a peer review note here, here and/or here? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the 13th of the month, this is your friendly peer review backlog reminder. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Conan going up for FAC again

Hi, unfortunately, Conan's previous FAC was closed out before we could conclusively resolve anything. I have brought it back there after resolving much of David Fuchs's concerns. If you are still taking part in Wikipedia, could you take a look through and see if this revision is worthy to become a Featured Article? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Meshuggah update

You're back! That's excellent! Thanks..--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am 100% sure that the 8stringers and the programmed drums are true as I wrote it. It is little bit complicated, but the sentences are formulated to explain exactly how it really is.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you very much for the copy-edits of the article. What do you think about Meshuggah article now, the peer review and the FA status.?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. I will appreciate such a list very much... --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good day! Can you please have a look on Meshuggah and make a small list of the things that need to be improved please? I added one source with a pretty detailed biography (from Rockdetector) and removed some problematic information. I would really appreciate that list, because I really want to move the whole thing a bit forward. Thank you.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed you were not here for several days...hope you're allright.. Could you have a look on the last message above please?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Good day. I dont want to be annoying, I just want to know what are you up to. What about the review?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Musical Instruments

Dear Laser Brain,

thank you very much for cleaning up the mess in Musical Instruments and rebuilding it excellently!

--Giandrago (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hello, would you like to copyedit The Other Woman (Lost), which is currently at FAC? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Laser brain. You have new messages at Thedemonhog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you do a couple reviews?

I am working on a set of 12 articles that need to be finished by next week, and I need reviews for 3 of them. If its ok with you, New York State Route 3, New York State Route 22, New York State Route 74, and New York State Route 373 are the articles and I really think its necessary. 373 and 22 are on FAC while 74 and 3 are almost ready. If you could give some reviews, thanks.Mitch32^(UP) 03:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. This will mean much to the team working on the project. You can be our reviewer if you'd like. :D -Mitch32^(UP) 03:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you check 373, we think the lead has been cleaned up by Graham Colm.Mitch32^(UP) 18:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Add New York State Route 28N and New York State Route 73 to that list.Mitch32^(UP) 19:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people

Your points were excellent, can you do me a favor and review a little more, if you so kindly have the time? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting help?

Hi Laser, I asked SandyGeorgia about good copyeditors and she recommended I ask you... I've been stuck and staring at The Greencards after one full FA attempt, and one aborted one, and have been stuck on some of the finer copyediting since building it out and tweaking it several times. Would you mind taking some cracks at it? I would be indebted to you. rootology (C)(T) 04:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankenstein

Massive changes are afoot. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Deja Vu"

Now an FA. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

a comment and request...

Mitchazenia notwithstanding, there are other highway editors who could benefit from your assistance. M-28 Business (Ishpeming-Negaunee, Michigan) is up at USRD's ACR forum. Any comments there would be appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw that myself. I'd still appreciate any copy editing you can provide. I do plan to take it over to FAC later this month. I'll wait for your advice on whether I should send it to Wiki-wide PR. My experience there wasn't helpful in the past. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

I found your name here: Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers, and I was wondering if you could copyedit an article I've been working on. The article, Christina Milian, is in dire need of a copyedit. I have just updated it with lots of new info, (I'm going to nominate it for GA status asap) but it doesn't really flow well. If you accept, don't worry about the "citation needed" tags, I'll take care of those. If you can't, could you please direct me to someone who can. Thanks. :-) Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 07:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. When you start your copyedit, could you please remember rewrite the lead from scratch? It is really bad, and I did it in a rush. Also, the "Non-musical projects" section really needs work. Currently it's like: "Milian starred here, then she starred here. Milian acted here. She starred here." So, as you can see, it is really bad. Also, is there is anything that needs further work to attain GA status, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks! Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 09:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, forgotten something? Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Well thanks for responding. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as an update, the lead has been sourced properly. Don't bother rewriting it (unless you want to). Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work so far. The article (unfortunately) is full of POV, and possibly some OR, so please try to weed any of that stuff out. Nice job with the "early life" section, I'm very thankful. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. IP's are always changing that stuff, I don't know what attracts them to her ethnicity. Anyways, only half to go [of the copyedit]. I'm going to nominate it for GA status when you're done, (sorry, I know I must have said this 1000 times) so please tell me if there is anything you feel is holding it back. Thanks! Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Wanderone peer review

A second peer review has been opened on Rudolf Wanderone; I hoped you might like to have a look at it, as one of the "daily life" peer reviewers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Meshuggah

Hi Laser brain! You helped me with the Meshuggah article some time ago. Maybe you dont remember anymore :) I would welcome your opinion on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah. Have a nice day!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Decipherment of rongorongo FAC

Hey Laser,

If you're interested, I've nominated for FAC the second half of the FA rongorongo, which you had commented on during its nomination. It's at Decipherment of rongorongo. —kwami (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review reminder

Hi Laser brain, it is the 13th of the month, time for your peer review backlog reminder. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I know its belated, but I wanted to apologize to you for the way I was acting a few weeks ago. Something came up in real life and I overdid it. May I ask that you just review State highways in Hamilton County, New York? I promise not to do what I did earlier. Thanks.Mitch32^(UP) 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels peer review

Hi Laser brain, listen, if you have some time to spare, I was wondering if I can get some feedback on Shawn Michaels' article, since I'm trying to aim to Feature Article status and I want to know what needs to be done first. If you have time, I would appreciate your comments a lot. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Checking in

Laser, how are you? Where have you been? Everything OK? I hope your absence is a good thing and that real life is treating you well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Christina Milian copyedit

Hey, how's the progress going? There's not much left of the copyedit, so I was wondering if you could finish it soon. Thanks, and sorry if I sound blunt. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an update, I have nominated the article for GA status. Do you think you could be able to finish the copyedit before it is reviewed? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just realized that you haven't been active for a while. Don't worry about the copyedit until you have some time. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [7]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hey, if you're not too busy, I was wondering if you could help me polish up Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. I'm pretty sure most aspects are fine but I am historically atrocious with prose, and so a fresh set of eyes would be a great help. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Lakers copyedit

Hi how are you doing, if it's not a bother can you copyedit the Los Angeles Lakers article.? The article is currently a GA nomination that is on hold. The reviewer adviced adviced to have a copyedit to fix wordiness and informality. Thanks. BlueRed 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Review request

Hi Laser Brain. If you're not too busy, could you take a look at Christmas 1994 nor'easter, and leave some comments at the talk page regarding prose? Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Howdy

Me? An admin? I'm sure the FAC regulars would laugh at that preposterous idea :) Now that you mention it, a company article I've been working on, Scene7, actually just became an FA today. I posted it at WP:TFAR, hoping that it will appear on the main page, since both the Business and Computing categories are underrepresented, but we'll see how that goes. Gary King (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what happened with your article. It doesn't look like mine will pass TFAR, anyways. To be honest, what happened was I built List of mergers and acquisitions by Adobe Systems as a featured list, then I wanted to expand one of the acquired companies, so I chose Scene7, built and submitted it to DYK. Someone contested the article's notability, so I went doing some more research on it, and eventually it just snowballed and I now have an FA on my hands! Gary King (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm working on Outliers (book) right now, my first book article. Gary King (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if you've got time, could you take a look at the article and peer review it at Wikipedia:Peer review/Outliers (book)/archive1? It's the first book article that I've ever worked on, so I'd like to receive some critical feedback before submitting it to WP:FAC. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Gary King (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Linda (1997)

Ping :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I leave you the most heartfelt message ever, and I don't get a reply? No, lol, I guess you must've missed it. Anyways, I just wanted to let you know that thanks to your help, Christina Milian is now a good article! Great news, huh? Also, I've gotten It's About Time to GA, and Christina Milian (album) is currently a GAN. I just though you'd like to know of the update, and, oh yeah, welcome back! :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 15:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to have you back. ;) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good evening

Thanks for the welcome back! When can I expect to see your next excellent FAC listed? --Laser brain (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see. I just popped down to the Tour Down Under and took photos of all 133 riders and am busy cutting them up and working out which ones are better. I'll get a poll up and running as usual. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: nice article

Thanks a lot. Once Uru: Ages Beyond Myst gets FA, one way or another, I think I'm pretty much done with video games for a while; its likely all people will be getting from me for the foreseeable future is a bunch of Star Trek articles ("These Are the Voyages...", Klingon, Star Trek VI.) If you ever need some (attempts) at copyediting or a peer review for BF2142, I'm always open, just ping me. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome...

And I have no plans on stopping FAC sourcing reviews any time soon. Occasionally I may be on the road and they don't get done as quickly, but while they occasionally make my eyes water (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Igbo people anyone?) they are a good way to "give back" to the Wikipedia community. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooray !!

Welcome back ! (Please tell me you're going to stay awhile ... if not, it's still great to see you online. I hope all is well.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yep, I am going to get back in the swing of things. All is well now that various Kafka-esque adventures are over. --Laser brain (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally...good news! Welcome back :) Karanacs (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back man! :) -Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back! Erm, I think you'll be pleased with the writing in my articles, thanks in no small part to you. ;) Gary King (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, good to see the incisive brain back in action. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you back round these parts. =) D.M.N. (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never, nice to see you again Laser. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh ?

I hope you're not sighing about the length of the Urgents List :) [8] It's so good to have you back ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! I'm having a problem with it updating.. no idea why. For some reason I have to move it on my page to get it to reload. I'm glad to be back! --Laser brain (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm having the same problems recently; since it's a new problem, I'm not sure why. It looks like a caching problem, but I have a hard time getting pages to load unless I purge the cache. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits?

That is what the article says did you read it before you marked it vandalism ? MusicManMadness (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the ref, and highly doubt it to be true. Should I just remove it? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 01:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you have been back for only a few days, but I have been thinking about taking So Amazin' to FAC for a while now, and I am a little unsure of the prose quality. Could you take a quick look at it, and tell me what you think? Thanks. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. As you may have noticed, I'm going away for a while, but will make sure to do it as soon as I get back. Talk to you soon, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/So Amazin'/archive1; your thoughts would be appreciated. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mother's Milk

Your comments have been addressed for nearly four days now. It would be kind of you to be swift in your assessment NSR77 ^T 03:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I don't feel any other way. I'm just a little stressed at the moment with some things going on in my personal life (College is a bitch) but I do hope it has not rubbed off into Wikipedia affairs too heavily. You should not feel you need to justify your actions—on the contrary. I want the article to be the best it can be. An exemplary piece of information that someone can truly rely on. I would rather have a dozen oppositions and know people are actually looking at the article than a flood of quick supports who may have only glanced it over with little interest. You do good things by thoroughly reviewing articles and I commend you for it highly. I also extend my apologies if I have been curt with you at any point; sometimes things can get hectic! NSR77 ^T 04:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sheng Long

Can you take another look please?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uru: Ages Beyond Myst

Thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed the grammar points you brought up, and I have bulked up the Until Uru section with more information about the fan-run servers. As for the plot... the problem is that I haven't found any sources which verify details for the later expansions. The single-player version essentially left off on a cliffhanger, and more content was added via the expansion and the later resurrection of the game, but I haven't been able to find complete details for any of them. There was more detail as far as the multiplayer element was concerned, including more on its later incarnations, future, and why people said it died, but unfortunately a couple editors opposed merging Myst Online: Uru Live with the parent article and so the info had to be split between them. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorta' kinda'? It's depended; I've had other reviewers insist on references and people stop by the talk pages asking for citations, so I think it's best to be safe. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your comments way down there :P I've unhidden the tracklist, and addressed your other concerns. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bleh, I'll pester you at some point in the future about improving Uru, but I've got my featured topic in the bag anyhow so you'll prolly be seeing a lot more Star Trek in the future instead :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, SideSHOW Bob!

I've done a thorough copyedit for Sideshow Bob, pursuant to your concerns at FAC. Perhaps you'd care to have a look. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 19:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Musical instrument

In regard to your note on my talk page, I promise to take a good look at your ongoing work on Musical instrument and offer my opinion on any points I find. More than that I don't want to swear to... Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC conduct

You admitted you came by to object in the flurry of activity surrounding my multiple nominations. Maybe army is the wrong word, but there is certainly a similary descriptor that is appropriate. You have been looking for a higher moral ground for some time in this matter. I do not believe that derailing a perfectly fine article that has rested at 4-0 (counting nominator) support for a week as terribly high ground position to be on. I certainly don't think it gives you any basis to instruct an apology. You did in fact file objections based on activities on Sandy's page. What more needs to be said.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is your claim that I offended you by saying you derailed my article or that you are offended at the hint that I am suggesting you were asked to derail it? 75,000 edits and my first RfC is in the wind. I guess I better pay closer attention here. Please clarify your point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I contacted all persons involved at the level of stating an opinion in my last successful FAC, which was also related to Politics. If I missed anyone from that FAC let me know. I have commented on Sandy's talk page. I also am curious on whether you think the Band sentence in the Byron Brown#Background is inappropriate and whether you think the Byron Brown#Personal section is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC review

I do review FACs, BTW. See Orval Grove and William D. Boyce for 2009 activity.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I replied

• I replied here Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars: Rogue Squadron

Scartol has completed a copyedit of the article. BuddingJournalist 15:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Laser brain. I haven't interacted with you much, if ever, but I just wanted to thank you for your work on ensuring the high quality of the prose at the FA level. It is a thankless task, and often draws ill will in the reviewer's direction (especially when you oppose an article that is about to be promoted), but in the end, Wikipedia benefits. Keep up the excellent work! Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate your hard work at FAC as well. I actually find it very rewarding, and most noms accept criticism very graciously. I hope to see many more of your excellent reviews. --Laser brain (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Kroonland

Maralia has finished a copyedit of the article. BuddingJournalist 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Jones (missionary)

So I took a stab at separating "Notes" and "References" - it's pretty clear how to handle those sources where I was making explicit cites to multiple pages, but there're a lot more ambigious ones on how to handle, and I think I might loose my nerve. Taking note 2, for instance, there's no author, and I didn't quote page numbers, so it's ambigious as to whether to leave it as an extended note/cite, move it to references and cite Publisher (year) or whatnot. A number of other citations vex me similarly. I was hoping you might offer some guidance. WilyD 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Err, don't get me wrong, I think there's merit to what you're saying. For Smith's book, or Jones' autobiography/journal, how to format it is very obvious. Less obvious, say, is how to use the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online's biography, for which the reference looks like Smith, Donald B. (2008). "Jones, Peter". Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online. Library and Archives Canada. Retrieved 2008-04-22. There's no page number - should the footnote be "Smith (2008)" and that go in the reference? Similarly "Augustus Jones". Annual Proceedings. Association of Ontario Land Surveyors: 119, 120. 1923. The Association of Ontario Land Surveyors published a biography of his father with no named author - I'm not sure how to format that either? Do you know of other articles which've used this referencing style, that perhaps I could shamelessly steal from? WilyD 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So, it looks to me like Peter Jones now uses the same format as The Swimming Hole - sources with multiple page cites are in the References section, with the individual page cites in "notes", and sources only singly cited are also in "Notes". Can you take a look and see if this is what should be going on (as you understand it, anyhow?). I have to admit, basically every formatting leaves me vaguely unsettled, so if there's a preferred format, I'd rather follow it. WilyD 22:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Huh - I'd never seen the Harvnb template before. It's interesting. With two references forming the backbone of the research for Peter Jones, I'm not sure something like that is mandated, but I may give it a shot. WilyD 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Anyways, I've now addressed everything except the idea of "mini-ledes". While it's intriguing, I'm waffling about it, and I don't think it'll realistically happen in the timescale of an FAC. If you'd look over the rest when you get a chance, it'd be appreciated. Thankee, WilyD 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, I figured if it were a stickling point I could always just drop the superheadings with no real loss. It just seems there's a natural divide to his life and that a bit a slice up was a sensible organisation. WilyD 22:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WT:WIAFA

• new thread at WT:WIAFA; your input solicited. Thanks. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bride of Frankenstein FAC

Would you mind swinging back through the FAC and stating whether you support the promotion or not, and if not, what issues you would like to see addressed? The FAC is kind of at a standstill. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Followup

Hi Laser brain, glad to see you're active again. I noticed it has been about 4 days since you said you were going to review Mother 3. If you are not going to do it for whatever reason, please let me know and I will make some comments to clear the backlog's oldest item. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the quick followup and your kind words. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module)

The full copyedit of Ravenloft (module) has been completed... could you comment on the FAC again? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that all of the concerns that you raised at the FAC have been addressed, and Scapler (talk · contribs) has fixed up some of the gamer jargon. I was wondering if you could comment again based on the improvements. If there's still too much jargon, could you maybe point out the specific points so that I could clarify them? Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I just gave the article a full copyedit. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radcliffe, Greater Manchester

Hi there. Thanks for your comments on this article, they were very useful and I've made some changes. I've asked Wikiproject Greater Manchester to help me with some of your prose comments, and the table formatting - these are aspects which I find difficult to work on.

If you could look at the changes I've made, and strikethrough any issues you feel I've resolved, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've made some changes to the grammar as you suggested, let me know what you think. I'm at the limit of my ability with regards to prose :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I made some more changes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your support, but more particularly for your pointers on grammar which I am now using to address some of the other articles I've worked on. You've really helped me improve the article, so thanks a lot :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1 (f)

• I pinged Awadewit about 1(f), but I live on the other side of the planet (time zone issues), and A. is often busy. I'll try to put forward some suggestions. I will definitely desire help. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I made a proposal for 1(f). Please help! See Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna wait a while. Then I'm just gonna follow the golden advice of WP:BOLD Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Review request

I wonder if, when you can find the time, you could review an article I've been working on in the hope of getting to GA status. 2004 World Series. It;s currently having a PR but no one had given feedback yet.BUC (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:FAC

I'm trying, but recent real-life concerns have left me a somewhat unhappy and a little lacking in patience at the moment, and after nearly a month of no comments in that FAC I feel like I've been hit by a broadside from the FAC reviewers at the worst moment. I'll try to stick with it. Your concern is appreciated though, thanks. -- Sabre (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Turns out I was wrong. It wasn't "extremely difficult" to dig out the sources that the MixnMojo article relied on. I double-checked through a bunch of sources already in use and found I could cite some of the facts to them. The rest I could reword so they don't need the mixnmojo source (ie removal of the "Purcell was 'stunned'" comment to a "Purcell was disappointed" in reference to the quote that follows it). That just leaves a single use that I cannot replace. If the source is still an issue, it can now be removed and only take one sentence with it, as opposed to putting a significant hole in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi

Hi there. Your concerns have been addressed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

You've replied to my concerns, and I thank you. However, they haven't been remedied in the slightest. --Laser brain (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assessment of the critical reception is incorrect. Jerry Beck's The Animated Movie Guide states that "The film is considered to be a flawed but inspired interpretation of the classic story." (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Care to mind the good faith rule in the future before making statements like "I see that this has once again degenerated into your unfortunate pattern of behavior toward reviewers, particularly any who oppose your nominations". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

• It seems to me that Ling.Nut is operating out of a predetermined bias against the subject matter, as this person still has not explained their opposition of the article's FAC and doesn't seem to acknowledge the difference between reliable and unreliable sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
  • We've gone over any possible reliable sources that haven't been exhausted, and the article looks up to snuff now. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
    • This article has been extensively' researched. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
      • Please stop posting notes here; the conversation belongs on the FAC page. I have it watchlisted. --Laser brain (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
        • The issues brought up were addressed, or never existed at all. (03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
          • I've repeatedly commented on the bias of certain sources, while you and other editors have ducked the issue. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

1f

• people will talk forever. I suggest we !vote in the new section. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh. I have a problem. I probably have to quit Wikipedia. So everyone else will have to figure it out. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)}

Re: WT:FAC

Heh, well it is indeed difficult to avoid sarcasm in such situations. :)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Daniel (2006) *hint* –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz FAC

Could you conduct a review? I need a bit more feedback, and you've helped a ton of people. Ceranthor 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I should be able to get to it today. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've resolved your comments. Ceranthor 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ceranthor 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine lyra

Hi, Thanks for the message. The citation of Ibn Khurradadhbih to Lyra can be found on p.124 (Cartomi, 1990). Ibn Khurradadhbih's citation on the bowed Byzantine lyra (lūrā) as the equivelant instrument to rabab is generally accepted as the first record for byzantine lyra. Unfortunately I can't find the original book of Ibn Khurradadhbih. (Stevepeterson (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Heinrich Bär FAC

I believe that I addressed all but wor of your concerns. The first is regarding his Saxon accent, see the review page here. The second is regarding about higher authority. The literature I have access to consistently state that he had this trade but I found two specific cases. Two are in the article. One was during the battle of Britain the other one at the end of the war. Maybe you have an idea to rephrase this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Laser, are you done at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heinrich Bär? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oof... can I have couple hours? I wanted to read through it again and make sure I don't catch anything else. I think I am very close to supporting, if it makes any difference. --Laser brain (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll archive, but a wait few hours to promote. Thanks, Laser! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek: First Contact

Hello, I noticed that you provided some resources at Talk:Star Trek: First Contact. I was wondering what databases or search engines you used to procure such results. I try to dig deep for some film articles, so it would be great to know of some venues that are hidden from me. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, I just searching using EBSCOHost. I used to have access to more specialized databases, but I've been out of grad school for a while and they've cut off my access. If you have any specific recommendations for film database, I'd be grateful because I'm going to begin work on a film article soon. --Laser brain (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been using databases through my university account, and British Film Institute provides a nice index of resources. So does Film Literature Index. FilmReference.com is very solid for older films. You may be interested in checking out WP:FILMRES, which we're still trying to shape up. (I listed my so-called "library" there; stuff I can access through the university... for now.) If you want me to procure any resources for your planned film article, I'll be happy to help. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got a smattering of other databases (LexisNexis, the usual JSTOR, Dow Factiva, et al) or anything available here too; not as helpful as Erik's databases, but might be more than what you've got. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

IRC Channel

Good to see you on the Wikipedia0-en-help irc channel. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never been on that IRC channel, so I'm not sure who you meant. --Laser brain (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Fight Club

Hello, Laser brain. You have new messages at Erik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, in response to your comment about themes, I'd like to get a better understanding of what you are looking for. The "Themes" section was intended to offer a thematic overview of the film, so the incorporation of specific items are mentioned throughout "Production". Regarding the split personality theme, this may be of interest. Beyond this, though, I cannot say there's more since other than its creation, the split personality is more of a vessel for the film's themes. Regarding soap, based on my research, there is not really anything about it. Outside of the film's message of selling fat back to the women, there are interpretations about this practice having allusions to Nazism. What are you foreseeing for more comprehensive coverage? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I expanded my comments somewhat at the FAC page. I'm probably not the best person to explain exactly what themes I think existed in the film, because I'm too intimate with the novel. They start mixing in my head after a while. For example, the whole thing where Tyler had the recruits stand on the porch for three days to test their resolve and bring $500 burial money was influenced by Buddhism. That was stated in the novel but I don't remember if it was in the film. I think we might have a good start if we bring back the old Themes section. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! :) I will try to recover the material and expand tomorrow. Have a good night/day (wherever you may be). —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

FA review

If available, would you consider reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Linezolid/archive1? Regardless, thanks again for your help in the past. ---kilbad (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kilbad, I have already reviewed that FAC. I did find the semicolon use a bit much, but not enough to raise the issue. I tend to overuse them myself, so it might not have seemed so acute to me. I would understand if you have a problem with it, however. Thanks for the note! --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Magdalena Neuner/archive1

Hi, I put the FAC into the archived FAC log. It wasn't a driveby or malformed nom, so I think the FAC should be recorded in the ArticleHistory. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for all the help: extra eyes at FAC are always welcome and appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Plunge

Awadewit, and now you, too ! Eveyone is taking the real name plunge! I hope all is well there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I was inspired as I was working on an FAC page and realized everyone there was using their real name except me (Graham, Erik, Steve, etc.). Let the stalking commence! All is well, I found a tuba at a garage sale for $10. I don't even know how to play it, but how can you pass that up? Hope you are well. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans ! My son did similar with a trumpet, and taught himself. (Also taught himself piano and guitar!) I hope the plunge works out well! PS, I may not be well, but I'm great !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad everyone's getting on first name terms these days. You should see my original username, and its ... less than mature... etymology [9] (warning: NSFW text). Steve ^T • C 18:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I'm usually quick with a zinger, but I'm speechless in this case, Steve. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who had to look that one up on urban dictionary is in *real* trouble !!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I have this talk page watchlisted. I was wondering who the heck Andy Walsh was and why he suddenly appeared at so many FAC noms.... Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What, the annoying purple didn't give me away? --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A human brain requires sleep to be able to make those kinds of advanced connections - and sleep is in short supply at my house right now! ;) I like the purple, though. Karanacs (talk)

It's no fun anymore! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:TinmanTech

Major WP:BITE yet again 8-(

This is a guy who's so well known in the field that I've heard of him from the other side of the Atlantic. Yes there's an issue, and the user seemed to be well inclined to address it. Great timing for a tag-team bitchslap from a pair of admins! Indef block, then an unblock refusal.

There was _NO_ need for this block. A username change could have been handled entirely amicably, and appeared likely to happen at any moment. Now we've managed to WP:BITE a potential contributor, who I'd be surprised (hopefully so!) to see ever editing again.

Users and businesses like this don't need Wikipedia. Wikipedia does need contributors like this.

This content wasn't direct promotion, expect possibly indirectly as rasing their prestige. They were linking to their pre-existing publications that were fine WP:EL material and if anything were encouraging the development of skills and knowledge in their competitors. That's the open source development model, not advertising or spam. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good day, and thanks for your polite message asking for clarification of my action. I appreciate the double link to WP:BITE; I've never seen that page before! Now, to the business at hand: Whenever I see things like a business wanting to "correct content" while inserting links to their own published material, red flags go up. So, I made a judgment call. You are welcome to seek additional opinions from other admins if you have an interest in this user being unblocked. If the consensus is that they should be unblocked, I have no problem with that. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Gol 1907

Hi Andy, regarding your comment, would you mind giving me some sample phrasing that you would consider acceptable for a couple of your examples? If I can see the examples, I can use them to understand you better, and do the rest myself. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I will update my feedback with some suggestions within the next 24 hours, if that works for you. Since it's so well-researched, I'd love to see it pass. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate both the help and your comments very much. Crum375 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. When you have a free moment, please take a look. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

FAC

I explained at the FAC how your concerns are incorrect and therefore inactionable. If you wish, I could perform a more thorough explanation with statements directly from various grammar textbooks. However, as they stand now, there is really nothing that can honestly be done except to ignore them, as those concerns either show a misunderstanding of grammar or would introduce severe grammatical errors of "corrected". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore them then—that's certainly your prerogative. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring them for just no reason, mind you. Take the "period" statement. If I were to uniform all of the periods with quotations, then I would be introducing an error into original quotations and go against serious academic principles. If the MoS suggests that such thing is necessary, then it lacks any scholarly credibility on the matter. Periods are supposed to reflect how they appear in original quotations. If there is an end of the sentence with a period at the end of the quote, then the period is internal. If there isn't, then the period is external. This allows the scholar to see if it was a fragmented quote or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your reasons—you believe I'm wrong. However, the statement you reference was my poor attempt at pointing out that I spotted one or more errors: "In joking about writing for the Universal Visiter, Johnson claimed: 'for poor Smart, while he was mad, not then knowing the terms on which he was engaged to write ... I hoped his wits would return to him. Mine returned to me, and I wrote in 'the Universal Visitor' no longer'." In this case, you definitely put the period outside of the quotation when the quotation seemingly ends in a period. Yes, I could have easily fixed it, but my commenting style is usually to point it out so you can check for more. If I am in error in pointing this out, I apologize. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now that makes sense. I verified in the source to see that you are correct. Reading your statement made it seem like you took the one or other position and didn't have a specific in mind (trust me, I have dealt with people who were very adamant about it being one or the other). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, we need to settle the redundancy thing. You had two conflicting statements, so, please, pick one. It mostly deals with the logic of how much carries over from one sentence to another. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Try this change and see if there is still too much ambiguity. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mood

We've got to do something about your mood ... "rainbows of perfect prose shooting out of their arse" ... I see life is good ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Life is tolerable. However, I think I'm unduly influenced by the type of work I've been getting lately. I may need to go back to editing submissions to the American Journal of Proctology lest I lose all grasp of the serious world. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL !! By the way, a friend who is a prof. copyeditor sent me this last night ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/palin-speech-edit-200907

That is classic! The research edits had me chuckling more than the copy edits! --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony liked it also :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gol 1907 FAC

Hi Andy, just in case you missed it, I replied to your last comments. I tried to address the specific examples, but if there is something else you feel needs to be addressed, please let me know. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you wouldn't have seen this unless you watch the FAC page proper, but your nom got archived yesterday (the bot that closes them hasn't run yet). I'm sorry I didn't move faster but I'm afraid I caught the nomination after it had already been there a while. I think it's close—would you be willing to nominate it again after a spell? --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the move to the archive, which I don't understand since the only oppose comment was yours, it was fresh, and it seemed like we were making good and quick progress. But leaving that aside, would you mind helping me to get your specific issues resolved, even if it's in the archive? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm short on time today, but I'll revisit tomorrow and see if there are any other sentences that look like they could be improved. Like I said, it's clearly well-researched so there shouldn't be much holding it up in the future. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good! Crum375 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi Andy, your edits look good, thank you. I tweaked just one, where I felt it tended to slightly de-emphasize the fact that the Brazilian CENIPA found the American Embraer pilots essentially as responsible for the accident as the controllers (in contrast to the NTSB, which found all pilots acted properly and blamed only the controllers.) So for NPOV as well as accuracy, I feel we need to mention the pilots' responsibility (in CENIPA's view) more prominently. Feel free to edit this as you see fit, with that consideration in mind. Crum375 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the attention to detail there. I made the edits that I saw, and I posted a few more on the article Talk page I wasn't sure about. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments and all the help; I have replied on the talk page. I would like to resubmit the article back into the queue; is there anything you can see that needs doing before that? Crum375 (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything else that I would change. I would support it at FAC in its current state. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll get on it, then. Thanks for all your help again. Crum375 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Move request

Hi, can I get you to move Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Nesbitt to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Nesbitt/archive1? It's for FAC maintainence. Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, done! --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gracias, señor! Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Average Crop Revenue Election

hi, I noticed you deleted this article for copyright infringement. I'm wondering if you could take another look. The source was a government publication (included in the references), and hence is not governed by copyright. If the same text exists on other websites, this is because those other websites have copied from this same source. Thanks Agradman ^talk/_contribs 14:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• At the moment, the text is not being displayed at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=dccp&topic=landing -- however, it is still present in the google cache, here: http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:WQTkgXZCWDgJ:www.fsa.usda.gov/dcp+%22Through+ACRE,+USDA+offers+producers+an+alternative+to+Direct+and+Counter-cyclical+(DCP)+payments.+The+ACRE+alternative+provides+eligible+producers%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Agradman ^talk/_contribs 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your note

I agree with your edits there, and put it on my watchlist. I am also not into politics, but I'll keep watch. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the long list

This is from Film Indexes Online. Dunno if you have access to it, so apologies if this is old stuff. This is just related to Eraserhead. General stuff about Lynch is probably located elsewhere. JSTOR also seems to have some stuff you might be interested in. (These French articles...apparently Lynch is a rock star in France...I wonder if he considers that good company with Jerry Lewis) --Moni3 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• MACNAB, Geoffrey: Reviews: Eraserhead/The Short Films of David Lynch

Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.18 n.12 , December 2008, p.85, English, illus

• CROOK, Simon [et al...]: True originals

Empire n.228 , June 2008, p.94-101, English, illus A listing and brief critique of fifty films deemed by Empire magazine to be innovative, trailblazing and unique.

• BRAUND, Simon: The Top 10: Movie meals

Empire n.224 , February 2008, p.152-153, English, illus A listing and brief critique of ten films considered to have memorable scenes involving meals or food.

• WISE, Damon: In conversation with David Lynch

Empire n.214 , April 2007, p.119-124, English, illus David Lynch discusses his career, ideas and inspirations, and in particular INLAND EMPIRE. Includes a top five listing of the weirdest characters in Lynch's films.

• 201 Greatest movies of all time

Empire n.201 , March 2006, p.77-88,90-101, English, illus A listing of the top two hundred and one films as chosen by the reader's of Empire magazine. With comments by actors and filmmaker's.

• GINGOLD, Michael: DVD Dungeon

Fangoria (0164-2111) n.251 , March 2006, p.91, English, illus

• FFW: UK denied Lynch's baby

Empire n.172 , October 2003, p.135, English, illus The DVD package of David Lynch's ERASERHEAD will not be released in the UK because Universal retains ownership of the UK DVD rights until 31 August 2008.

• WILLIAMS, David E.: DVD playback

American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.84 n.8 , August 2003, p.14, English, illus Frederick Elmes' cinematography on ERASERHEAD (1977).

• ERASERHEAD: Refreshed Head

Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.35 n.3 , June 2003, p.11, English, illus David Lynch is self-distributing the remastered DVD of ERASERHEAD on www.davidlynch.com.

• GALVIN, Peter: DVD reviews

IF n.34 , June 2001, p.022, English, illus

• GK: Eraserhead

Film Review (0957-1809) n.603 , March 2001, p.87, English, illus

• LEIGH, Danny; MacNAB, Geoffrey: Homemovies: reviews

Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.11 n.3 , March 2001, p.63, English

• TAYLOR, Aaron: Rough beasts slouch toward Bethlehem to be born:...

Canadian Journal of Film Studies (0847-5911) v.9 n.2 , October 2000, p.55-69, English, illus Article title ends '...Eraserhead and the grotesque infant (whose hour has come round at last)'. Re-evaluation of ERASERHEAD, examining the profound ambiguity of the grotesque infantile body.

• WHEELER, Mark: On the box

Box (13663887) n.3 , August 1997, p.21, English, illus

• ALEXANDER, Victoria: David Lynch

Perfect Vision v.6 n.23 , October 1994, p.114-119, English, illus A laser-disc review of David Lynch's major films: ERASER- HEAD, THE ELEPHANT MAN, DUNE, BLUE VELVET and WILD AT HEART.

• BEARD, Steve

Empire n.52 , October 1993, p.42, English, illus

• Screen International (0307-4617) n.892 , 29 January 1993, p.1, English, illus

CiBy Sales is to release a 'remixed issue' of ERASERHEAD in 1993

• Positif (0048-4911) n.356 , October 1990, p.25, French

Credits, cast, duration and release.

• Film Quarterly (0015-1386) v.39 n.1 , October 1985, p.37-43, English

• Listener (0024-4392) v.113 n.2892 , 17 January 1985, p.31, English

• Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.14 n.4/5 , September 1984, p.41-74, English

Feature on the production of the film, with comment from David Lynch, plus an appreciation of the unique qualities of the film.

• Listener (0024-4392) v.108 n.2776 , 02 September 1982, p.34, English

Review of video version

• Cahiers du Cinéma (0008-011X) n.322 , April 1981, p.29-32, French

• Time Out (0049-3910) n.468 , 06 April 1979, p.45, English

Listed review and caption.

• Films and Filming v.25 n.7 , April 1979, p.32-33, English

• Cinemonkey n.17 , April 1979, p.56-57, English

• Time Out (0049-3910) n.467 , 30 March 1979, p.21, English

• Films Illustrated (0950-186X) v.8 n.91 , March 1979, p.258, English

• Monthly Film Bulletin v.46 n.542 , March 1979, p.44, English

• Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.6/7 n.4/1 , April 1978, p.47, English

• Variety (0042-2738) , 23 March 1977, p.24, English