User talk:Indubitably/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

GFDL

They can use the Wikipedia article only under the terms of the GFDL. This means that they would have state that it came from the Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia). It also means that the text and any derivative of the text must also be licensed under the GFDL. I think there's a page on Wikipedia dedicated to yelling at/working with sites that are improperly forking our content; if you want, I'm sure I can hunt it down. ShadowHalo 02:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate any help you can give me. I'm really wanting to get this article listed as a GA considering the VA massacre and the attention this article may receive because of it (the shooter was a graduate of this high school). My biggest concern is whether that site pulled the information from Wikipedia, or if that information was pulled from that site and put into Wikipedia. I can't promote an article that may be plagiarism and/or copyright infringement, obviously. So I'm currently looking through the logs of edits to see when and by whom the information was added. If it's all one big chunk, it will seem to me that it was probably pulled from the site rather than written by the editor. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 02:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It was massively expanded in a couple days in March 2006 by Zidel333. See the history. ShadowHalo 02:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not Zidel. He's been working on the article periodically for months. After the VA massacre, he really started improving it. Nominated it for GA, I reviewed it, left a detailed list of issues, which he immediately began working on. If you look at the history here, user:20176 added what is the first paragraph verbatim to that site on September 24, 2006. The article has changed since, but the lead is the same. In this version of the article, there is a Buildings and Land section that is on that website but isn't in the current version of the article. I can't tell which came first, the chicken or the egg... the Wikipedia article or that website page. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It has to be the website that took the information. As I look through the history, it was many edits by many different editors that wrote the version that website has. I'm not sure what to do as far as the website goes, but I feel confident in moving forward with the GA/n. I would appreciate and help or advice you could give in dealing with the copyright issues regarding that website. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left comments at the article talk page in case Zidel333 wants to contact them. If not, I'm going to find someone else to do so. I took a look at my high school, and it uses the content I added to the corresponding article here. My guess is that they're forking most of their articles from Wikipedia. Glad you found that. ShadowHalo 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikidaddy ...

... sounds kind of strange :) Hey Lara. I'm on but not on a break - if you do have any questions, leave them on my talk page, and I'll pick up on them, but it might take me a day or two. My new job is eating into more of my time than I hoped it would at the moment (and they won't let me use Wikipedia at work, the lousy expletives!) Neil (not Proto ►) 15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Money

Hello, LaraLove. It's me The Random Editor. I agree with your opinion on the article. If you interested in that subject, I would greatly appreciate your help. Respectfully, --Random ^{Say it here!} 14:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have much interest in writing that article. I tend to stick to what I know and, although I have a little bit of money, I don't know much about its history... and considering I don't have much of it, I'm a little bitter and don't want to think about money so much. ;)

I'll do some of the cosmetic work, but I doubt much else. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 13:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey LaraLove. I have done a little work on Money. References & Rewriting of the Lead still have to be completed. Look over the article and tell me what you think of the progress. I'm going to get to work on writing the lead tonight. Cheers. --Random ^{Say it here!} 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I will look over it as soon as I can. There are a few other editors looking over it as well, with it being the Collaboration of the Week. I'm doing a review of another article tonight. I'll look over Money again after that. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WWE

I added several sources a few minutes ago (and fixed several incorrect citations so they would match the citation templates). Are there particular things in the article you feel should be sourced? TJ Spyke 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of it. Read into WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:COPYVIO. I'm not saying the article—or part of the article—is copyright infringement or that it contains plagiarism, but I am saying that I don't know because it is extremely well written and sites no sources. I don't know if all the statements and claims in the article are true because I can't verify any of it.

I'll go through the article again and leave some additional notes on the talk page, but there is a lot to be done and I can't seem to really find any sources for the information in the article, which leads me to believe it is either based on OR or from paper publications. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 13:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasty archiving?

You recently archived discussions on Talk:Leet that were less than a week old and very relevant to quite recent changes in the article. Seems a little hasty, don't you think? Think of all the users that don't visit the talkpage twice a day. :-| Peter ^Isotalo 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't archive it based on days, I archived it because it was so long. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

East Carolina University

First of all, I would like to thank you for the amount of criticism you gave on East Carolina University. This is what it/I needed. With the references stuff you have to use the citeweb|url=|title=|accessdate= for all URL sources? I think I have corrected all of your suggestions, minus the references, that will take a little time. It would be great to look over the article again and see if there is anything else I need to change, minus the url citing. Thanks:D PGPirate 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll review it again later today. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 05:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fooled You!!!

Lol. Well you deserve this.

Review Kaziranga National Park

This article was submitted o 11 th April, yet it is not reviwed for GAC. I will be thankful, if u kindly review this article. I hope you will enjoy reading the article, already peer reviewed and all concerns have been removed. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll review it later today. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 05:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Super Chief delisted as Good Article.

Thanks for the note. It was promoted to GA status before there was a nomination/review/approval process in place. Slambo (Speak) 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To expand (noticed this b/c I have User:Slambo on my watchlist) originally GA was supposed to be simply articles that were good, with an informal process - not the would-be Featured Article process it is today. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Slambo's right, his tagging is way back from 2005, and back then, no article had to be reviewed, it was just about tagging articles that people who were interested in the project thought was good. Several might even still be left on the list, though I think most of the obvious fails have been removed mostly. Homestarmy 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't know that, but that's why I was cautious in my message. I knew there was probably something more to it. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Naseem Ashraf

Obviously all articles should strive for a diversity of sources, but, especially I think, articles about living people. A cursory examination of the site in question and it appears to meet WP:RS (the cricinfo site), I have certainly seen much more dubious sites passed off as references at GAC. The blogs don't, won't, probably never will because of a general lack of editorial oversight. For GA though I would argue that more sources should be found, people have to realize that Google isn't the only source of information on Earth and that sometimes to meet the criteria (which as I saw Nehrams2020 say at GA/R)) are very real and have meaning requires a bit of leg work. I would probably fail it or hold it, if the nominator didn't like it they could always appeal at GA/R. I just apply the idea to other examples, if I nominated New York City or Chicago or something like that, and 85% of its citations and sources were CNN.com, would it pass? I highly doubt it. Hope that helps.  : ) (PS-Air Force? Don't you mean ChAIR Force? ; ) IvoShandor 06:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• As an added note a search on the Academic Universe division of LexisNexis returned 125 hits, the first page at least seemed relevant, just searching the last 6 months worth of news, eight separate publications on the first page. IvoShandor 06:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha. You do know I was kidding right? IvoShandor 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:GAC - Peter Canavan

Hey, I was wondering if I could appeal to your love of knowledge and get you to peer review the article Peter Canavan, which is a current Good Article candidate. He is a sportsperson, in a sport that is almost exclusive to Ireland, Gaelic football. We are a very small project (only about 8 members), and this is our best article, so it would be a bit of a high watermark of we got our first GA. Or at least feedback therein. :D--Macca7174 21:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you not jump the gun a bit with the fail?? You made a lot of new suggestions that I could have addressed quite quickly - citations, grammar etc - could you not have put it on hold?? Thanks for your time though.--Macca7174 11:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Phil Simms

Thanks for the review, it made the article better. That's the kind of review I was hoping for in the first place. If I came off as a little upset originally, it's because the original comments were vague, but obviously you gave very specific concrete criticisms which improved the article later, so thanks again. Quadzilla99 02:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter Canavan

A good example would be "Weird Al" Yankovic. The picture in the infobox is, and must be, a free image; copyrighted images may not be used here to depict a living person. However, you'll notice that there's a copyrighted image in the New look, personal life, and career to present section. An image like this would not be replaceable since it is about a style that Yankovic has since abandoned, and it is necessary to illustrate discussion of what his old image was like. So looking at Peter Canavan, Image:Petercanavan.jpg is definitely out. I would say no to Image:Canavan UUJ doctorate.jpg as well since there's no discussion in that section about receiving a doctorate, and it barely mentions his daughter. We could make a fair use claim on Image:Canavan 2003 All Star - Sean Kelly.jpg since that illustrates a particular event discussed in the article. Image:Canavan 2005 final goal.jpg also needs to be deleted since it's under the {{cc-by-nd-nc}} license, which is unacceptable for use on Wikipedia, and there is little discussion of the final there, mainly just the semi-final. ShadowHalo 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably won't have any for at least a couple weeks. I'm working on getting some of the GA's to FA's now. ShadowHalo 05:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kaziranga National Park

It would appear that consenus at WP:GA/R is to return the article Kaziranga National Park to hold status. Are you interested in handling this, or would you like for me to take over the review? Either way is fine with me. I was about to archive the discussion and return the article to the WP:GAC page with a hold note, but since you were the original reviewer, I thought I would give you the option of handling this. If you want to remain the primary reviewer, don't forget that once the normal hold time (7 days) has expired feel free to pass or fail the article as you see fit. If you want me to take over as reviewer, or want someone else too, that is cool too...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

If my edit summaries gave the impression I was assuming bad faith on your part then I apologize. To the bestof my knoweledge. The edit summaries mirrored your edit summaries only with the word "Emo" replaced with the words "Pop Punk" so if that would seem to imply that you were assuming bad faith in the people who added Emo. In any evet, I have never assumed bad faith on your part, perhaps I could've worded the summaries better. I hope you don;t assume bad faith on my part either. My biggest frustration is that I've researched and cited this whole thing... I even found an interview support them not being Emo that I used. I don;t feel entirly qualidied in making determinations about Emo so I respect others who seem able to (just like I hope people who aren't qualied, or don;t feel qualified, in making Pup Punk determinations respect my point of view).--Dr who1975 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Something Awful

I've been adding some feedback to the talk section of the Something Awful article. There seems to be major disagreement between User:Walfuz and other editors over what should go into the article, and it seems like the notability standard is so high that essential things are getting ignored.

I pulled something from the forums section of User:McCaine's recent edit that I think does a good job of actually explaining what the forums are, and would like further input before I actually put it back into the article.

If we could have your thoughts, that'd be huge. There seems to be a major chasm over this article that needs to be leapt over before it can reach GA status. - Stick Fig 14:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

New Fall Out Boy edits

Hey LaraLove, I hope you found my new info in FOB's bio useful. Sorry about some of the referencing, I am not too good with formatting that. I just made a bunch of new changes, let me know if you see any problems! Cnota 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

what a joke... Cnota 05:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I left you the first message just trying to be nice. You and I have made what seems like a majority of edits from looking over the last 500 on FOB's page, so I thought we could work together to improve it. I did not get a response and I was kinda wondering why you ignored what I said and then directed issues you had with things I did on the talk page and on ShadowHalo's page. Just made me laugh..Cnota 05:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I completely understand how that wasn't on your mind. Just felt like you did it on purpose. I was bored at my mom's house at like 2am on mother's day so I went ahead and added a ton to their bio. Also removed triiva section and incorporated it all in an hour ago. Let's keep improving it. Cnota 06:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The "1" you removed was a note saying that the single was originally release in 2003, but did not chart until 2005. Also, "This Ain't...Arms Race" did not hit 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, but on the BB Pop 100. The "Billboard 200," which is what you changed it to, is the albums chart. Cnota 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You know ...

... I think every 'parent' has to let go sooner or later. Lara, I think you're good to go - what do you think? It doesn't mean I won't be around if you do have any questions. Neil (►) 08:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sivaji: The Boss

Hey can you read and hopefully up-grade the Sivaji: The Boss article to a GA. Many Thanks. Universal Hero 10:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina

May I please know why you tagged the HHI article as LONG? I'm just curious, because I have been trying to keep it below the threshold. Also, how do you measure the article's length? I have been using the "edit this page" tab and looking at the top of the page (currently shows 31 kb). Also, what is the significance to the article being LONG in the GA review? Best, MoodyGroove 13:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles 32kb and larger are considered long by GA standards. If you look at the history, it tells in parenthesis after each edit the size of the article after each edit. On edit pages, article size is only displayed for those 30kb and larger. By its history, it is just over 32kb. My reason for tagging it long is to, hopefully, ensure that an experienced reviewer takes the review. Newbies tend to avoid the long ones... and rightly so. --LaraLove^T/_C 19:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the reply. MoodyGroove 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Congrats

Congrats, my fellow adoptee... on your graduation. I hope to achieve such lofty heights myself in the near future :o) TearJohnDown 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! They should make a little award that looks like a tassel. Good luck with your progress! Let me know if you ever need anything. --LaraLove^T/_C 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption Request

Hello Lara, thank you for your offer to adopt me. I would love to accept your offer. I'm not an uber-newbie but there are loads of things I have no idea how to do and frequently I struggle to find out how to do them in the help. Look forward to hearing from you. Potkettle 12:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

The rationale doesn't make any attempt to state that the image cannot be replaced. I'll see if I can find a free one. ShadowHalo 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There were already two uploaded at commons:Fall Out Boy, so I replaced the copyrighted one. ShadowHalo 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Template Editing

OK, first question! I'm collating notes to write an article that will go in the { met_vars } template, but I can't see how to edit that template so that it will be included. How do I do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Potkettle (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I've answered Potkettle on their talk page.Circeus 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)