User talk:Angmering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2004 – July 2005 — User talk:Angmering/Archive1
July 2005 – January 2006 — User talk:Angmering/Archive2
January – August 2006 — User talk:Angmering/Archive3
September 2006 – February 2007 — User talk:Angmering/Archive4

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Quatexp04.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Quatexp04.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Please be careful not to flag your edits are minor if they do not fit the guidelines set out in Help:Minor Edits. For example - this change is clearly not minor http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Nation&diff=next&oldid=105613080 . -- Beardo 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - the link is Help:Minor edit - but every time you flag an edit there's a link there by the box. (It says "what's this"). -- Beardo 22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A. E. J. Collins

Gosh, thanks for your additions! -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congrats on The Quatermass Experiment passing FAR! Good work, Paul! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quatermass II

I'm gonna be busy for the next couple of days, but I'll happily give this a quick look when I'm back. The one thing I saw within a 30-second glimpse was that your "retrieved on" dates in the references section are ugly-ass American abbreviated forms. My personal preference is a good ol' February 9, 2007 - no room for ambiguity or confusion, which the others might provide. Might just be because I'm a stubborn fart... I know it'd take hours, but hell, you asked. I'll get my teeth into it soon enough though. Seegoon 18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy hell you're right. I never knew. Now I feel a fool. In that case, put your feet up until Sunday when I'll try to find some flaws in what looks a very good article. Seegoon 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've given it a once-over, have a look at the peer review page. Seegoon 22:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've responded; great job. Good luck with where-ever you plan on taking this article. Seegoon 16:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the updates on your front page... well you said to say "hello".. :) LuciferMorgan 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Since I was instructed... "Hello!" I often check out the user pages of people I come across a lot on the history pages I glance over, to get know who else is out there. Enjoyed your blog.. I like following up links and seeing what others are interested in. All the best. Gwinva 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Quat203.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Quat203.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Quat205.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Quat205.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Because I'm too angry to do this nicely...

Could you please CFD Category:Lists of shows by Joss Whedon and Category:Lists of shows by Tim Minear? There are no parent categories named for either of those people and it makes no sense to parent the categories as they concern people and not just their shows. Also, the pages being linked are not lists, but categories, categories for shows.

I'm not sure how to phrase my reasoning and there's no way I can deal with my connection problems and with any input from the creator. I just don't think I can be civil and there's also the issue of whether or not to rename them or delete them.--Rmky87 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hello

Just popped in to say hello, as you asked on your user page for people to do so if they read the page lol. I like your blogging-style userpage, it's interesting. :) Best regards 86.134.253.22 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) that was me, btw, somehow my pc had logged me off! High Heels on Wet Pavement 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Synchronised bothering

I was just doing a mate a favour - he doesn't know much about how to gain an FA, but edits articles a lot, and his first nomination didn't go that well. I'm hoping he'll learn how to get an FA etc., so am trying to help out. I wish I could comment as regards Nigel Kneale, though it seems ok to me - beyond citations, my skills are little. Yannismarou and Sandy (as your experience will have shown) are also editors that are rather good in reviewing articles, so you could always politely enquire if they aren't busy, and whether they could have a browse at your article. The more the merrier that comment in my opinion. Jeffpw I found helpful also.

I reckon all your Quatermass related articles could go for FAC - while you go for FAC on one, you could always nominate the other for GA at the same time. I've been tempted to nominate them already, but of course it holds you up in the event of you wanting to get it straight to FA. LuciferMorgan 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatermass II, as I've said many times, is definitely ready for FA nomination - when you want to nominate it, just ask those I've named to review the article to properly prepare it. I think you could get the other Quatermass related articles up to GA/FA rather easily - the one I think you might find difficulty on is the character of Quatermass, especially if you've never written an FA on a fictional character. Dmoon1's FAs on Star Wars characters are rather good templates to use in rewriting a character article. If you end up getting really into getting these Quatermass related articles to GA/FA, you could always try to get them to featured topic standard - now that's a challenge. There's currently only 9 featured topics, but I think you could do it if you were interested. LuciferMorgan 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

However it goes, you still got two FACs in your midst in the shape of Quatermass II and Nigel Kneale. Good luck with them and the others. LuciferMorgan 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Angmering, I'd really like to help, but I'm getting on a plane tomorrow, still packing, and don't know how much internet access I'll have over the next few weeks. Sorry :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No :-) I wish! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking along a printout to read on the plane, but just don't know if I'll get internet access to respond to you after I read it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the peer review so that it can gain the help of the Biography Wikiproject, who are a lot more active in reviewing articles. The old link will redirect there, so hope you don't mind. LuciferMorgan 17:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It should help to gain more feedback since it's now listed at both the regular PR and here. I hope you get feedback because some poor souls use PR and nobody replies :(. Hopefully some of the bio reviewer regulars will pitch in to review :). LuciferMorgan 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cos I pinged him soon after, I'm unsure if Seegoon has noticed your request. Perhaps you should remove the request on his talk page from that section, and place it in a new section of its own on the bottom. LuciferMorgan 03:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel Kneale

I'd be happy to take a look at it. I'm going out to the theatre tonight, but I'll examine Nigel Kneale either after I get back or tomorrow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. I've given the article a once-over. It looks very good to me — I made a few minor edits, but nothing of substance. (There was some over-linking early in the article — as a rule, I don't think that we need to link common terms like "newspaper" — but that's not a big deal.)

One sentence that could be improved is the reference to the uneven quality of the six parts of Beasts. Since I don't have the original source, I can't clarify it, but it would probably be better to cite a particular critic's opinion than to use the weasel phrase "regarded by some critics". Similary, it would be better to name names for Kneale's double standard about alterations for adaptations rather than saying "it has been observed".

But overall the article looks great — certainly good enough for GA, or you could jump straight to FAC. If it does go on FAC, I'll try to help out with any suggestions the folks there make. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't chose a better word than "snowed"! I'll definitely review the article, but give me some days. I hope that until Friday I'll be able to go through it.--Yannismarou 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for GA, which should be passed by the time PR runs its course - I hope you didn't mind (withdraw the nomination the moment you nominate the article for FAC if it hasn't passed by then). I thought at the moment you're more concerned in expanding / improving Rudolph Cartier, more specifically the "BBC television" section which needs citations, so thought it could quietly pass GA while you're doing up that one. I know you already have a Gatiss related piece in the article, but is this any good, or have you already used it? LuciferMorgan 05:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite there not being many sources, I still think Cartier could make GA if you wanted it to - length is never an issue with GA. The end of the "BBC television" section could be broken off and made into a "Legacy" or "Influence" section like you did with Kneale then. LuciferMorgan 08:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I knew you was planning it that way - you're rather good at brushing up articles and making them into future FA possibilities. LuciferMorgan 08:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it looks real good - I rated it B. I don't like giving higher ratings than that - the other I could've given is A, but I think it'd be best if it passed GA first. I nominated Cartier for GA (hope you didn't mind) also, but didn't know where to put him - I put him under "Television" after (you could put Kneale there too if you wanted, but make sure you queue it where it would've been at the time I nominated it). You should make a GA trophy cabinet on your userpage somewhere I reckon - once you got all those GAs you can choose then which can make FA (Q2 and Kneale could sometime). LuciferMorgan 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm at the FAC everyone seems off put by the size which is unfortunate, since it's a decent article. That's one thing I like about QII; nobody would be able to gripe about the size. I hope the FAC picks up for you :) LuciferMorgan 11:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long in responding; I'm back from two weeks of travel, had every intention to read the article on my trip (took a printout), but really had a really really bad trip, and just didn't get to it. And, I have two more weeks of travel coming up, so I can't promise I will get to it, but I do intend to try. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Crouch

Apolgies for not getting back to you sooner. I see that following further vandalism, the page has now been protected. Thanks. Daemonic Kangaroo 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

I actually gave that article a once-over a while back and honestly couldn't find anything about it I didn't like! Pretty crap advice, but a very nice ego-stroke, I'm sure. Seegoon 15:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I felt the same as Seegoon when looking at it, and felt bad I had nothing constructive to say! LuciferMorgan 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me of the dangers of cut and paste - a lesson learnt I hope, though likely not. :) Definitely go for FAC with Nigel Kneale sometime, and once that successful FAC is over finally get around to getting Quatermass II ready for nomination. They're Doctor Morgan's orders lol - it doesn't really even need much work, it's just sitting there waiting for someone to nominate it. So once the first FAC is over, try another FAC soon after. LuciferMorgan 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long for me to respond to your request. I haven't much time, but I will try to look over the article next week in more detail. My initial reaction from skimming the article is that it looks pretty good. Dmoon1 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christ Illusion

Since you have knowledge of FA/FAC and I notice you've recently edited the article, are there any problems you can notice in the article? I wish to nominate it at FAC soon, but would rather iron out any minor / major problems before nomination. Thanks for any feedback you may be able to give. LuciferMorgan 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments regarding the article, which are hugely appreciated. It's my first proper attempt at improving an article, so I feel a bit of an attachment to it. Would you deem it appropriately wikilinked after your edits? Just wondering. LuciferMorgan 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence, Fallen

Check this. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 22:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to respond to the above Wikipedian, do so at Wikipedia:Good_article_review#.5B.5BFallen_.28album.29.5D.5D. If the above Wikipedian wishes for a debate as concerns GA, then I thought it best to make it formal. Up to you whether you get involved mate. LuciferMorgan 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia

There is draft being worked on at User:JoshuaZ/Conservapedia, feel free to edit it. JoshuaZ 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Congratulations on the promotion of Nigel Kneale to FA status. Have a cookie. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely congratulations. Now tell me when you're going to nominate Quatermass II? I mean, really? Nominate it! It'll pass FAC easily, smoother than Kneale I reckon. LuciferMorgan 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tips for proper english

Hi!, just wondering if you have the time to explain me the differences between controversial and debatable in an encyclopedical point of view. thank you! --Jor70 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last of the Time Lords

Hiya, thanks for retagging the Toclafane/Time Lord stuff on the LotTL article. I'd tagged it first, then a newbie removed the tags. I started a discussion about edits like that here; perhaps you could give your views? Once again, thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul on the radio!

Hey, Paul — I just heard you talking to Julie Gardner on BBC Radio Wales, thanks to the magic of the Internet! You forgot to tell her that you're one of the authors of her Wikipedia page! :)

Congrats — and enjoy Smith and Jones (a few hours before I will, thanks to the aforementioned magic...)! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TFA/R revamping

I have proposed revising the WP:TFA/R process. After the recent rejection of my proposal, I researched Old FAs. You were the nominator of an article that was promoted to WP:FA before 2005, and you continue to be an active wikipedian. Your article has not yet been featured on the main page as a WP:TFA. I am wondering if you have ever made an active effort to get it featured and if you are aware of the new TFA/R procedure, which requires an active request. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Stone Tape

Hi Paul. I was wondering if, as Wikipedia's resident Nigel Kneale expert, you might be able to find the time to give The Stone Tape article the onceover? I've beefed it up and expanded it and I think it might stand a chance of making GA but I'd appreciate if someone knowledgeable could throw their eye over it before I put it up for nomination. Thanks. - Joe King 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul, thanks very much for taking a look at the The Stone Tape and thanks very much for your kind words, much appreciated. I'm going to nominate it for GA this evening, so fingers crossed! Joe King 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/g/User_talk%7EAngmering_8297.html"