User talk:Laser brain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lion again[edit]

Hey. Do you think that the lion article may be too large. I reduced it from over 172,000 to 168,008 but is it still bigger than tiger (158,840) and elephant (145,126). Wolf was recently reduced to 118,239 from over 170,000 to prepare for a possible FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Based on current consensus, yes. Also, the images are creating some really weird layout problems. --Laser brain (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The readable prose size is now 60kb...and 50kb is generally considered the upper limit of article size unless there is a good reason to exceed this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Well I slimmed it down to just under 160,000. I think that's okay for now. LittleJerry (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Need editing advice on my draft[edit]

Hello Laser brain (or anyone else??), I have a draft of an article that I would love some advice on, particularly in terms of notability. Would you please take a look? I've had no edits yet, so please assume good intention. Thanks! Albus89 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Albus89/sandbox/Griffin_Anthony

@Albus89: I'd say it's a edge case in terms of notability and it's possible the draft will be rejected. One of the criterion is being the subject of articles published in notable sources. The only thing I see that might meet that standard is the Nashville Noise article, although I'm unsure of the notability of that publication. The other articles you provided are blogs, which are not generally notable works. Another criterion that might make him notable is having composed the music for a notable work. You've listed "Catskill Park" but you'd have to show evidence that it's considered notable outside just being shown at a film festival. None of his albums have been released on a notable label either (I'm unsure why you've listed BMI as one of his record labels). I think you'll have more work to do to show that he's notable for inclusion here. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Laser brain , thanks so much for the advice! I appreciate your time. Albus89 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

IB[edit]

I'll move this here as the "restrictions", which I've suddenly realised, may include speaking about IB in general in particular discussions, but then confusingly, go on to say that I can speak about them in general in general discussions. Anyway, you ask why do people keep starting IB discussions? In short, because they can. ArbCom are complicit in this continued disruption as they have never addressed the problem. They allow for people on the pro-IB side of the argument to be as disruptive as they damned well like; people like the editor you've seen on Kubrick refuse to take no for an answer, are allowed to start discussion after discussion after discussion in the hope they get the answer they want, and put on a passive-aggressive, faux display of pleasantry. As far as ArbCom are concerned, it's far easier, as I've said with regards to Eric at Moors murders, to deal with the result rather than the cause which is why I find myself being limited to just one comment, while HAL and people like them continue to disrupt the project. Hope all things are good with you. CassiantoTalk 06:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(can't help watching:) what do you, both or anybody else, think of this 2018 comment: Yay!? - I never had any connection to HAL333, and thought about how to explain that "live and let live" part to them. Laser brain, can you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I respect your calm view, as always... however, "live and let live" applies to passive situations. Folks who repeat an action (like making inquiries) until they get the result they want is a form of aggression. --Laser brain (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
While I agree in general, in this particular case there was an invitation just above the RfC by Bishonen to try again in a few months. Going by AGF which we ahould always apply I see HAL333 as a rather new editor who has zero background information about an old conflict, and who patiently waited even longer than a few months. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Good point. I'll reiterate my argument that it costs nothing for people to drive by and say, "How about now?" without offering any new arguments. They should not be encouraged to do so. On the other hand, it costs a lot of time and energy for those who have to monitor the page for the latest inquiry, reiterate the same arguments, and have the spectre of DS hanging over their heads. It's an unworkable and lazy system set up by Arbcom that punts responsibility and ignores the human factors involved. I don't blame people for lashing out under those circumstances. It's also very frustrating when they come in and say, "I don't understand why we can't have an infobox. No one has explained this to my satisfaction" when the reasons are there for anyone to read. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
When I read "good point" I thought you'd agree a little more ;)
  1. It wasn't a drive-by, it was a person who patiently waited, and I'd owe them respect for doing so.
  2. I am not going to reiterate arguments. I don't even plan to participate, firstly because it's a waste of time (you are so right about that), secondly because some will only wait for that ;)
  3. I don't blame people for lashing out etc, but only because I try to never blame people. It wouldn't hurt to use polite language when dealing with an editor who patiently waited.
  4. It may be frustrating to hear "I don't understand why we can't have an infobox. No one has explained this to my satisfaction", but here I am, 7 years into that conflict, and it's simply true: no argument why we can't have an infobox has ever convinced me. I am just silent because it's a waste of time to argue, and because I respect that those who improved the article to FA don't like an infobox ("let live").
I turned to leaving articles by others alone, and instead to writing articles which I "control", and of course with an infobox ("live"). I have a peer review open, btw, you are invited. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Given his comment in this IB discussion, "I have consulted multiple guidelines and discussions, such as the one above", I wouldn't necessarily say he has "zero background information". - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, sorry for being too sloppy. I meant zero background when they "first" came, and meant about the old feuds from 2005 on which even I don't know about, coming in only in 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
No-one needs to know about the "feuds from 2005" to know IBs are a sometimes controversial topic. He was involved in the Mozart discussion in December 2018 and then decided to rejoin it to comment about me in March 2019 – two months after I'd left a message asking someone not to personalise it. But sure, let's play the "zero background information" game and keep pushing the message that anyone who presses again and again for the inclusion of an IB is saintly and untouchable. – SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd also add that there is evidence we are being trolled by some off-site group given that whenever this comes up, we have random IPs, sleeper accounts, or "new editors" who magically find their way into the dispute. --Laser brain (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Definately. It's no surprise that as soon as the RfC was posted, there was an IP adding one in, and a second one today (who also left me this charming message too). I expect there will be more, as well as the sleeper-socks that magically appear whenever the IB question is raised. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Facts[edit]

Every now and then, I look at the discussion, sooo tempted to go but determined (for my peace of mind) not to. Just facts: It has been said "This article was written about 4 years ago, it's not had a box since then.". The article was created in 2001, had an infobox from 2005, and looked like this in 2015. I have no time to check for how much longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Peace of mind is a good thing. I should disengage. --Laser brain (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Bishonen said on my talk that I should rather comment in the RfC than on several users' talk pages, but what could I say? I generally support, that is clear, but seeing how desperately some - who added greatly to the article - cling to the version without, I won't have the heart ... - it's their peace of mind also. We have hundreds of articles where an infobox is requested, - if this one is without, the world will still move on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Today: Immortal Bach, - that's where I want to spend my time, "the last word meaning peace" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Also today, four years ago, is when "consensus" was established, "Infoboxes are optional and should be the choice of those who have made contributions to the article." Interesting to compare the names then and now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: As always, I respect your calm and reasoned approach. I understand the notion that directly engaging may be too difficult for various reasons and that you may wish to engage in sidebars with others. Honestly, it's become akin to people in two different political parties talking past each other. I don't know what the state of political discourse is in Germany, but it's bad in the UK and even worse in the US. Funny that someone brought up Brexit in that discussion. --Laser brain (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I went in a bit more detail on my talk about why I think the RfC is a farce. Just today, I read, addressed to an editor who seems new to the hotness of the topic and inserted an infobox AGF (reverted, of course): "It's you who wants to reduce a well-written article into a list of bulleted factoids." (User talk:Biografer#WP:DISINFOBOXes, if you don't believe it). Hopeless to argue with that, really. I tried for a while, but it's eating too much of my life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Viktor Fogarassy, for another focus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI, and because I've already had my one comment over on Kubrick.

An apparently "new user", according to Gerda, who seemed very quick to welcome them after three very productive years, has just happened upon the Kubrick RfC by way of "coincidence". So not only has this RfC been undermined by HAL333's blatant canvassing, there's also now the possibility of socking taking place. And here are the rally cries on reddit. CassiantoTalk 11:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that the canvassing issue was neutralized, but a lot of what's happened since then is disheartening. The current environment heavily favors people who want to add infoboxes to articles, as they are given near-unlimited reign to drive-by additions and comments. Anyone who's opposed is tied to paying constant attention to these discussions, restating rationales, and having the spectre of sanctions hanging over their heads should they step out of line. I don't know why I expect anything more from ArbCom. --Laser brain (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
And rather ironically, I've not been part of it. I think this goes to prove that even with me not involved, infobox discussions still continue to be a problematic, hostile, troublesome, and uncivil timesink. Funny that. Maybe ArbCom should take their heads out of their backsides and concentrate on the real causes. CassiantoTalk 14:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to correct that when I see a red talk link, I welcome them without checking any of their history. The assumption of good faith is not in rich supply, it seems. I focus on singing. - And like you said, Cassianto: even with me not involved (and deliberately not voting - wrong question anyway - and deliberately not sending thank-you clicks because even those have been scrutinized), the question "why not?" will not die, - timesink, yes. Just imagine for a moment the Kubrick infobox had been kept in 2015. Would we have had any discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know you could see other people's thank-you clicks. Wild. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
"... a new low", the edit for which I thanked was this. Well hidden as outcommented text, but still bothered me, back then at least. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Just imagine for a moment if the Kubrick infobox had've had a consensus to add it the first place. We (are supposed to) work on WP:BRD around here and there is no time limit in which someone can revert. Consensus on either side of the argument is supposed to be non-negotiable. CassiantoTalk 16:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
No, Cassianto. I looked at that 2015 "consensus", key argument "I respect that the choice of infobox is left to the major editor first and foremost." I respect that, to make you happy. Please don't ask more. Peace of mind has been mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Gerda. Where was the consensus in 2005? You don't get to add a box without a friggin consensus and then demand a consensus when it's deleted. It's a tried and tested argument that no one on your side of the argument can coherently answer. CassiantoTalk 17:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
What in "Please don't ask more." was unclear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Then don't answer, simple. There's more than one way to skin a cat. CassiantoTalk 17:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thanks for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. Your words were much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

one of the better comments I've seen throughout this mess. — Ched (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

One oppose triumphs[edit]

Fowler&fowler was the only one opposing Mullum Malarum's FAC. Everyone else was in favour of it, including Mr rnddude who withdrew without giving a verdict. Fowler's actions were widely criticised, so how can his lone views be considered consensus? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed his comments and determined them to be valid and actionable. As issues continued to be found at this late stage, it's best to archive the nomination and address them. It's common for reviewers to locate issues that other reviewers overlooked, so try not to read too much into it. When I was an active reviewer, I would routinely find prose issues in articles that were enjoying broad support otherwise. I realize it is a disappointing result after the nomination had been open that long, and I do hope you'll re-nominate after working with F&F to address their concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: As an aside, I'm shocked by the tone of your remarks aimed at F&F. I understand you may be upset, but you can disagree with someone in a professional manner without saying things like "fuck you". We've long had a problem with reviewer shortages at FAC, and one of the reasons for that problem is reviewers being harangued and insulted for their feedback. It's disheartening. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I almost felt like crying upon learning of my failure for the fourth time despite all efforts. The tragedy is, some cynic like him will always oppose, and if I solve one of their comments, they will bring even more. I won't apologise for calling him that, because he first gave oppose, then withdrew after generously improving the article, then again gave oppose. He didn't stop there, he gave even more increasingly negative comments which were hard to address, let alone understand. I feared I would fail the FAC (AGAIN!), which is why I had a co-nominator who was much more social than me and succeeding at FACs, and believed he'd be able to address them. But he didn't move even an inch and never explained why. It felt like he backstabbed me. I may apologise for my language, but I won't forgive Fowler for what he did.., ever. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Being upset is normal. It's discouraging. It doesn't give you the right to take that frustration out on others. If you can't forgive a reviewer on a website for saying something critical about your work, you may be in the wrong line of business. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. FAC can be very frustrating but try not to take it personally. If it was a terrible article I wouldn't have supported it, at least take something from that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive3[edit]

I’m just a tad over a month in on my nom for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive3 and I was wondering if there was any input you could give about its chances at this point. It has four supports and no opposes and the sample issue resolved, so I’m wondering if I need to see out more feedback or if it’s fine to wait it out at this point. I’d rather not have to go through a fourth FAC so better to know sooner rather than later, right? If you can’t give an answer that’s fine, just figured I’d ask. Toa Nidhiki05 20:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: The nomination looks good currently and I'd say it reflects a good consensus for promotion. I always full read through each article before promotion and I was unable to get to this one during today's run-through. I'll try to take a look this weekend! --Laser brain (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Source reviews[edit]

Hi Laser brain, I hope you are well. I'm looking to get a source review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2019 Tour Championship/archive1 but been a little unsuccessful. Do you know who I might be able to sweet talk/badger for a review for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

On a separate sources matter, I see that Almost There (album) has been promoted, apparently without a sources review; all I can see are some comments from Lingzhi about the referencing style, but no examination of format consistency, links working, quality/reliability, etc. Or am I missing something? I can't see sources having been properly checked in the earlier, archived noms, either. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: That's my oversight. I had in my mind that Ling had done a source review, but I see now that's a poor assumption on my part. I'll undertake a review in the next 24 hours since I missed it. --Laser brain (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

I had pinged you earlier to comment here, you got time? --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I'm not inclined to weigh in with opinions on any of the content. My job as an FAC coordinator is to weigh consensus for promotion, not dispute resolution. I continue to be troubled by the language you are using toward F&F. --Laser brain (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll respect your wish and not ask you further. I'm also trying very hard to reduce my animosity towards Fowler. Since both Ssven and Fowler pinged you, that's why I came to you in case you didn't get it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Clara Schumann[edit]

Clara Schumann just had her bicentenary of birth, and I did what I could the day before to improve. One thing I didn't like was that she was called Clara throughout, which is somewhat reasonable having to mention her more famous husband again and again, but I think is still disrespectful. I'd like you to go over it, sort of an unofficial peer rewiew, if I can interest you. (GAN is open, in case you - or someone watching - have more time.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I would love to. I should have some time today. It's difficult to find a solution to the problem you mention about naming! --Laser brain (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Just see what I did, and change if you think so. Of course she can be called Clara as a child prodigy, but later on, using "she" more often, saying "the couple" (suggestion by Jmar67 who copyedited), and saying chumann after her husband died seems more appropriate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Eric Corbett[edit]

If you wish to continue discussing Eric Corbett and his work, you can now freely do so here. Due to the quantity and quality of his work, there will be many times when he and his work needs to be re-evaluated, discussed. I intend this page to remain active as long as Eric’s own page is protected and/ or censored. I shall moderate the page, but other than archiving when necessary I will only remove comments which are abusive or insulting. Anything goes, Eric was an undeniably controversial figure who drew differing opinions, but so long as the language is acceptable and polite, I will let all comments stand. Giano (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The Featured Article Medal[edit]

Image Description
The Featured Article Medal You've probably gotten some of these Featured Article Medals for your writing. This one is for your work as a coord, with my thanks for your devotion, competence and good sense. It's awardable to people who have helped with three or more FAs ... so I think you and Ian qualify (awarded jointly). - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


  • Quite right too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I am your lord and saviour[edit]

Your block of I am your lord and saviour hit four apparently unrelated users (which I checked using the Editor Interaction Analyser. The specific users were KNHaw, Nuke87654, GeoffCapp, and Carrite. This is really surprising to me. I've never seen four users hit by a single autoblock before. --Yamla (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Add Loopy30 to the list affected by the autoblock. --Yamla (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yamla, and my account as well. Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Yamla: I've never seen this, either. I wonder if there is some IP sharing going on with certain VPN technology? I can only guess. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Fascinating. For a while, I was worried everyone was going to hit the autoblock due perhaps to a bug in the software somewhere. :) --Yamla (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
http://www.let.rug.nl/~gosse/termpedia2/termpedia.php?language=dutch_general&density=7&link_color=000000&termpedia_system=perl_db&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALaser_brain
www.let.rug.nl
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-43
117306
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:EX2I52M6ZFCWQS6GPQJ2S5GMLBAYHHME
<urn:uuid:6d3c324d-712d-4cec-bfa2-15f4b0ca7d2b>
2019-10-17T23:17:08Z
129.125.2.101
text/html
sha1:6XAGMYICFNYQZOUOIPI5KHUNQAFLBBCK
<urn:uuid:dd6f6178-e318-49c0-b12e-343138076d08>
http://www.let.rug.nl/~gosse/termpedia2/termpedia.php?language=dutch_general&density=7&link_color=000000&termpedia_system=perl_db&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALaser_brain
response
<urn:uuid:a41f0b79-aff6-47fd-aae1-020bf4da6c90>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-144.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/