User talk:Nat91

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 FAC 2 "Stinking" FACs 3 The Breakfast Club 4 Advice 5 Image tagging for Image:Mygirlposter.jpg 6 Anthony Michael Hall 7 Image:Amhalldz.jpg 8 Use of fair use images outside of article namespace 9 Welcome to VandalProof! 10 Congratulations 11 Welcome to the Films WikiProject! 12 WP:FILMS Newsletter 13 The Original Barnstar 14 Eva Peron article 15 FAC of bacteria 16 This FAC 17 CineVoter

[edit] FAC

I was able to knock out two birds with one stone by reducing questionable reviews in the reception section. The aesthetic problem has been fixed at Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon. Can you take another look? --Zeality 14:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, more than 2 inline citations in one sentence look odd to me. You still have sentences with 3 and 4 citations. I think 2 would be enough for most people. In general, the article is very nice - you certainly have a lot of experience with video games. Good job!

PS: I'd join you at the midnight screenings for Back to the Future and The Breakfast Club - two of my favourite films! :) Nat91 03:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Stinking" FACs

Please see my explanation here. Gzkn 02:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to me that you were passing comments to a prose expert, so that you wouldn't be the only one objecting in the nomination. To me, it sounds as bad as if I was asking people to support my nomination. You may be wanting to help - all comments are welcome, but this is the impression I got. Nat91 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you got that impression. Certainly wasn't what I meant to do. :( I don't have any ulterior motives...I just want to see FAs increase in quality. I do appreciate your and other's hard work in putting these articles together. They are, for the most part, already far better than the majority of the articles on Wikipedia. Also, I'm still a newbie, so I may not be familiar with all the policies yet...please don't bite! :) Gzkn 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, fair enough. :) It's just that after almost 2 months of work, 2 peer-reviews, a GA review and 4 copyedits by a native English speaker (since I'm not one, and that's probably why the prose is not "brilliant" enough), the last thing you want to hear is that it "stinks" and that you'd have to re-write the whole article again. A FA involves a lot of hard work, but as I said before, all comments are welcome. Nat91 06:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Breakfast Club

Thank you for taking the initiative to change the cultural impact section of that article from list to prose. If at any time you become bored with that task or for some other reason do not wish to continue, feel free to add it back. Thanks and have a great day or night. :) Cbrown1023 03:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to re-write the whole article again. A film with such an impact deserves a better article. I'll use other FAs on films as a reference. Since I'll be working on it for a while, I decided to join the project. :) Nat91 03:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Good luck! :) You may want to consider putting templates on their such as {{rewrite}}, {{editing}}, or {{underconstruction}} so that users know that you are rewriting. You could also make it on a sub-page of your user page. Thanks! Cbrown1023 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Just an advice. Don't you ever take the final outcome of a FAC as granted before it is actually over. The 2 objections do not mean your effort will not be finally rewarded. Just be patient, professional and avoid to show any resentment or discontent.

And, of course, I don't take seriously your comment that you'll never again nominate a FAC. By the way, I'm also a non-native English speaker, I have nominated already 4 FAs and I'm preparing myself for the 5th one.

I do understand your furstration. The first FAC is always stressful, but don't hurry to judge the outcome of your effort. A FAC is never over until it is closed. Do you want to see my first FAC? It was a total disaster! I felt humiliated and I did not enter Wikipedia for about a week after it was over! Just check Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pericles/Archive1 and you'll understand you're in a much better position!--Yannismarou 08:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough for your words. I really needed to hear this. And no, I don't believe what I said about never nominating another FAC again either. I just said that because I felt upset and frustrated because people kept saying that it was not good enough (see the "stinking FACs" discussion above); and perhaps it's not, but I already know the article by heart and, as I said in my comment, I feel like I have already given everything to that article. I have seen FACs fail with 4 supports and 2 objects, so I just assumed it.

Heh, you're right. I haven't really felt like entering Wikipedia lately. I've also been busy with exams, so it's good for me right now. Nat91 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Mygirlposter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mygirlposter.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Michael Hall

Hey there. Hope your wikibreak was relaxing. My copy edit is done. Here's the old version, the new version and the diff. Since there were just too many changes to list my rationale here, I think I'll just leave it up to you to ask about which ones you have questions about. I deleted a few paragraphs I thought were unnecessary (mostly those quotations near the end) and I created a subhead that I thought might better label the paras on his recognition. Of course, I may have made errors myself in this copy edit so feel free to disagree with any of my edits. The stuff I bolded is a question for you: are those plot descriptions really necessary? In my view, they kind of break up the flow of the paragraph, and trying to summarize movies in one sentence almost inevitably makes for awkward prose (I tried to fix some of them, but it's pretty hard). Also, I'm not sure whether the plot summaries should be in present (the film follows five high school students) or past tense (The accident triggered a side of his mind that grants...), but it's best to make them consistent. I find past to be better, but that's just my opinion. (I also posted this message at the FAC nom page.) Gzkn 09:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the copyedit! I don't really have many questions, I think it's better the way it is now. As for the sentences you bolded, I checked the Diane Keaton FA and I think you're right, the plot descriptions are not really necessary. I deleted all of them except for one: The following year, he played a gay man who teaches down-and-out Will Smith to dupe rich people in the critically-acclaimed film Six Degrees of Separation. Since the following sentence reads Hall claimed that it was "the hardest role [he] ever had", I think it is necessary to include it. Further comments in the FAC page. Thanks again for taking the time to do this. Nat91 19:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA! Well done! Gzkn 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I couldn't have done it without your help! I hope you're still willing to copyedit for me sometime in the future. :) Nat91 02:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely! Let me know whenever you want. :) Gzkn 05:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Amhalldz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amhalldz.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 05:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand how it fails fair use criterion 1. I couldn't help it read the comments in your talk page because that is exactly what I was thinking. Are you suggesting that I should stalk Anthony Michael Hall to get a free picture? A freely-licensed photograph on actors is not always available, that is why I believe this image (and many others used in biograhies of living persons) does not fail fair use criterion 1. Nat91 05:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Criterion 1 of the fair use criteria is that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. [...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." One of the counterexamples in the fair use guideline is: "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like."
• The subject of this photograph still exists and the purpose of a photograph in the article's infobox is to depict what the person looks like. If this particular image is attached to a paragraph in the article which discusses the subjects acting performance in a specific context and is accompanied with a detailed fair-use rationale explaining why it is important to show what the subject looked like there, this image would be acceptable. Similarly, the image is acceptable to depict the fictional character because it is not replaceable in that context.

--Oden 05:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of the criterion you're mentioning in the second paragraph (If the image is attached to a paragraph in the article which discusses the subjects acting performance in a specific context). But, I'm still not sure where I can find the kind of pictures that would be suitable for an infobox. It is not easy to find a free image. Do you have any suggestions? (apart from Creative Commons?) Nat91 06:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you visit a website like Flickr (http://www.flickr.com) there are several photographs of Anthony Michael Hall. (For instance [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. It might be possible to contact these photographers and ask if they will grant permission for their photographs to be licensed under a free license (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission). In this context a free license would be a GFDL license or a Creative Commons license which allows for commercial and derivative use. You could also have a look at Commons:Free media resources --Oden 06:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this image is being used in a featured article. One of the attributes of a featured article is that the images have a "acceptable copyright status". However the use of one or more images in a featured article isn't necessarily a requirement, and I don't think that the removal of a fair use image from the infobox without replacement will affect the article's status as a featured article (there are other images in the article, and if you place the current image elswehere in the article it might even improve it further). --Oden 06:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I can place the current image elsewhere in the article? Is that acceptable? Well, considering the image is a promotional picture of a TV series, it should be attached to the paragraph that talks about it, correct?. But there's already another picture there. Honestly, the infobox picture is the one I'm thinking about right now. I know is not a requirement for FA, but it feels like there should be one there. Nat91 06:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If the image is not necessary for the article you could orphan it (remove it completely). Katie Holmes, Austin Nichols and Diane Keaton are all featured article which do not have an image in the infobox. --Oden 07:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of fair use images outside of article namespace

Hello! You have used fair use images in your user namespace (Image:Amhalldz.jpg, Image:Vacation2.jpg, Image:Breakfastclubhall.jpg, Image:Piratessiliconvalley.jpg and Image:Deadzonedvd.jpg in User:Nat91/Sandbox/Anthony Michael Hall). Criterion 9 of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states that "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." If you wish to create a temporary page in order to improve the article on Anthony Michael Hall my suggestion would be to create a temporary page (for instance under Talk:Anthony Michael Hall/temp). Once you have finished experimenting with the temporary page you can request a deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If you wish to see what your changes will look like before you save you can also use the "Show preview" button. However if you wish to see what your changes will look like before you save the best way is to use the "Show preview" button when you are editing the article. Sincerely, --Oden 05:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I forgot to delete them. My apologies. Can I get an explanation about my question above? Thanks. Nat91 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Nat91! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

You see? The article finally became FA! Cons.--Yannismarou 10:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Your peer-reviews were very useful. And I'm sorry about what happened to El Greco - you're doing a great job with the article! Nat91 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Films WikiProject!

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For bringing Anthony Michael Hall up to a featured article. Good job! Oden 05:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eva Peron article

Thanks for reviewing the Eva Peron article on the Good Articles nomination page. I have made the appropriate adjustments regarding fair use rationales. Thank you. Andrew Parodi 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nat. As the GA nominator for the Eva Peron article, I'm curious as to why you graded the article "OK" on "Factual accuracy" in your review. Did you see specific instances where the article lacks accuracy? If you have time, specific comments about this issue would be appreciated; that way the editors can address them while the article is on hold. Thank you for the review! -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I graded the article OK in Factual accuracy because there are several uncited paragraphs. Statements such as She took a triple dose of painkillers before the parade, and took another two doses when she returned home need to be cited. I'll pass it as GA but, in my opinion, this article is potential FAC (it's already an A-class article which is above GA). As an Argentine, I'd love to see this article featured, but it still needs some work. I'm technically giving a peer-review here, I'll give specific comments for FAC.

• Inline citations. Since Eva is a historical figure, you'd need more inline citations. As I mentioned above, there are sections completely uncited. Also, possible WP:NPOV violations need a citation, sentences like Nicholas Fraser suggests that Evita is the perfect popular culture icon for our times...(see also WP:AWW and WP:APT).
• "Trivia" sections are not recommended anymore, you should get rid of it. There are only 2 small paragraphs: the Lisa Simpson reference could be moved to "Popular culture" in the "Legacy" section and the second paragraph is not very relevant so I would delete it.
• "Notes" go before "External links" and "References" go inside "Notes."
• Get rid of the red links in the article.
• The link "(From Time Magazine)" in the "Death" section should be turned into an inline citation.
• Ask for a copyedit for the article before going to FAC. I'm not a native-English speaker so I'm not suitable for the job, but a good copyeditor may fix things to avoid headaches in FAC.

Good luck! Nat91 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notes. I will look into improving what you suggest. I'll get rid of the trivia section. Maybe the reference to Lisa Simpson as Eva Peron can be moved to the "popular culture" section. And I'll get rid of the personality type bit. I agree with the link to Time magazine article in "Death" section. I didn't insert that into the article. Another editor did, and it was a bit of an argument between the two of us to even get quotation marks around that entry so as to ensure that it was clear that this was the opinion of Time magazine, not the Wikipedia editors.

I'd like to see this article get to Featured Article status. But at the moment, I want to do what I can to just get it to GA status. And I agree, some work is necessary. Thanks again. Andrew Parodi 00:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC of bacteria

An editor has made some major changes to this article, could you please return to the FAC and provide some feedback on whether or not these are an improvement? TimVickers 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This FAC

Was rebooted by Raul if you can stop by again. Thanks. --Zeality 23:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CineVoter

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as Back to the Future. Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

Cbrown1023 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)