User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

"This concept of wuv confuses and infuriates us!"This is the first talk archive. See the main archive index here.

Don't add to this page (not that you can, actually). For the active talk page for Jeffrey O. Gustafson go here.

Contents

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

(Sam_Spade | talk | contributions) 14:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Photoshopped pic

Hi! I came across the photoshopped pic on your user page today and, as part of the wikipedia image tagging effort, I listed it as yours and noted that you release it into the public domain for copyright purposes. If this is at all inaccurate, please feel free to correct it. --InShaneee 16:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not OK, so I've changed it so that the copyright is a little more clear. Thanks for the heads-up. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human Torch

1) Double-Redirects. Currently, Human Torch redirects to a redirect, which doesn't work as a anti-DOS measure. If you move something to the wrong page, move it BACK, THEN move it to the right page.

Um. I haven't a clue what to do there.

2) You wanted to move Original Human Torch to Human Torch? Okay, you may be a Golden Age fan, but guess which one is more well known (not least with a certain movie on the way).

For the record, I am not a Golden Age fan any more than I am a fan of the current Marvel output; in fact the opposite may be a more accurate assessment. My concern lies entirely in the realm of maintaining accuracy. The Human Torch from 1938 is and has always been just the Human Torch. That's his name, not "Original" Human Torch, which as we all know was only added on later as a descriptor. It is an accurate descriptor, of course, but it is not *his name*, or title, so it shouldn't be the first thing folks see. With Johnny Storm, to say "Human Torch (Johnny Storm)" is accurate, becasue that's his name and title. Who's more well known should not be relevant when pursuing accuracy.

I'll leave Human Torch as a {{disamb}}, rather than cycle HT (JS) back to where it was, but that "WARNING! This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding." message is there for a reason.

Indeed. That's why I went to the admins.

You've got more links to fix, BTW...- SoM 12:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Four of them needed changing, which I have done. The rest are referring specifically to the Golden Age Human Torch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(P.S. Not sure of the ettiquette here, but I've put this reply in both our talk pages. -JOG)

WGA

Salve, Jeffrey!
Saw your comment on Talk:WGA_screenwriting_credit_system about WGA banning a pseudonym for a creator's credit. I've incorporated that material into the article. Thanks for the tip. PedanticallySpeaking 17:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your postings (and be logged on)

Hi,

Either you are not logging on and are making edits nevertheless, or someone else has been editing your user page.

What on Earth are you talking about? The last accidental unsigned edit to my user page was more than three weeks ago by me. If it was a chronic problem, I'd understand your concern, but I always sign in nowadays, so your little bit of initiative is entirely perplexing.

Usually it is better to log on and to sign postings, etc. I think most people automatically suspect anonymous edits as being the work of vandals, whereas the name of a known and trusted editor in an edit summary means (to me at least) that I can trust that it has been a reasonable and proper bit of editing.

P0M 4 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)

While many vandals are anonymous, some utilize User Names. And while many editors who make solid contributions utilize User Names, some chose to be anonymous. And I am under no obligation to anyone to sign in - if I wish to edit anonymously, I shall [have the right] do so. Thank you for your concern.
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! 5 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)

Hi, I should have given you more information. I was following some somewhat strange edits by an un-logged-on contributor and came to your talk page. Check your history, or take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson&diff=14199380&oldid=14163301

Somebody did make some changes, and I didn't read all of them or I would have realized that it couldn't very well have been you.

P0M 5 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

It wasn't. It was a vandal, which you would have easily ascertained if you looked at the History which clearly shows me reverting that user's changes a few hours after they vandalized my page. This is more of a case of really not paying attention.
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 5 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

Wikistress

Hello Jeffrey O. Gustafson.

Hello Redwolf24!

I see you got a lot of wikistress. May I ask why?

No, no, I haven't any. I have the red wikistress thingee there because it looks cool, mostly. I had an explanation under it, but now I've made it more clear so as to not send out any more false alarms.

I do hope you don't leave wikipedia. Every time we lose a competent wikipedian, the idiot ratio gets a bit higher :-( Redwolf24 06:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Nuthin' to worry about here, I plan on using wikipedia for a while. Thanks for your concern! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Fonzie Award

Thats for being cool with a k. That would look good on the side of your page, neh? Redwolf24 07:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Carlos Mencia

Good job! --Duk 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Anons

The person vandalizing the Mencia page with false info (the Ned Holness references, etc.) is Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, a Xxx Xxxxxxx grad student. (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx). Feel free to email xxx if xxx persists.

pic: http://www.xxxx.xxx/xxxxx/xxxx/xx/xxxx.xxx

The above comment was made by anon user 65.0.101.241 at 02:59, 27 July 2005. Censored by Jeffrey O. Gustafson to protect anonymity of alleged.

Have you got proof? And more importantly, how does one random anonymous user in Baton Rouge know the supposed identity of another alleged user supposedly in Xxxxx? Or is this an attempted smear?
I appreciate the help, but there is no way to know the information you provided is accurate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The following unsigned message to which I replied was left by an anonymous user at 03:43, 31 July 2005, utilizing an IP numbered 65.0.101.241 (talk - Contributions). This user's previous message to me is archived right above this.

(to Jeff - this is from Mencia's himself, clarification on the name issue)

Mencia's what? Is the quote below taken from a website or magazine (etc.) interview, and if so, which one?

"This year, a week or so before the show, the guys stated to ride my ass about the fact that my birth name is Ned… relax, I’ll tell you the story about that… My birth father’s name is Roberto Holness. When I was born, my mother was pissed off at my father and decided not give me his last name. She had a brother who was married but unable to have children. (Her brother is the one in my family that came to America first and then went back to Honduras to get the rest of his family). My mother did the most amazing thing a parent could do; she gave me to her brother and his wife to be raised as their own. I grew up with my biological mother and father, brothers and sisters living just next door. Out of respect for my birth father, my mom and dad decided I should still use his name even though my legal name (the one on my birth certificate) is Ned Arnel Mencia. All through school I was known as Ned Holness. I’ve never try to hide this, but only people who know me personally or have heard and or read all of my interviews and articles would know this."

Cool. But, if this is from an interview, I need a source. Do not take my initial skepticism as rank disbelief: it is mearly caution due to the anonymoty of the IPs.
In any event, whoever you are, thanks for looking into this for me, as I have (heretofore) been unable to find a source for the "Ned Holness" info. Additional message info and a question has been left on your (65.0.101.241)'s talk page. Providing the most accurate information available to those who will read the Mencia entry is of the utmost inportance, and your help is appreciated. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Response:
http://www.carlosmencia.com/oldwebsite/stories.htm
From the official site, which was updated three weeks ago and the stories presently don't appear on the new version yet. Anonymous IP addy or otherwise, a page on the official seems to cement the issue. (-65.0.101.241 at 02:04, 1 August 2005)
Indeed it does, and information has properly been added to the Mencia page. Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Spam: Admira Ismić and Boško Brkić

EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!

You voted in the VfD for Admira Ismić and Boško Brkić. I believe that this article was deleted without a clear consensus, and have nominated the article for undeletion. If you would like to contribute to the VfU discussion, please follow the link above. Thanks for your time! Pburka 00:27, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

WikiStress

Sorry about your Wikistress level. Despite what you had posted under the WikiStress meter, perhaps a barnstar still could help you

Image:Barnstar.png

Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not stressed out. Thanks for the barnstar, though. You're the second person to give me an award for that wikimeter... Hmm... maybe I'm onto something... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Spoo

If though woulds't seek the predecessor of the Spoo, consider the shmoo - 05:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Unsigned comment from User:Nunh-huh

Cool, thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Spoo Peer Review

This is a copy of the peer review request I put up on my article Spoo.

This is the first "real" article I wrote for wikipedia, and after months and months of tweaking, and after a recent reformatting, I think that maybe, just maybe, it has a fighting chance at, at least, a decent FA-nomination. So, I'm looking for copy-editing and suggestions or fixes that it might need. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a good article on a rather obscure topic (see the quote at the top of my user page) but - I sorry to have to break this to you, if you were not already aware - you are going to face rather virulent accusations that this is mere "fancruft".
I figured (from the beginning) as much may happen.
There have been a couple of massive bunfights over Starfleet ranks and insignia, which failed on WP:FAC twice, spilling much blood in the process (see first nom and second nom for indications of the sorts of objections you may face).
I'm familiar with both debates. Indeed I would have voted for the page, but the problem is that most of it is conjecture and original research.
The best you can do is to write entirely objectively, citing everything you can from published sources, and leaving out speculation unless its source can be cited. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Which I do believe I have done. I've got 19 21 footnotes to various sources, mostly JMS posts and the show itself, and the only instance of conjecture (the fanon relating to spoo price volatility) is referenced as well.
I aggree, it's a bit obscure, but I feel it meets the criteria. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, given the discussion above, I won't argue your deletion of my shmoo contribution, which you labeled unfounded speculation. I think the parallel is strong, and the evidence is suggestive of either a conscious tribute or an unconscious influence on JMS. But I agree that there's no obvious citation for it that I can footnote. --Smwpu85 17:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Ahoy, and thanks for your contribution. Before you added it, after the suggestion of (another?) user, I tried, to no avail, to find any specific reference by JMS to shmoo, Al Capp, or L'il Abner. While it is a distinct possibility there was some influence (though it is outside of JMS's previously acknowledged fraim of reference), there is no evidence to support it, and the etymology of the name as well as the evolution and uses of it throughout JMS's career indicates there is absolutely no relation between shmoo and spoo. I'll look through old interviews next, but chances are if he didn't mention it online it won't be anywhere else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 05:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason not to add a See also: schmoo and explain the possible link there... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Done --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 12:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Very crufty indeed. But it shows how objective language and referencing can do miracles. Besides, being cruft isn't an actionable objection. - Mgm|(talk) 12:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed! See this FA, for instance --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 05:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so it seems to have been copy-edited to a significant degree, it's stable, accurate, and comprehensive; it's uncontroversial, has a bunch of sources, isn't too long, and isn't too short (it's longer than AEJ Collins, for instance, even sans references), meets the standards of style and, I feel, has fine prose... Does anyone see anything actionable that could prevent a successful Featured Article run? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the article is on the short side the current use section which is currently written in bulletpoint form could definately be spun out into prose.
When I originally drafted the article, the section was planned as prose, but it was kindof choppy - so bullets seemed appropriate. I just put it into prose, per your suggestion, and rearranged a couple of references. It seems a bit short as a result, but entirely workable.
Also avoid single floating sentences - they make the text seem disjointed.--nixie 09:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you referring to the lead for the Etymology section? I've tried moving it around, but it only really works where it is. Or are you talking about the JMS quote in the same section? The quote is long enough to warrant indentation, but is easily recombined if it presents a major prose issue. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Zappa

I found the Spoo article through the Peer Review page - Amazon says the ISBN for the US hardback of the Frank Zappa book is ISBN: 0318414767. I don't have my UK paperback to hand, but I believe he talks there or elsewhere about finding one of his guitarists playing an intricate solo to himself backstage, and cutting him off with the single word "spoo!". The UK music press used to use the word "fretwanker" for the same sort of thing, over-long guitar soloing done mainly for the enjoyment of the player rather than the audience. --  ajn (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoo FAC

This is a copy of the Featured Article Candidacy on my article Spoo

I wrote this page at first in April, and it was leaps and bounds above its previous versions, thrice deleted and copyvio. Since then I have made many, many small edits to the page, beefing up the prose, adding references galore, and taking it through Peer Review. As it is an article on a fictional foodstuff, the images are limited to fair use; however, I have provided detailed explinations of each image's qualifications and their relevance to the article at hand. I would not bother nominating this if it did not meet the criteria - it is accurate and very comprehensive, with nearly all references accessible online for easy further reading and verification, plus plenty of wikilinks; it is extremely stable and decidedly uncontroversial. It is shorter than many FA's, but it is longer than others - even sans the reference section it is still longer than the recently Main Page'd AEJ Collins. And, yeah, its a bit crufty, but that should not be a roadblock if one looks at other FA's such as Wario. Even if you don't vote, I hope you, kind reader, enjoy the read.

  • Self-nomination, and, (of course) Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely comprehensive and stable. Provides an interesting and funny read. --maclean25 04:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Scott's concerns:

  • Oppose. Big style errors - see Wikipedia:MoS. For instance, there are some sentences written in second person. Scott Ritchie 06:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
In regards the second person sentence, are you referring to "Starting a spoo ranch is relatively easy: one needs only to place two hundred spoo in the middle of the ranch and wait." ? If so, I have changed it thusly: "Starting a spoo ranch is relatively easy: the only requirement is to place two hundred spoo in the middle of the ranch and wait." Are there others?
As far as "Big style errors"... I would appreciate specific examples so that any error can be rectified. As it stands now, the article is consistent with the MoS: italicization of book titles, words as words, and the television series; quotations for episode names, etc. The only possible faux pas may be my JMS quote in the etymology section. The quote italicization may have been brought up in peer review, but the user refused/failed to/forgot to clarify her comments so that I could fix it. To be safe, I've changed it. Let me know of any specific errors so that I may fix it accordingly. Thanks for your time! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to constructions like this: "Spoo, as we now know, it first appeared in the first episode of the science fiction television series Babylon 5, when it was briefly mentioned by the Narn Ambassador, G'Kar[1]" - that sentence is screwy in several ways and for some reason makes me feel like it resembles the annoying wrong answers on standardized tests. Avoid use of "we", for instance, and make sure you have subject-verb agreement. Also, move footnotes to the end of the sentece, as they get quite jarring in the middle breaking up commas and such. Scott Ritchie 21:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Ahhhh, OK. I've ditched as we first know it. I've gone through and made sure the subject-verb agreement is OK. I've also moved all the footnotes to the end of all the sentences, and after punctuation as well. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Still some annoyances. EG: "The creatures are raised on ranches on planets with moist and chilly climates, not really because the creatures thrive in such environs, but because it produces the best level of paleness in the creatures' skin." - "not really" in explanatory prose is far too casual a tone for an encyclopedia article. I don't quite have the time to find every single error in the article and point it out to you, but in general the speech style of the article is far too casual and reads almost like a conversation in slang. Scott Ritchie 20:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Nor am I asking to have every single error pointed out. Though I disaggree with the characterization that it is written as a "conversation in slang," I'm going to try to tweak the prose a bit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe (I hope) I have illiminated the "annoyances", (adverbs=bad, right?). Let me know. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, here are the differences between the version to which you were referring and the article now, encompassing edits by Tony and me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Barely encyclopedic sci-fi minutiae. Please focus on improving and FAC:ing the main article Babylon 5 instead of these whimsical cruft projects. / Peter Isotalo 09:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Are there more than "deserving" articles? Certainly there are subjects of greater importance running the gammot from science to politics to history and everything in between. Personally, I'd be absolutely elated to see B5 and JMS FAs - but I've run into the problem that I know so much about these subjects that I never know where to start. Yeah, Spoo is whimsical, but it's not like there is no precedent for this. Ultimately, every subject deserving an article is deserving a featured article, no? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
This is not a policy discussion nor an objection, so there's no need to point out precedents. It's an attempt to make people concentrate on articles that actually matter even to those who aren't die-hard fans or perhaps don't even like sci-fi to begin with. This is a good example of an article that is'nt particularly helpful when you don't possess prior knowledge of the subject. / Peter Isotalo 10:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
This is not an "attempt" at anything. I wrote the article, felt it fit the criteria, and nominated it. And I vehemently disaggree with your assertion that prior knowledge is needed to understand the article - its text and language are clear enough so that anyone may read and understand what is going on. Everything that needs explaining is taken care of in the text, and there are numerous pipe links to aid those who wish to explore facets of the Babylon 5 story further. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm making the attempt, not you. It's a reference to my comment, not the article. As for prior knowledge, you're not in any way contradicting me. If the first thing a user without prior knowledge of the series has to is to click a link, then it's pretty obvious that Babylon 5 is the priority article. / Peter Isotalo 06:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony's concerns:

Stongly oppose—Superficial and poorly written. Tony 15:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

As to "poorly written," can you elaborate? Are you referring to possible technical flaws which may have been overlooked, errors in syntax, grammar, spelling? And how is it superficial? Is this in reference the nature of the subject, or is it (somehow) not comprehensive enough? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not, unless Tony1 can tell us why. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested enough in the topic to work on it; here are a few examples of poor writing at the opening. Long snake that needs breaking up: 'The show's creator and executive producer, J. Michael Straczynski, who also wrote the episode in question (as well as most of the series), was soon deluged by questions from fans from the various online message boards on which he frequently participated (such as GEnie, CompuServe, and USENET).' Overall, the number of parenthetical phrases makes the article hard to read.

"J. Michael Straczynski, the show's creator, executive producer, and writer of the episode in question, was soon deluged by questions from fans from the various online message boards on which he frequently participated."
I also cut back on the parentheticals throughout the text.

Opening sentence, 'fictional Babylon 5 universe'—tell us what it is: TV, film, novel?

Added to the intro.

Commas missing, e.g., 'Spoo as we now know it first appeared ...'

Fixed.

'among' better than 'amongst'.

Fixed.

'Derived from the alien worm-like creatures of the same name, spoo is generally considered'—What, it comes out of their bodies?

Derived -> Made.

Get rid of 'generally'.

Though the generally is actually part of the canon per the JMS post referenced, I have removed it.

'... spoo has taken on various meanings outside of the Babylon 5 universe and fan community as a neologism, from day trading jargon to computer programming.' The status of the last phrase is unclear (you can work it out, I guess, but readers shouldn't have to backtrack and ponder over the text. 'outside OF'—get rid of the redundant 'of'.

I've ditched the superfluous of. I'm not entirely sure how to clarify the sentence. There's a term for what may have happened with spoo. I think its called divergent etymology or some such, but for the life of me I cannot find the exact term. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The whole text needs thorough editing. But beyond that, the topic is inconsequential compared with 'the best that Wikipedia has to offer'. If it had been written in a cleverly humorous way, maybe; but there's nothing special about it. Wikipedians want to display their FAs with pride. Tony 03:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

-

Your efforts at improving the article are appreciated, but in answer to your question, yes, there are still many improvements required before the prose is of FA standard. Everywhere I look, there are things like: 'exorbitantly ridiculous volatility' (this is meant to be written in an authoritative register; this phrase is inappropriate unless, for example, it's trying to be cleverly humorous, which it's not);

It is meant to be "cleverly humorous." That you do not find it so does not deligitamize it as at least two others here seem to think it is humorous.

'two hundred spoo'—now we suddenly learn that it's a discreet thing as well as a substance; this should be made clear earlier, and by the way, please use numerals for 10 and above;

From the intro: "Although it is a universally loved foodstuff that is an actively traded commodity, the creature itself is regarded with contempt by the races that consume it." (Emphasis added) From the section called "The Creatures" (emphasis added), the first sentence starts "Spoo, the creature" (emphasis added). Based on that, I don't know how one can "suddenly learn that it is a discrete thing as well as a substance."
Re: numerals, "two hundred" -> "200"

'Unlike other products, not only is the product itself'—can you avoid the repetition so close after?

the product itself -> spoo

Why is 'very' italicised?

Hmm. Fixed.

Can we have a metric equivalent for non-US readers?

Ummm... a metric equivalent... of what, exactly? The only thing that goes into spoo units is "It is never explicitly stated what the price of spoo is and what unit of measurement is used in its trading."

'like the flavor (whatever that is), but will not openly admit to such,'—the parenthetical phrase is unclear in status and meaning; 'such' is a problem.

Yes, that is unclear. Fixed: "'like the flavor, but will not openly admit to it."

'cannot block the sheer volume (and volume) of sighs'—hello?

Volume as in quantity and volume as in loudness, which is clarified through the pipelinks. Another cleverly humorous passage. I will change it to "sheer quantity and loudness," if it presents a huge problem.
Scratch that. I have fixed it. Now, simply, cannot block the sheer volume of sighs. -JOG 9/15

'to to'—fresh eyes needed to pick out slips like tat.

Fixed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

These are only examples; you really need to find someone who's good at cleaning up text. It's a relatively superficial topic for featured article, and thus needs to compesate by being well written. I'd love a bit of clever humour in this article, if it can be achieved smoothly. (It would have to be done wryly, and bring a smile to the reader's face, but here I'm probably asking for something that I probably couldn't do myself, I realise.) Life's a spoo sandwich, eh. Tony 04:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

-

It's considerably improved, but I've just gone through the first few paragraphs, down to Kill 'em, and made about a dozen alterations. The pictures could do with some brightening, but that's less important. Tony 00:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC) PS Jeffey, when you write 'There are no spelling nor grammar mistakes in the article ...', I think you mean 'There are no spelling OR grammaTICAL mistakes in the article'.

Re:"Grammar": Heh, yeah, thanks. More evidence that I ain't the best writer in the world! ;) -JOG 9/14
Tony, you said it wasn't very important, but I've gone ahead and made the lead images brighter and considerably clearer. Comparing the various versions, they were murky before (something I didn't know how to fix until today). Now it makes the whole article look better. As usual, excellent suggestion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The top pic was still murky—have a look now, and either remove the new image or complete the info and copyright stuff on the image page.
Copy-left info added to your upload; I've also fixed the tags on the second and third images from {{screenshot}} to {{film-screenshot}} (I just noticed the old tag was obsolete)
Can you delink the red links?
I've delinked two of the red links (Zappa), leaving just one (Babylon Park), as I may still create an article for it once this is complete.
Dude, how can you misspell 'misspelt'? You did.
(I'd probably misspell my name if it wasn't at the top of the screen...)
It's better than it was, but I still don't think it's crash hot; in view of the persistence, hard work, and bona fides of the author, I'll reluctantly change my vote to neutral. Next time, if there is a next time, please dish up something that's polished before it gets onto this list. Tony 00:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Like I said on your talk page, it's all about the Peer Review. Thanks for your work on Spoo. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Query: Your objection was written, referring to Tony's initial objection (which was clarified and answered after your objection), and Scott's objection, which I have answered (though I'm still awaiting a reply). Do to the unspecific nature of the objections you pointed to at the time of your objection, as it stands your objection is not actionable. Do you have any specific actionable objections to the article, as it stands now? Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, support. I was referring to the inproper grammar and styling, but it seems to be fixed. It's a fun read! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I have no problems with the idea of a featured article on this topic, but there are a couple problems. It needs a longer lead, I think -- two paragraphs would be good. The Spam picture needs to be either explained or removed (one could photoshop the word spoo onto pretty much anything; I guess I understand the point of using spam -- because spoo is like a science-fiction version of spam, I guess -- but not everyone will get that). Tuf-Kat 05:55, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've got a pretty thorough justification and explination on the image's page, however, in hindsight the image should have a more direct connection, and it has been appropriately excised.
The lead has been beefed up a bit and split up. Not significantly longer, but it does contain more info going into the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Looks much better! support Tuf-Kat 04:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Spoopport! — JIP | Talk 06:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Page is brief for an FA. Most of its references are to Usenet and blog posts, so the same as with GNAA applies - there's a distinct lack of reliable sources. Still isn't well written - and I'm damned sick of people practically asking the objectors to fix the objections for them in this area. For one, there are basic spelling and grammar errors still in the article. Ambi 00:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
1) Length is not an issue for FA's. As noted, it is longer than more than a few FA's.
2) Two USENET posts and two Compuserve posts are referenced - these posts were by the creator of B5 and Spoo, and are entirely relevant. Two other USENET posts go towards usage and the etymological history of the word. Also referenced are six websites, two books, and six episodes of B5. And there are no references to any "blog posts." Most of the content on the creature / food is from the show and one of the canon posts. The comparison to GNAA is painfully innapropriate - while GNAA may not actually exist as stated, spoo actually exists within the television series just as reported (just like Daleks exist in Dr. Who or Felix the Cat exists in cartoons - both FA, by the way.) I'm sorry, but all the references are reliable.
3) There are no spelling nor grammar mistakes in the article as it now stands. I don't see how this objection is actionable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Length is most certainly a reason to object to FA status, particularly when it is as short as this. Remember, they're supposed to be our best work - and this is way too short to be so. You state that there's shorter FAs in existence - I'd like to see proof of this, and I'd be tempted to put any such FA on WP:FARC instantly.
Look at my intro here - AEJ Collins (recently-ish promoted, recently main page'd) is the first thing I mention in reference to length. Spoo's longer than Battle of Aljubarrota, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (survived FARC), England expects that every man will do his duty, Franklin B. Gowen, John Day (printer)... and of comparable length to many more. Length is not an issue, comprehensivity is, and Spoo is decidedly comprehensive, whether or not you believe that the legit references are legit.
Secondly, I stand by the objection about the quality of the references, and thirdly, I strongly suggest you run the article through a spellchecker (as I just did) before calling my objection unactionable, else you look foolish. Ambi 13:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
For the nth time, I have run this through the spell checker in Word - here is what it caught:
-Spoo - this is painfully obvious
-Straczynski, Zappa, and Capp - proper names
-G'Kar, Londo, Skeletor, Mac and Bo - Characters' proper names
-Fandom - See here
-wanna, em and Jello - Both from direct quotes which I will not modify to preserve their accuracy, Jello also being a proper brand name
-Narn, Centauri, Technomage, and Pak'ma'ra - Fictional races from B5
-Boxtree - Proper name of British publishing firm
-Spoohunter - title
-Blogger - one who maintains a 'blog - occurs 45 times in Blog
-Syndicomm Python Offline Orchestrator - that's what they want to call it
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I liked it on Peer Review and the constructive criticism that it has received here has made it even better. Well done, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, and thanks to everyone else. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It mentions day trading jargon in the intro, but never explains that aspect. Fieari 18:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "Real-world Etymology of the Name ... Stock and bond day traders have begun to use spoo in refererence to S&P 500 futures" (something needs to be done about the non-standard capitalisation of headings, though). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Note: ALoan has fixed the headdings. (Thanks). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • [Comment] Uh, Wario is not 'crufty'. Cruft is not synonymous with video game content, cruft is excessive information for a game or a movie or a book or whatever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Calling either page crufty was by no means intended as an isult. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I never said as such. But cruft is not synonymous with a fictional event/character/area/item/etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - A great article on an obscure topic. Comprehensiveness , not size, is the correct FA criteria to cite. As far as I can tell, this article is comprehensive, so it's small size is not an issue. Size really only comes into play when there isn't enough to write about a topic that it would be better dealt with as part of a larger article, or at the other end of the spectrum when reading time is adversely impacted. --mav 02:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks nice. An enjoyable read, and interesting. --Matt Yeager 06:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems comprehensive and well referenced. Besides, having a FA on fictional food is... well, it's Wiki, I guess :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoo Opening

I altered the Spoo article slightly. Look at my edit and revert if necessary. I don't like editing articles when they are in FAC but I thought the sentence sounded (although technically it wasn't) like a run-on sentence. I broke it up. Whatever you decide to do with the edit, I support the FA nomination. --maclean25 04:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to Spoo! I've gone through dozens of different versions of the opening, and to keep up with FA standards the version I've gone with has a more prose-y flow. I'm reverting it for now while I mull over other possibilities in lieu of your change. Thanks so much! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

In response to:
First, let me just say, (as ALoan noted), the article is so much better, thanks to you and Scott's criticism. Ideally, all the issues that I was oblivious to should have been taken care of in Peer Review, but as has been noted elsewhere on FAC, there is a decided lack of editors on PR that can assist an article's growth, let alone actual professionals such as yourself. Your two detailed critiques to which I have replied in detail have been especially instrumental in the article's development at this late stage.
To say the least, I am not the best writer in the world, but in true wiki fassion the article has been improved considerably thanks to quite a few users, especially yourself, for which I am endlessly greatful. I truly believe the article, as it now stands, is worthy of FA-hood. No matter whether or not you support it, I extend my genuine thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Tony wrote:

Jeffrey, in that case, I'm wondering why you didn't enlist editorial support before nominating it. Sorry, but I could spend 50 hours a week editing FA candidates, which won't help to pay my rent. I think people nominate their articles at too early a stage. The rest of the article still needs a final edit, but I'm not doing it. Tony 01:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, I did. Before I put it on FAC, I had (what I thought was) a pretty extensive peer review. I invited several editors familiar with Babylon 5 to review the article and comment on PR. If you look at the PR, there were comments, just not to the extent that you brought up. Before I even thought of taking it to FAC I asked, in bold letters, if there was anything that could inhibit an effective FAC, with only one reply (and she didn't follow up). That is simply further evidence of the lack of real attention paid to peer review by editors willing to take the time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a problem. I don't have time to do peer reviews as well. But maybe I should go there and flick through the first para of each, and make general 'get it edited' statements. Trouble is, most authors won't believe you until you list specific examples. Tony 04:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Glad to see your pet project got featured. It's nice to see some totally random thing (that happens to be really, really high-quality) get featured for once. Matt Yeager 05:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, congrats too, but keep refining it, eh? Tony 06:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll try! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

spoo and schmoo

Speaking as somebody who read Li'l Abner but never saw Babylon 5, my first thought is that the latter was likely influenced by the former, which should be in the spoo article - what say you? - DavidWBrooks 10:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This was discussed in peer review a while ago and the result was to put it into the article; it is in the related articles section below the references. The reason there is not a more definitive connection is that there is zero evidence to support any connection in the first place, aside from the base similarities in name and color. J. Michael Straczynski, creator, executive producer, and writer of almost all of Babylon 5, and the creator of Spoo, has always been very open and direct about his influences. Since the late 80's, he has been interacting extensively with his fans and science fiction fandom in general, online, so much so that fans have archived over 17000 of his messages in searchable databases. Not once has he ever mentioned Scmoo, L'il Abner, or Al Capp, and the reference seems outside his previously acknowledged frame of reference in his works, which is usually ascribed to religions and mythology of all sorts, and classic science fiction and fantasy. If JMS were to ever draw a direct line between the two, I'd happily put that in, but as it is, anything more would be frank supposition. Thanks for checking out Spoo! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/User_talk%7EJeffrey_O._Gustafson_Archive1_f424.html"