FANDOM


(your suggestions?)
m (your suggestions?: wiki fix)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
== your suggestions? ==
 
== your suggestions? ==
   
Per our discussion [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Gvsualan&oldid=170168], and the recent removal of FA status [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Memory_Alpha:Featured_article_removal_candidates&curid=5840&diff=0&oldid=0]|[http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Ethan_Novakovich&diff=0&oldid=176377], should I make the effort to bring this for further discourse? Your comments seem to have stayed the removal of [[Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates#Grathon Tolar|Grathon Tolar]], but those comments were ignored for [[Ethan Novakovich]]. Again, I press my point of '''not''' wanting to be the ''bitchy, whiny guy who complains when he doesn't get his way'', but my points of before are still valid:
+
Per our discussion [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Gvsualan&oldid=170168], and the recent removal of FA status [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Memory_Alpha:Featured_article_removal_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=176515]|[http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Ethan_Novakovich&diff=0&oldid=176377], should I make the effort to bring this for further discourse? Your comments seem to have stayed the removal of [[Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates#Grathon Tolar|Grathon Tolar]], but those comments were ignored for [[Ethan Novakovich]]. Again, I press my point of '''not''' wanting to be the ''bitchy, whiny guy who complains when he doesn't get his way'', but my points of before are still valid:
   
 
: "''Secondly, both removal nominations primarily mention ([[User:Logan 5]]) a ''lack of information'' as a qualifier for removing their FA status. This does not follow through with examining both the statements made during the FA nomination processes [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Talk:Grathon_Tolar#Votes_for_featured_status] [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Talk:Ethan_Novakovich#Moved_from_Nominations_for_featured_articles] where both articles were nominated in the ''full knowledge'' that they were on minor subjects, yet were ''unanimously supported'' as featured articles by the voting members. You yourself stated that "''The fact that it is a minor subject is irrelevant''" when voting on [[Grathon Tolar]]. And finally, as I mentioned once before, the criterion as stated on the [[Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles|Nominations for featured articles page]] is: '''''A featured article is an especially well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that covers all available information on a subject.'''''. While I won't tout the articles as the majority of those things (which is why they went up for voting), they ''are'' "comprehensive"; nothing about the quantity required for something to qualify as "comprehensive" is given.''"
 
: "''Secondly, both removal nominations primarily mention ([[User:Logan 5]]) a ''lack of information'' as a qualifier for removing their FA status. This does not follow through with examining both the statements made during the FA nomination processes [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Talk:Grathon_Tolar#Votes_for_featured_status] [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Talk:Ethan_Novakovich#Moved_from_Nominations_for_featured_articles] where both articles were nominated in the ''full knowledge'' that they were on minor subjects, yet were ''unanimously supported'' as featured articles by the voting members. You yourself stated that "''The fact that it is a minor subject is irrelevant''" when voting on [[Grathon Tolar]]. And finally, as I mentioned once before, the criterion as stated on the [[Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles|Nominations for featured articles page]] is: '''''A featured article is an especially well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that covers all available information on a subject.'''''. While I won't tout the articles as the majority of those things (which is why they went up for voting), they ''are'' "comprehensive"; nothing about the quantity required for something to qualify as "comprehensive" is given.''"

Revision as of 19:07, October 22, 2005

Screen Caps

Maybe you can help me. I've trying to find someone who can do a couple of screen shots from specific episode for me and I saw you had the episode in question on DVD. (Jorg is usually helpful with this but I'm not sure where he is lately). If you care to help me they're in the Requested pictures section. --T smitts 04:29, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --T smitts 06:50, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • No prob. If no one gets the other request for the assassins before I get back I will cap and upload those as well. Anyway, its almost 4am, and its time for me to crash. --Alan del Beccio 07:57, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

spelling TAS

Moved to Talk:The Magicks of Megas-Tu, thank you. --Alan del Beccio 06:37, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

your suggestions?

Per our discussion [1], and the recent removal of FA status [2]|[3], should I make the effort to bring this for further discourse? Your comments seem to have stayed the removal of Grathon Tolar, but those comments were ignored for Ethan Novakovich. Again, I press my point of not wanting to be the bitchy, whiny guy who complains when he doesn't get his way, but my points of before are still valid:

"Secondly, both removal nominations primarily mention (User:Logan 5) a lack of information as a qualifier for removing their FA status. This does not follow through with examining both the statements made during the FA nomination processes [4] [5] where both articles were nominated in the full knowledge that they were on minor subjects, yet were unanimously supported as featured articles by the voting members. You yourself stated that "The fact that it is a minor subject is irrelevant" when voting on Grathon Tolar. And finally, as I mentioned once before, the criterion as stated on the Nominations for featured articles page is: A featured article is an especially well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that covers all available information on a subject.. While I won't tout the articles as the majority of those things (which is why they went up for voting), they are "comprehensive"; nothing about the quantity required for something to qualify as "comprehensive" is given."

If this discourse led to a discussion where the FA criteria were reevaluated and made more specific and detailing, I would be in whole and complete support of helping with that process; and should any articles I contributed substantially to not qualify under those reevaluated rules, I would be the first to stand by their status removal. But the criteria now are the exact same as they were when those articles were initially nominated and accepted by a majority of MA contributers; nor have the articles themselves changed even remotely close to "substantially" [6] [7] so as to fall under the guideline of "If you feel that an article currently listed on Featured Articles should not be featured (for example, because it has been changed)".

As you have been here longer than I have, have duly attained Administrator status, and have been helpful since my first edits — your advice, suggestions and/or support would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. — THOR =/\= 00:27, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.