Jump to content

User talk:Apterygial/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Columbia Park, Torrance, California

(Repost from here). Hi Apterygial. I am so sorry that your efforts to review Columbia Park, Torrance, California were disparaged in my RfA. I learned a lot from you and you should not have been treated the way you were. This "grassy expanse recreational area" matter seemed to have gotten out of control. Google define states that a park is "a piece of open land for recreational use in an urban area." "place or area set aside for recreation or preservation of a cultural or natural resource" "Open space lands whose primary purpose is recreation or passive enjoyment by the public." I posted "grassy expanse recreational area" because the reference called it a "grassy expanse" and "a park", I thought "grassy expanse recreational area" sounded better than the redundant "Columbia Park is a park," and the basic definitions of a park seem to support my wording. Before my RfA, Columbia Park, Torrance, California had been viewed 731 times[1][2] and no one had challenged that material. During and after my RfA, the page was viewed another 232 times for a total of 963 view by the end of December.[3] Despite the scrutiny, no one has saw fit to remove the material. I strive to be accurate but I ain't perfect. I would be happy to make any changes you, Malleus, or anyone else suggests. Again, I am so sorry for the way you were treated. -- Suntag ☼ 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I just wanted to thank you for your kind responses to my newbie desire to modify the Scuderia Ferrari article. Your's was the first response I received and I believe it set the tone for the entire discussion; gentle, direct and open. If you had been short with me I don't think I would have had the courage to continue. I hope you like the solution from DH85.. Timoleon (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And more thanks

Thanks for your kind words here. DH85868993 (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC

  • I'm done grading papers, but it's midnight here now.
  • Don't take anything i say too personally. I'm usually/often pessimistic about articles, for a large number of (in my opinion, very legitimate) reasons. And I may sound insulting. But... I don't really mean it that way.
  • G'night. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 15:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
No. A general truth is a general truth. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
True, everywhere but at FAC. Not true there. :-) Sorry. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
the article is a hodgepodge (or at least it was, last I looked), and folks are popping in to say "Cheerio, this is the same as others, looks fine, PASS." Sorry. Not gonna let that go without comment. As for context/hurt feelings etc... believe it or not, I am a huge softie. But not at FAC or at RfA... because decisions have consequences there. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What to do?

First off, watch how you respond to Ling. Be careful what you say about him, because a complaining nominator always turns off other reviewers. Currently, there are three supports and one oppose. Sandy will usually give an article in this position a chance to be seen by more eyes. Here's what she said on evaluating commentary: "I do try to understand the posting styles and personalities of most of the regular FAC reviewers, so that I can read commentary in context." Ling is respected at FAC, however, so his opposition carries some weight. The best thing you can do at this point is to ask someone without any Formula One knowledge to go through the article and weed out jargon and confusing terminology. The best way to counter his oppose is by making a good-faith effort in that department. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's not purely jargon, but it's about having an article make sense to a general audience. You were lucky that Laser brain came back and reviewed the page; I was happy to see him return to reviewing. He was one of the best FAC reviewers when I started, and he always gives a lot of details in his reviews. Laser picked out some of those issues for you, and his support is not easily earned. To belatedly answer your question I don't think a message on the FAC talk page is needed. Whenever an article gets to the bottom without a lot of reviews, it often gets more attention. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jstor articles

Do you, by chance, know anyone that does have Jstor and can attach files? I'm afraid I don't know how to attach them either. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh--that's not how I interpreted your statement. Anyway, I'll send one very soon. Thanks for your help. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Portal

Thanks for the heads-up! I've left some comments on the talk page.--Diniz(talk) 21:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

List of motorsport terminology

Just thinking. It might be a good idea to add refs for all the things on here, aka. similar to the wrestling terminology list. You don't want the FAC argument, "I've linked it" with a reply "linked page is unsourced" blah blah blah. Just a thought. BTW, I noticed your comment @ MII. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

wikibreak

Congratulations

Congratulations on the successful 2008 Italian Grand Prix GAN, and best wishes for the 2008 Japanese Grand Prix FAC!--Diniz(talk) 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese GP

I know - I'm sorry. I've been struggling to find the time to read through properly and it was only yesterday that I came to that conclusion. I'll do my best to fix what I perceive as problems and strike the oppose this evening. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? I disagree - strongly. (But given the weather here, I probably would!) To explain myself, I've no objection to short sentences, but in some paragraphs there's no variation in sentence length, which can produce a monotonous effect. In some, by no means all, paras there is also little connection between the succeeding sentences; they're more like a string of statements. Anyway, I'll make the changes to my satisfaction (The rewriten para last night was me, by the way, I forgot to log in) and strike my oppose. Tweak or revert as you see fit. Please take my word that I'm not trying to be difficult—I really do think these changes are important and necessary for FA. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think in terms of sentence length, it depends what you're doing. They must always be easily comprehensible, of course! (And I know that's where many of my failings lie). In a written brief or guide I would say absolutely stick to short sentences. (Wikipedia's particular referencing culture, rather than the actual guidelines, tends to push you in that direction too.) In a longer composition there is the question of rhythm, which can help engage a reader. And sometimes two or three concepts really are closely enough connected that they belong in the same sentence. Anyway, having fiddled to my satisfaction, I've changed to support now. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was worth it...

...but I'm sure the star will stand out. =P Congratulations. D.M.N. (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review for Brain Ischemia

Hello, I was just wondering if I could get your opinion on something, if you don't mind helping me out. :) You peer reviewed the article on Brain Ischemia a while back and I have a question about one of the suggestions you made for it. You said that I should explain or wikilink two terms that I included in the lead paragraph, so I did and now I was wondering whether their explanation should be kept in the lead paragraph or in the subtitle-type position I placed them in for now? Thanks, --Saunc2011 (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Although, I don't think where I have the explanations placed right now works because then I had to title the lead?

Okay. That sounds good. Yeah, I didn't think that the lead can be titled. So even though the definitions are a little off topic and lengthy you think I should just place them right after the first sentence where they are mentioned? Thanks, --Saunc2011 (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that does sound good. Short and sweet. It still explains it but in terms that people will understand and take the time to actually look at. So you think that I should just take the explanations out and then shorten the sentence? Should I still keep the other definitions that I found? I am kind of confused on what all should be included in the lead. Like just an introduction? And an overview to the article? It's a little confusing to me. Thank you for all of your help! I really appreciate it! --Saunc2011 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I will see what I can do with the lead. Thank you for all of your help! --Saunc2011 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Another quick question(sorry), since the lead is an overview of the article, should there be sources? Or do you just leave the sources where they are and take information from the body paragraphs you already created? Thank you! --Saunc2011 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a bother, but would you mind checking out my lead sometime when you have the chance? Thanks again for all of your help. It is very greatly appreciated!--Saunc2011 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay! haha :) I most definitely need your help so the apologizing ends here! Yeah I think I will change that first sentence, it makes more sense that way. Also, if I wikilink them in the lead should I undo the wikilinks down below? Okay, I will take the last sentence out. That's odd. So should I just not end it then, like using an ending sentence? Thanks! --Saunc2011 (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay. Well, I fixed the lead. I think. haha Now I just have to deal with the rest of the article. I'm shooting for GA so hopefully it will make it at some point! Thank you!--Saunc2011 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Selected Picture on Portal

I recall you mentioning me for reviewing (or vetting, or whatever else you wish to call it) pictures nominated. Should this mean that I'm exempt from nominating them? LeaveSleaves 07:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: The most fun you will ever have is here!

I'll redo the leads within the next few days. If I don't have them done by Sunday, please give me slap round the head! D.M.N. (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit more to the Europe '97 lead - at some point I'm going to have to bring the whole article up to standard... AlexJ (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:More Portal

Excellent work! I think you deserve one of these:

The Motorsport Barnstar
I, Diniz, hereby award you this barnstar for your work in revamping the F1 Portal, and for your work in improving 2008 F1 season articles through the Insane Idea. Enjoy!--Diniz(talk) 12:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it would probably be a good idea to start over with the DYKs, and make sure that they are all sourced, like the quotations in the WP:MOTOR Portal. It's a shame I don't have access to my book sources at the moment, to check the existing ones thoroughly. It would be a good idea to start of with DYKs that have actually been featured on the main page, as these will already be from sourced articles. The only F1-related DYK I can think of at the moment is from Lola T93/30, but I'm sure there are more!

As colour schemes go, I must be the only person here who doesn't mind the existing one. :P --Diniz(talk) 12:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (January)

– Cs-wolves(talk) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal

First off, the work you've done over there is superb! Secondly (mainly to avoid another trout), I've "extended" the lead for Australia and France... although the France one is still a tad short (the race was rather boooring you see!)... the Malaysian one I think is fine as it is, it isn't too short to be honest, but not too long at the same point, and I never extended the Canada article. =) D.M.N. (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, I see you're working on 2008 Chinese Grand Prix. Nice work so far! I'm working on 1995 European Grand Prix at the moment, although I'm not working on it too fast... hopefully China within the next month or two will have a shiny star by it! D.M.N. (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I should be OK for the moment on the 1995 articles. BTW, I find that the Melbourne races bring a bit more excitement than the Adelaide ones - I presume you live in Adelaide? D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Should have checked your userpage before I commented. =O Yeah, there were a few classics there. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:2008 Chinese Grand Prix

Sorry for the late reply! I've been busy with an essay for the last few days, but I've just handed it in so I'll take a look later today. --Diniz(talk) 17:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor changes and left a suggestion on the talk page. --Diniz(talk) 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've added some comments to the PR. I'd imagine you're watching the page anyway. Out of interest, how high are you aiming for with this one? I wonder if we were to flood FAC with the more mundane races, we somehow damage the chances of the more exciting ones getting through (with "not another F1 race" reviewer apathy) AlexJ (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal

Can I change the stuff on the Portal at the end of every other month as it seems to have gone quiet. Chubbennaitor 09:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yes. I wouldn't mind to add stuff because we did this because the Portal stood still. We need a time where we change certain things so it doesn't get boring. Chubbennaitor 21:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I have 10,000 combinations at most and I have 50 regular ones. I mean that after all the 10 main different combinations are all seen then it's officially come to a stand still. Chubbennaitor 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Every six months. So we change for the new year and again in June. Still low maintenance but it doesn't stand still. Chubbennaitor 16:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikinews. Is this meant to update itself? Chubbennaitor 09:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It's just that it hasn't done anything since December, before Xmas. Chubbennaitor 14:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank goodeness it is here. Chubbennaitor 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Red Bull RB5

Updated DYK query On February 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Red Bull RB5, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 German Grand Prix

How am I getting along with the 2008 German Grand Prix? What quality rating would you give it now? Darth Newdar (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:2008 Bahrain Grand Prix

I've left some notes on the talk page. And don't worry about asking for help - you're the one doing most of the work, anyway! I'm looking forward to having a go at one of the articles myself when my holidays start next month.--Diniz(talk) 12:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind which race, as long as there's one left for me to do! :) --Diniz(talk) 12:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoosh!

Thanks!

Thanks for the Barnstar. The insane idea is coming along great, nearly a third of the way through. Well done with all the work you're putting into it.

The Wikinews thing, I mainly wanted to see if it worked. It took about 2 hours from being published at WN to being visible on the F1 portal, which is better than any manual system would be. It should reduce duplication as well. AlexJ (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Apterygial/Archive_2&oldid=1142536364"