User talk:Green-eyed girl/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

The Three on The Mole

Hi, I put Citation needed on just those three because there are no articles on Wikipedia for them. That's why I put citation needed. And I don't know how to tag them. HannahMiley, Talk.

Giro 'd Italia, Stages 1-11

Stage 1: Please don't delete my construction, I make every one stage 15 racer issue, thank you. Kov 93

I think the T-shirt better then colour. 14:51

2002 A&S

I was researching this a little while ago. The 2002 team was the last formation of the 1996-2002 team Cantina Tollo (search for cantina tollo here). The 2004 team was a new team [1]. I was meaning to do a page for Cantina Tollo, must have never got round to it. Severo^TC 16:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Crud. Well, I'll undo what I did yesterday. Could you weigh in on the latest manner I posted at WT:CYC? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to put together a rough page for Cantina Tollo later. There seem to be quite a few riders it involves. One we've almost certainly got wrong at the moment is Danilo Di Luca. Severo^TC 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Another is possibly Alexandr Kolobnev, which is how I stumbled upon this (I was putting {{ct}} on the Saxo Bank riders' pages, and tried 2002 for Acqua & Sapone, got nothing, and looked it up). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 17:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to bring this round, a page is now up. Albeit very very bare :-) Severo^TC 20:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a start anyway. I have to ask, just as a matter of advice, is there anything concrete that can be done about the Giro recap pages? This is really bothering me for some reason, and I'm sure I'm butting up against 3RR at this point. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little bit out of what consensus for such pages is? If you tell me, I will keep an eye on it as well. In the medium-term, it is just like banging your head against a brick wall. Longer-term though, the MoS pages are the way ahead. It's difficult to argue about what consensus is if there is a consensus style guide. Severo^TC 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I linked to a few consensuses at Talk:2009 Giro d'Italia. I guess I'll just leave it be at this point, grudgingly, and get to work on that style guide that I proposed. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Hi Nosleep,

Thanks for your comments here, could I get you to include them in User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3? Thanks, Matt (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 05:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#John_R._Talbott. Thank you.} Toddst1 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't really care. I just thought G7 was applicable since the user had contributed nearly all the content at that title, and at the time of my !vote, only three other edits had been made. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Double (Seattle Mariners)

Okay, I think I'm ready for your GA assessment (fingers crossed). KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

MASH plot summaries

Why did you withdraw your keep? Seinfeld episodes are composed with the same exact structure. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't really care that much, and I generally agreed with the user's position that the episodes lacked any real-world significance. All I really disagreed with was the piecemeal nomination procedure. If the discussions pointed you to other articles you feel might merit deletion, then nominate them. Else, !vote your conscience on the current matters. TV episodes are probably something on which we need some more serious notability guidelines. There's a definite and obvious (and, arguably, unavoidable) bias to recentism; if episode 12 of season 3 (or whatever) of MASH is non-notable, then why do we seem to instantly assume that episode 12 of season 3 of House or LOST or Seinfeld or The Simpsons is? I wouldn't even know where to begin to fight that fight, and I'm not sure my feelings on the matter are strong enough. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 05:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alberto Contador

I've started the GA review here. To be honest, it needs a fair bit of work, but I've listed my initial impressions on the review page. The neutral signs in the criteria list just mean I haven't got to them yet, not that they fail. Apterygial 10:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think anybody would get to it so fast. I'll have a look post haste. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 10:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it might be a few hours. If you need to fail the article, go ahead, but hopefully at least a seven-day hold will be suitable. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want put it on hold as I haven't gone through the whole article yet. In the future I think you should avoid an attitude of nom first, fix later, as it can often be reviewed sooner than you expect, and can make the whole process a lot more arduous. Apterygial 11:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I wasn't trying to cut in line with a plainly unsuitable article. I thought it was really close (it was rated A-class before), and there were 40 articles ahead of it in line when I nominated it. I'll get on it right now, provided I can stay connected to the internet. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you were trying to get a substandard article passed, but I was referring to the comment on the article talk page. No worry, we'll get there. It looks like you're still doing a copyedit, so I'll hold off on the rest of the review until you're done. Let me know when you think the article is ready. Apterygial 07:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I would have caught maybe 10% of the issues you've raised if I had waited to list the article when it was "really ready" by my standards. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware I have reasonably high standards for GA. :) Apterygial 08:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken care of everything that jumped out at me. I'm not a tremendous copyeditor, so go ahead and have a look at the rest of it, and see if anything else needs attention. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 10:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I've finished with my grammar comments. Let me know when you reckon you've fixed them. Apterygial 08:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've passed the article for GA. You did a lot of hard work to get the article to where it is now, good luck with future articles. Let me know if you need any help with anything. Apterygial 09:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! 11:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting

Hi Alex, I will look into the new style guide when I have the time, but right now I'm in the middle of some exams and therefore quite busy. I just noticed you have started changing from American to European date formatting, that's great! =) Just remember that according to WP:DATE; you're supposed to write 18 May 2009, not 18 May, 2009. In words; no commas used in European date formats. Just letting you know before you edit this change on too many pages.. ;o) lil2mas (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Vande Velde Fansite

I'm pretty sure the person who keeps adding the link to Vande Velde's fansite is going to do so definitely. How do things like this get handled? It really isn't a legitimate external link, is it? The intro contains the text "Christian Vande Velde is awesome!"..... Malo0178 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first step is talking to the guy and trying to explain why that external link is unsuitable for Wikipedia. If he refuses to listen...I don't know. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

for including WP:BEEF on {{Essays on building Wikipedia}}. It was just a little idea I had rolling around in my head a few months ago, and I'm pleased to see people are noticing it (and if people agreed with it, that'd be even better! :P ). Hopefully even more people will now notice it. Thanks. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There are hundreds of essays that have been written over the years, but most of them are little known, essentially orphaned. For a long time, I have been creating navboxes as a way to de-orphan articles, and now I have moved on to essays. I have recently joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage with that specialty, and I am trying to get a new WikiProject Navbox started to get others to do the same. Sebwite (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as much. Still made me smile. :) Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyclist biography styleguide

In case you have never seen it, I want to show you Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Standard cyclist biography, together with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Standard cyclist biography example. It is something I started a long time ago, and it could save some time to start the styleguide with that "standard". But don't add it immediately, I think we need some more time on the short stage races and grand tours. If we look at too many things at the same time, we might forget important details.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to write first drafts for everything, but I've got to say, if that guideline has given us the one-sentence superstub articles that riddle our project, it needs some revising. I swear, some people in our project write a one-sentence "article" just so there won't be a redlink in a race article or a template, that's absolutely the wrong reason to write something. The main notability guideline for our project is the severely flawed WP:ATHLETE, though, so maybe there's nothing that can be done. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The old guideline does not say anything about notability. But it at least made sure that all those stubs have the same layout! (Some sarcasm intended.) But, seriously, that old guideline already had some MoS iterations, so it might be good to look at it. The guideline says that a biography section should be included, that is what the stubs lack, so the guideline did not cause the stubs. It also says that not every result should be in the palmares section (which annoys me always), but I think a more exact rule is needed. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm having some internet connection difficulties right now, so I'm not going to be on a whole lot for the next little while. So nothing is gonna get written all that quickly. :( Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Paris–Roubaix

Hi, I have undertaken the initial review of the above and made recommendations and placed the article on hold. Please take time to check the comments and my minor copy-edits. PLease comment on the review page. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's me, I'm on a computer where I don't really care to log in. I'm not gonna be able to get to it until Sunday at the soonest. Fail the article if you need to, I'll try to get to it ASAP. 71.53.67.220 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No probs, I won't rush to fail. The seven day limit is flexible. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm here a little sooner than I thought, but I don't have a ton of time. I'll do what I can. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No probs, I'm not in a hurry to fail it. I will wait anotehr week or so. 07:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbering

Hi! Considering this: there is a way to comment under someone's comments without disturbing the numbering, using #:. This is how you do it:

# '''Support'''. Too few admins currently.
#: Indented comment! It doesn't break up the numbering.
# '''Support'''. I'm still numbered #2, even though there's an indented comment above.

It looks like this:

1. Support. Too few admins currently.

   Indented comment! It doesn't break up the numbering.

2. Support. I'm still numbered #2, even though there's an indented comment above.

Good luck with your RfA. Jafeluv (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ip editors

Have a look at the Wikipedia capitalism article. Look at the history (earliest edits first). See the bunch of edits made by an IP editor? That's just one example of an article being improved by an IP editor. You may say that you don't see that kind of editing by IPs any where else. Do you think one reason for that might be the hostile attitude of some editors to IP editors? You might be interested in this IBM research that briefly mentions usefulness of IP edits - http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/
Kind regards 82.33.48.96 (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Why don't you register? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have to somewhat take issue with you characterizing a "hostile attitude" on my part. Have I been openly hostile to anyone known only as a string of numbers? I don't think so - perhaps a really long time ago in my misspent Wiki-youth, but that was a different me. What I do is find myself questioning the motives and actions of anons more often than I do registered editors. Right or wrong, that's how I feel and I make no apology for it. But I never let it consciously influence my actions. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

stubs

I created two stubs today: Saaranpaskantamasaari and Termitomyces albuminosus. Since you've stated that you would like to set a minimum requirement on new articles of 2000 bytes, I'm curious what you would do with these articles. Both of them could be merged into parent articles, for sure, but this would have several clear disadvantages. Note that I read your userpage before I went to the RfA and that I support you in spite of your opinions, not because of them. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with Termitomyces albuminosus as an article subject (and again, 2k was always just a number). I really don't like any article anywhere to have a "Trivia" section referenced by a blog post, and as a personal preference I'd have liked to see its author cultivate (no pun intended) a draft comparable to the article Cortinarius caperatus before publishing (yes, there is greater than 2k of information about specific species of mushrooms. Awesome). I don't think the stub is without value unless it never gets improved beyond that state, and never is an awfully long time. I think people at the RFA are kind of missing that point. I do feel a bit differently about Saaranpaskantamasaari. I don't see much potential in this article, and I don't see how the project is edified by having it. Is there possibility for the article to tell us more than Saaranpaskantamasaari being the island where Sarah shit? If there is, fine, it would have been better to have it present in the first draft (and I think the user who AFD'd it would agree), but if there's not, it inherently is not an article we need. And that has little or nothing to do with how many bytes large the article is. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 00:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll defend each article separately:

• For the article about the mushroom, it's good to have a separate page so that readers of the Chinese Wikipedia can navigate directly to the English page by clicking an interwiki link and vice versa. If the article were only a paragraph on the page about the Termitomyces genus, it would probably never be found by most zh.wiki users because there is no zh.wiki article for the genus. This particular mushroom is apparently very well-known in China and a particular favorite among chefs, so I'm sure that there is information somewhere to be gotten that could help expand the article to about the size of the other one you linked. But as I don't have easy access to a library and don't speak Chinese, this is out of my reach. I created the article in the hopes that someone else with more knowledge will see it and be able to expand it. After all, Wikipedia is all about collaborative editing; if I were always able to build complete articles by myself, such that little or no improvements from other users would be possible, I would be inclined to put them on my website where I could use nonfree images and wouldn't have to constantly watch for other users adding vandalism and false information. (I have done this one time so far: the table of average heights in the human height article is vandalized so frequently that I went directly to the sources and copied the information to my website at [2], and it now is higher than the Wikipedia article on most search engine results.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• For the article about the island, I would like to see this one grow up as well, but again, because I don't speak Finnish and don't live in Finland, it is beyond my ability to do anything beyond what I've done so far (although I missed the link to the map when I first created the article). I think it's certainly possible that there might be something written somewhere in a verifiable source about Finnish toponyms that could explain the story behind the name of the island. And here too, the fact that the island has a separate article makes it more visible and easier to link to, and I feel this is likely to encourage growth of the article. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I'm sorry that your RfA currently looks to be unsuccessful, but I hope you will keep up your stellar work and apply again ASAP. You are the type of admin we need. ceranthor 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I never expected to pass on the first try, though I am surprised that my opinion on registration is this controversial - I know I've seen it professed by others and I could swear I've even seen it in a userbox. I think my opinion on stubs has largely been misinterpreted, but it's not proving to be quite as big a deal. This was always going to be a learning experience for me, and by sheer numbers it's actually going a little bit better than I thought it would - I thought I'd be laughed out of the building. I figure I'll return to RFA around the first of the year, and that one I imagine will go smoother. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Template:User_anti-anon... roughly 500 users have it on their page as of today. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck, please try again in a few months. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)