User talk:Green-eyed girl/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Green-eyed girl. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Hello. I left a question for you on your Req. for Administrator. Thank you and have a nice day. Politoman (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have responded to it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nosleep, regarding your current RFA, I must say that I have nothing personal against you, and am impressed by your editing, specifically your work with cycling related articles. Also, I would like to apologise for referring to you using masculine pronouns. I had not yet seen your user page. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I was sorry to see your RfA go down the toilet like that. I was about to support but it was closed before I could hit "save" (my rationale is in the history if you should have a desire to read it). I honestly think you'd make a fine admin and the opposers were unduly focused on that one incident which is unfortunate, but it's the way of RfA. I hope you'll try again in a few months because, as far as I can tell, you're a genuine asset to the project and a few extra buttons would, if anything, enhance that. I'd even be happy to do a co-nom. In the meantime, keep your chin up and keep up the good content work- article writing is much more fun than putting yourself through an RfA anyway! Best, HJMitchell You rang? 01:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I saw your rationale, and I do appreciate it. I don't plan on going anywhere or changing anything that I do. I will self-nominate one further time in the future, and if the third fails, I'll let that be it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I felt alot of detail was given of the event (my personal opinion at least) and in other matters in the previous RFA of yours as well. It may never be full details but it still is enough in my opinion to get an idea of things. Its unfortunate that the rfa solely focused here with the opposition and that other more benefical things didnt come out. But as said above they are community consensus and this is the way they go sometimes. Ive supported in the past and Ill support again if you choose to run. Your edit history/exp is good. Dont let this event get to you in the future, and keep at it. Happy editing and Bd. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Although I switched to neutral per the discussion with Malleus, I do not hold any sort of personal grudge towards you. RfA is a tough arena, and unless you are completely positive (or at least spin your negatives into positives) you're unlikely to succeed. It's one thing to admit of a past encounter, it's another to prove that you're over it, and that's what didn't come across very well in the end. Next time round, I'd recommend you're a little further prepared with your answers to the questions, especially with respect to question three. Also, have you considered finding a nominator next time round? You seem pretty adamant on the idea of self-nomination, which is very confident of you, but a nominator would likely increase your chances of success assuming you have resolved the issues brought up here. Good luck, sorry again to see your RfA go down so harshly. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I'm adamant about self-nomination, I just don't see anyone nominating me. I only work with about four people here on a regular basis, and none of them are involved with community-wide processes on much of any level. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. I've re-added a watch on the PR page. If you post notes or questions there about my review, I'll try to respond fairly promptly. Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I need a little "me" time for tonight; I'll be back to it tomorrow afternoon. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I didn't get back to it fast enough. I don't suppose I can re-open it. I had just a few points I wanted to raise. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• MOSNUM – I didn't have any general rule in mind when composing the article, but spelling from one to ten and numerals from 11 up seems sensible, and I'll see about applying that. The Menchov/Bak sentence has been driving me crazy. It would seem odd to use numerals at one point in a sentence ("170 for Menchov") and spell it out later ("two for Bak"), but spelling out "one hundred seventy" seems even stranger. I like using the numerals for something intangible like points scored – I'd never use "2 riders in the breakaway," but I'd also never say "the Rangers won seven to four."

The relevant guidelines are at WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. The general rule is "zero to nine" as words and "10 and above" as digits, but many exceptions exist. The guidelines talk about one of the exceptions you mention, that of the sentence with a mix of big and little numbers. Also, you are right about game scores, which usually seem to take the form "the Rangers won 7–4." Another exception says that numbers that start sentences should be spelled out. I'd suggest looking at the MOSNUM list of exceptions if you run into any other odd situations. Beyond that, go with your best hunch or look at FA articles on related or similar topics. Finetooth (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Jargon in the lead – Wouldn't wikilinks simply be easier? I don't see how "surges" is necessarily any more clear than "attacks," unless we really think someone reading this article will have the idea that Di Luca started punching Menchov.

Yes, I prefer wikilinks usually unless I can't find suitable ones. Occasionally I link to a Wiktionary entry like wikt:attack to explain something if I can't find anything in Wikipedia to link to. Unfortunately the Wiktionary entry for "attack" doesn't talk about cycling. The third option is to briefly explain "attack". Or, if "attack" seems clear enough, a fourth option is to do nothing. I have to agree that "surges" is no better than "attacks". How would you explain to someone what an "attack" means in a bicycle race? Finetooth (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

An attack is a quick, sudden acceleration by a rider in an attempt to get free of the group he's in, to the obvious end of finishing ahead of them. That's a great oversimplification, though, and even that is far too long to put in some parenthetical phrase. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How about " ...attacks (sudden accelerations)... "? Finetooth (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• The author's last name should come first in the citations. For example, citation 4 should start "Gallagher, Brendan" rather than "Brendan Gallagher". Is this necessarily anything but a personal opinion? I've always read that as long as citations are consistent within the article, exact style doesn't need to be mandated (citation templates aren't even necessarily required).

You're right in saying that you don't have to use citation templates, and some editors prefer entering everything by hand. To answer your question about name order, at WP:REF/ES, all the given examples are last name first. I've never seen a style sheet that said otherwise. This makes it possible to arrange refs alphabetically by last name; arranging alphabetically by first name is possible but unhelpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted, but this has never been brought up as a concern in any of the GA or FA reviews with which I've been involved (and that's not a great number, but it's still why I'm reacting like this). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to implement the rest of your points, as they seem to be spot on. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you nominated 2009 Giro d'Italia for FA again. I'll try to help if the reviews start to come! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If it fails this time...I don't see how I can't take it personally. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there.

I have added parameter df (date format) to the US roster template. The template passes the parameter value to the dts template, and so accomodates for you wish to have mdy format in American articles that include the roster template. The parameter defaults to dmy.

Cheers

LarRan (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Splendid! This pleases everyone. Well done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that on the article Miikka Kiprusoff, you changed the way the ice hockey competition links. Instead of clicking on "Ice hockey" to get to the article, you now have to click on "2010 Vancouver". That doesn't make any sense. The "2010 Vancouver" link should go to the 2010 Winter Olympic page, not the hockey competition page. Can you please change this to any article you just edited? Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipmj24 (talk • contribs)

I don't think it's terribly important suitable to link an individual athlete who played one sport to the article on the entire Olympics. I think it makes more sense to link to his particular event. But I don't care enough to fight about it. If you'd like to change it, go ahead. The other Fins all had tables already, I just added categories to some of their pages. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that I apparently reverted the {{inuse}} edit of yours on the 2009 Giro d'Italia last night; it was quite unintentional and I apologize. I think it must have happened on my iPhone; that's happened to me before. Anyway, I wanted you to know it wasn't deliberate. I'm about to go look at the article again and see if I can cut out the "Weak" part of the support. Mike Christie (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, but it didn't end up mattering. No harm done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I can never remember that tl hoochamajigger. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, and congratulations on your hard work and perseverance. The FA star is richly deserved. I look forward to seeing more cycling articles at FAC! Mike Christie (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. You stuck with it through all of it, and we ended up with an article that deserves to be Featured. Nice work. Apterygial 23:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I suspect your cycling interests lie in other areas, but if you could give me any advice as to how I can make obvious improvements to the Electric bicycle article, I would appreciate it greatly. Your expertise in bicycles and in Wikipedia article writing are both impressive. I know you are busy, so if you do not have time for this, I will understand. If you can help, then many thanks in advance. Sincerely, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to my experience with GANs, I find it strange that I was not allowed to correct anything or redo the article after having to wait almost two months for a review. Most of the problems, are easily fixable. Like the future event criteria fail, there is no longer a future event in place. The tournament has been completed, the information on the air dates have yet to be added because I haven't had the chance to redo the article. Restarting the review would be a better idea, because all problems mentioned, can be easily fixed.--WillC 04:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All respect, I would find that to be disingenuous. I reviewed the article you nominated. Fixing small problems is one thing - I usually have to do it myself with GA reviews. I don't believe in having the whole article (or nearly so) rewritten to meet the GA criteria when it is quite far from it. You had two weeks since the tournament took place to update the article prose, and you did not. That's not really the fault of the reviewer. From the talk page history, you nominated the article at a time when you knew it would quick-fail. While it was always probably true that it wasn't going to get reviewed in the time frame that it would have been quick-failed, that, again, is disingenuous. As I've said, you're more than welcome to go to WP:GAR with it if you feel my assessment was unfair or erroneous. I know you're not happy, and I hope you don't take it personally, but I just don't believe a hold would have been appropriate. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I had actually been planning to start work on it this weekend. I would hate to go through GAR which will take several mores weeks most likely. It isn't too late to change back the view, most of it is rewording. Expansion would be episode dates, which is simple. I've expanded several championships so far to GA (TNA World Heavyweight Championship, TNA Global Championship, TNA Women's Knockout Championship, TNA Knockout Tag Team Championship, TNA X Division Championship, TNA World Tag Team Championship, etc) and that one isn't far off. I would just like the opportunity to challenge the findings. GA is supposed to heighten the level of good articles, not prolong the chance of an article being good. I am disappointed in having waiting so long and it be failed in 5 minutes when I saw the review started last night, and I understand the decision. I just feel it was too soon. I'm not happy with the state the article is in, and I've had it on my to do list to update it. As soon as I saw the review, I decided to wait till after it was completed to update it. That way, there wouldn't be a mess. With my experience, this will only take about 30 minutes most likely. If you give me the chance, I promise you won't regret it. I do believe we've worked together on a review, I have been able to fix problems quiet well. This one is just in bad shape due to my lack of time to perfect it like I had planned after the tournament. See the above Knockout Tag of what is possible for a new championship like this one. I had that one GA within a month of it being established. It is in pretty good shape. I'm sure I can get this one as well, relatively quickly.--WillC 08:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You say it would take you 30 minutes to implement the revisions necessary to bring it to GA status - so why have you still not done so? An article should not be nominated and then improved, it should be as near as possible to GA status before nomination. This review is complete; if you nominate the article again (after revisions), I'd be willing to review it again so you don't have to wait. Unless you doubt my objectivity and wouldn't want me to. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll gladly take the review, I just feel it would be easier to continue this one. No sense in having two review pages, when the one can be continued. I'm busy alot these days, I barely have 30 minutes anymore to work on here. I got school and remodeling my home, so most of my time has been pushed towards that. I just expected a lengthy review, rather than a quick cut. I guess we just review articles differently, I tend to allow editors time to complete tasks even if there is several of them. I'll fix the problems left and renominate it soon I guess.--WillC 04:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when you do. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I redid the ROH TV Title. I'll nominate it here in a second. I replied to the concerns on the first GA review.--WillC 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for passing the article. Also, thank you for your time and for both reviews. Keep up the good work. :)--WillC 01:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed some things, I'd like it if you could make sure they are resolved. Thanks for the review and staying with a relatively novice writer. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 00:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You removed 'looks much better now' from the review page. If it's what you meant that's certainly fine, but it seems a bit strange to me. Wanted to make sure you knew what you did. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 04:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It messed up the numbering. That's all. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for passing it and bearing with me. I hope my prose writing improves over time. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 00:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know - I am working on the second part and will post further comments/suggestions soon. Sorry for the delay. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just thankful for the review. :) Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New userbox anyone?

Code	Result
{{User:PointOfPresence/roadbike}}	This user is into Road bike racing.	Usage

PointOfPresence (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For your work in expanding the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Do kinda wish it was gender-specific, though. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the 2009 Giro d'Italia getting FA. Good job. Chris (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an ongoing goal of mine to make Giro d'Italia a Featured Topic. Some of the really anonymous editions of the race from like the 1950's are going to be really hard to research though. But it's something that'll keep me here if nothing else! Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I discovered that Giro box on your user page, which says what quality the articles are in the box by the year of the Giro. I was looking at a couple of the articles and some of the early Giro articles, which are labeled stubs seem to have more information than those in the 70s that are labeled starts. Can you explain this? ThurstAsh13 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who assessed them. I simply wrote down the existing assessments. If you feel those assessments are wrong, change them. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're by chance interested in helping me improve the articles, I'll tell you which ones I'm going to be working on: 2010 (obviously), 2006, 1949 (Coppi vs. Bartali), 1963 (Franco Balmamion; I have a biography of him that details the race), then probably either 1909, 2005, or somewhere in the '40s for more Coppi vs. Bartali. I don't think I'm going to create anymore "Stage 1 to Stage 11" pages after I finish those for 2006, they take a lot of time to write. Possible exception for the '49 race, as I have a book that gives all the statistical information you could possibly want for that race, including intermediate GC. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand, I'm not sure that I want to change them cause someone could get mad at me for changing the grade of the pages are. I'll try to help with the 1909 and find some information on it. Overall I'm trying to improve most of the Giro pages, by adding the stages and info boxes to them, I stopped a few months ago at the 1937 giro. ThurstAsh13 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt any feathers will be ruffled by a re-assessment. Most of those talk pages haven't been edited in years. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed a couple of the first Giros because they had a decent bit of information compared to the others with just stats and final classifications.ThurstAsh13 (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just getting round to making a standard infobox for the cycling team articles. I notice you've generally been using four fields (manager, one-day victories, stage race victories and stage-race stage victories), I was wondering if you thought any other fields might be useful? I thought of perhaps the following: base, code, level and final ranking. Also, we could add a mock up of the team jersey, an image at the top, and code the previous/next season links to also include the team names of the previous and next season. What do you think? Severo^TC 11:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be open to some additions. I just whipped that one (those ones?) up based on the article that first gave me the idea to do these season articles, but with the idea to use team colors rather than just the red and blue that our French colleagues use on all their articles. I thought it important to not just say "25 victories" because how is winning the Giro d'Italia anything like winning the Clásica a los Puertos de Guadarrama? Of course it can be differentiated further – is winning the Giro d'Italia anything like winning the Tour de Romandie? Ranking would be problematic for 2007 and 2008 (arguably meaningless for 2008) and would it even be possible for before 2005, but other than that it's a good idea. Yeah, these are all good ideas. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we could easily split victories into World Calendar and other victories (2008 would be problematic). On second thoughts of the extended fields I mentioned above, I'm not sure that base and code really add much to the article by being in the infobox as both are pretty technical. Severo^TC 20:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Voila: {{Infobox cycling team season}}. Not put onto any article yet to give us a chance to refine it before rollout. Severo^TC 20:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You should know better than to use edit summaries like this one. Don't do that again. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 02:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It needed to be said. I don't respect people who show such disgusting disrespect for me, and I see no reason why I should. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By doing that, all you're doing is stooping down to to their level. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 02:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

British people who think they're better than American people because they speak "real English" or whatever bullshit they want to say are just one of my buttons. They always have been and they always will be. No version of a language is any better than another. I'm not stupid or inferior just because I write "behavior" and not "behaviour" or "August 1" and not "1 August" and any assertion that such is the case makes my blood boil. I wish it didn't, but it does. I have very little control over it, and can't find the ability to be polite when this happens. I don't think they deserve it, frankly. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Replies at Talk:Professional wrestling in New Zealand/GA1. —fetch·comms 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed, thanks. I'm doing four GA reviews right now, I'll probably get back to that one tomorrow. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No probs, have fun :P —fetch·comms 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Afraid it'll be one more day. I knew I'd be busy on-wiki right now, but my god I am unexpectedly busy off-wiki as well. Sorry. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine; I'm drowning in RL work too. —fetch·comms 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments at Talk:Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 2010/GA1. --LAAFan 04:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the nit-picky but correct comments on the 1980 tie-breaker GAN, by the way. I know it's not easy or fun to dig out those little things sometimes, but it drastically improves the article when they're all fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Quite the contrary, I find it both easy and fun :p Will get back to those articles ASACP (comfortably possible). Had an internet outage at home for a few hours tonight >:{ Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)