User talk:Seattle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Albacore)
Jump to: navigation, search
The headless walk of St. Denis
The truest characters of ignorance
Are vanity, and pride, and arrogance;
As blind men used to bear their noses higher
than those that have their eyes and sight entire
Samuel Butler


The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

Instead of a cheque...[edit]

Barnstar-goldrun7.png The Running Man Barnstar
Thank you for all you have done to help me with the Boat Race articles. Tonight we hit a landmark, over 50% of the race articles are now Good or Featured Articles, which is a monumental achievement considering that none of the articles even existed eight months ago. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Bang bang. Seattle (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

We'll Never Have to Say Goodbye Again[edit]

I've read the article, and I must in all honesty say that in my judgment it is not of GA standard. I hate to send such a negative message after your thoroughness and help with my recent GA nomination, but I feel I must give you my view before I open a review page – if indeed I do open one: if you would prefer to wait for another reviewer who knows more about popular music than I do and may perhaps take a different view I am quite willing to leave it to him/her. Being largely ignorant of popular music, I looked for background at four randomly-chosen GAs about other 1970s singles, and they all seem much more substantial than "We'll Never Have to Say Goodbye Again": Candida (song) has 846 words of text before the tabular material on charting etc; Wigwam (Bob Dylan song) has 723; Honesty (Billy Joel song) has 915 and You Can't Win (song), 1,812. By contrast, "We'll Never Have to Say Goodbye Again" has 631 words. I realise of course that this may be because there is no more to say – and we don't want padding for the sake of reaching some imaginary minimum word-count. GA criterion 3a merely specifies that a GA "addresses the main aspects of the topic", and the guidelines add a note explaining "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." It is arguable that "We'll Never Have to Say Goodbye Again" could squeeze through on that count. But where I think the article falls well short of the criteria is in respect of 1b: "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout …". There is no lead, only a single slab of text. All four of the articles I sampled had a lead and then a main text in sections with sub-headings, and on this count the article definitely falls short. On the positive side, I found the prose good and clear (the potentially tricky matter of there being two people surnamed Joseph is deftly handled) there was no evidence of POV or OR, and the sources and referencing look fine. I am so sorry to be a wet blanket, but I hope these informal comments are of some use. I'll watch this page to see whether you wish me to go ahead with the GA review. – Tim riley talk 11:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the use of headings and subheadings is something I notice of all short good articles (see those listed at 3–10 at User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size#Ten shortest articles, for instance). I shall rework the text to follow headers, construct a lead, scour for more sources, and, hopefully, come across more information for inclusion in the article. Thanks for the informal review; I will follow your suggestions, and respond when I've implemented them. Thanks again. Seattle (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll continue to watch. Good luck, and let me loose on the GAN review when you're ready. Tim riley talk 21:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. I've finished the lead, and I think it's ready for a review. Seattle (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Good. Top of my list for tomorrow. Tim riley talk 18:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
And now done. I'm pleased to say the article now meets the GA criteria in my view, and I have had the pleasure of promoting it. Tim riley talk 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

Donovan Patton[edit]

S, I've finally finished addressing all your comments at this article's GAC. Sorry it took so long, and thanks both for your patience and for your feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Anything else I need to do? This article has been languishing a long time, so could you pass it or let me know if I need to make any more improvements? Thanks, appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

The Inside Corner : January 25, 2015[edit]

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Seattle. You have new messages at Talk:D. F. Landale.
Message added 13:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HYH.124 (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]


Remember when you were concerned that caracal didn't met GA criteria and you went to J Milburn to ask him about it (When I was at the top of the leaderboard)? Turns out you're right, and not only has it been delisted, but the article has been hidden from view because of copyright concerns, it might have to all be deleted. Meanwhile, the reviewer that promoted it is wanting me to be their slave trying to correct the article, which the user that brought up the copyright concerns (Mkat) has said I've actually yet to find a string of more than two sentences in the article that isn't plagiarized. Though I had articles to work on in the next round (Red-necked wallaby, Iberian lynx, Charlotte, North Carolina, Fennec fox), you probably won't have to worry about competition from me in the next round, even if eight points is enough to get to the next round, I'm discouraged to waste my time "improving" articles which will result in their blanking. Good luck to you. (I say this sincerely and without sarcasm) --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

OK? Seattle (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I will admit I'm random with who I choose to send these things to. Sometimes I just have to let it out to somebody. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

Customer service section Revert on Chick-fil-A[edit]

Seattle you reverted an edit I did yesterday that continued to build the character and the nature of the Chick-fil-A page, along with references and citations. I don't understand the rationale behind this undo. I respect your work and appreciate your opinion but the citation and the balance of the section is sound. This section and the two sentences are factual and relevant to the fleshing out of the article. Chrisabraham (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Pure puffery[edit]

Seattle I'm working on making changes to the words but this is a cited and referenced part of Chick-fil-A history and culture. I am thinking about integrating it into its own section. I am looking to come to some sort of agreement here, so as to avoid some of the "pure puffery." Chrisabraham (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate your help in general[edit]

I would be happy to discuss this further and would love your help to get all of this correct, sorted, and right. Please let me know if there is a compromise that we can come to, Seattle, as I see you have been engaging with me on Wikipedia over several edits that I have been making over several pages. I would like to make sure I come into compliance with your expectations, vision, and protocol. Chrisabraham (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for challenging me[edit]

Seattle I think you're good for me as I am learning more and more how to become a better Wikipedian and I will eventually soon learn also how to go all the way up the appeal process. Thanks for challenging me with the Virtual Team Challenge and you were right about Sally Falkow (was that you?). Anyway, I am frustrated but I am also happy that you're taking the time to make me a better editor. Cheers! Chrisabraham (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: Where Should I Start With My Personal Page?[edit]

I would like to have a much nicer and much more appropriate personal page under Chrisabraham -- I would be obliged if you would point me toward the best resource for that. Mind is very minimal and I have been a member since 2005. Chrisabraham (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hello Seattle as you were right and I am sorry that I didn't know the protocol of how to be more transparent outside of using me real name, requiring 3rd party citations, and trying to be honest and doing notable work. I even recorded the video that you found with the intention of being as open and honest -- transparent -- as possible. I had only started doing any of this a couple months ago and I was not as privy as to how to be as transparent or as forthright as I really need to be in order to be in compliance. I did use my real name in the video but I can see how my feelings of being discrete for my clients seemed openly dodgy. I didn't mean to be. Hopefully, I can quickly come into complete compliance -- with your help and with the help of Tokyogirl79 -- and I can make sure my personal page lists anyone I work with or who retains me or who asks for my help. While I am embarrassed that this happened at all and that I might well have given bad advice in my video when it came to being completely forthright, I was unaware as to the correct best practices and the correct process. While this isn't the exact way I had hoped this to transpire, I am glad it did now, just a couple months in and not a year down the line when it would be really disruptive to my practice. I was wondering why you were monitoring me so closely and I thought 'it's the video' and then thought it was all for the best. Again, I never meant to be dodgy or shady. I am happy to come up to code. But yes, I did miss a very important part of the codex in my video: always reveal with whom you're working and who you're associated with. If you think the video is a corruptive force, I am happy to rework it or bring it down in the process of my moving into alignment. As you could see from my video, I really didn't know any better. Thank you. Chrisabraham (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Seahawks table[edit]

You undid one of the revisions I made to the Seahawks schedules. You said "allows for write-ups to be written". I don't understand what you mean. Writeups about games go under game summaries below the schedules, not on the schedules. There is a consistent format for team schedules (I used the most recent years as a pattern and added the attendance column for those). I put in a lot of thought, research, and work to make them consistent from 1976 through 2014, taking the best content from what was existing and adding much more from various authoritative sources. I'd be happy to include something more if you think it is needed, but I don't understand what you mean by "write-ups". The last column of my added material linked to the official NFL game summary. I am a fairly new contributor, and I would appreciate any feedback you might have. BTW, I am in the process of working on the game summaries of all Seahawks games to be added soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaysRates (talkcontribs) 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@RaysRates: Ignore the edit summary, that doesn't apply, my mistake. The table already in the article allows for sortability, while the one you substituted does not. I'm not opposed to adding an unsortable "recap" column, but, other than that, I don't see a benefit from the version you presented. Seattle (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Seahawks schedules[edit]

None of the other years' schedules allowed sorting. I saw the sortability when I went about revising all of the schedules. 1993 was the only year that had that feature. I'm for sorting when it makes sense, but I'm not sure what benefit it conveys in this context. Thus, I vote for consistency over a relatively minor convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaysRates (talkcontribs) 20:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@RaysRates: It's only consistent because you've changed the articles to your preference; its a "relatively minor convenience" that's easy to add. I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League to form a consensus. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@RaysRates: I'm not trying to argue, and I'm fine with seeing what others think. I would note one inaccuracy in your statement--it isn't consistent only because I changed the articles. Before I began, 1993 was the only year that had a sortable table and this color scheme. Granted, I only looked at Seahawks schedules between 1976 and 2014, not at other teams. Also please note that I didn't just automatically switch 1993 back to the format I use. I left your undo. However, I would have preferred that you added sortability and the color scheme rather than just tossing the content that was added. Let's see what others say. RaysRates (talk)

Mea maxima culpa[edit]

Seattle @Seattle: I know you don't believe me and believe that I just "got caught" but I was trying really hard to make sure that I was helping the folks I helped understand what they can, can't, and shouldn't do in the Wikipedia world, to trust and appreciate Wikipedia as a platform and to respect Wikipedians. Little did I know that I had made so many other mistakes. I know you're probably really upset with the whole situation but I want to thank you. I needed to know what I didn't know and even though I am in the midst of my own personal crisis, I am going to have to weather this in any way I can and persevere to come to a place where you and I at least tolerate each other. At least to the point where you understand who I am, what I am up to, and that you consider me at least tolerable part of the Wikipedia universe. I had a feeling I had done something wrong when I saw that you tracking me around Wikipedia. Chrisabraham (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • PS: I did not engage in back and forth conversations in order to do anything black hat or dodgy, I was just trying to fully argue the case that I had for each edit. I should have pitched and pushed forward each edit before the edits were made -- and then let someone else in the community make that edit his or herself. Because of who I am and my relationship. I really only want to be a consultant and advisor. I really only want good and correct content to get into the space. I do just happen to be very verbose, I guess. I was trying to advocate for changes. I did it terribly wrong. Chrisabraham (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Chrisabraham: Follow the advice CorporateM gives you when you're in negotiations over article changes, and be upfront when clients ask if their changes can be included in Wikipedia. When you've accepted a paid bid to work on Wikipedia articles, post proposed changes on the article's talk page, and I (or anyone else, I'm sure), will be happy to review them for neutrality. It's important to be upfront with clients so that you don't guarantee a premise upon which you cannot deliver, a situation that will ultimately come of the Chick-fil-A additions. Nothing more need said. Seattle (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Seattle: thank you. I am much obliged. Chrisabraham (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed RfC for NFL season record tables[edit]

Seattle, I am willing to help you formulate an RfC to accomplish your purpose. We've done this before, with good success. I suggest the following basics: [1]. If you want to take a crack at it in your sandbox, Casliber, Bagumba and I can make suggestions from there. If you don't feel up to preparing a draft on your own, and you can wait for the weekend, I can help you with a draft or outline. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter[edit]

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Australia Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]

The Inside Corner : March 15, 2015[edit]

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]


List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions FLC[edit]

Hey Seattle,

The first nomination I made for List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions to become a FL got closed because you were the only reviewer. If you wouldn't mind, could you please leave any comments/opinions you have about the article for the second nomination please? Thanks! :) --Dom497 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

Lava cactus[edit]

Hi, I'm a bit confused by your request for redaction at Lava cactus. You cite an edit that you made in 2010 as the start of the copyvio, tracing it back to a page on Arkive, but a quick look using Wayback Machine shows that that text didn't show up on Arkive until after that date. Can you please provide a bit more context on why the edits should be deleted? Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lankiveil: Sure; see this archive from May 22, 2009. I copy-pasted text from each section on the left to our article. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine only has that one page archived; but the headers for our history are the same, and I distinctly remember copy-pasting text into our article from ARKive. Seattle (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've deleted it applying the precautionary principle. Thanks for coming clean about it, I guess. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

Happy Easter![edit]

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

Boat Race reviews[edit]

Sport Barnstar Hires.png The Running Man Barnstar
Hey Seattle, just a quick barnstar to say thanks for the many, many reviews of Boat Race articles you've conducted over the past year. As of this morning, I completed my (initial) goal of ensuing that every Boat Race had, not only its own article, but one that was either of GA or FA status: we now have 158 GAs and 3 FAs that we can all be proud of! It doesn't stop here, for me at least, I'm going to keep up with improving the quality of the GAs and look for more FA opportunities. Plus, there's the small matter of 70 Women's Boat Race articles to get up and running! But thanks again, I couldn't have done it without your help. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

Meghan Trainor discography[edit]

Can you go over the lead section once again, I made some improvements. Also, I listed the track listings of two albums as they do not have pages nor does Trainor have a songs list. Therefore, there is consensus to provide the track listings pn the discography. Thank you. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 08:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Seattle:@Seattle: I got it all. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 05:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter[edit]

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in Mendip/archive1[edit]

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in Mendip/archive1. I wondered whether all of your concerns had been addressed or whether there is anything else you think is needed to make it meet the Featured list criteria?— Rod talk 19:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: I'd like to wait for another reviewer to review this. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]