User talk:Bellerophon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Pol430)
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Bellerophon's talk page
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at

Wikimedia Foundation


Click here to goto my talk page, where you can leave a message for me.

Skip to the bottom

Welcome to my talk page!

  1. If you want to leave me a new message, click here.
  2. If you are replying to an existing message on this page, please just edit the relevant section.
  3. In either case, don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~).

Crystal Clear app ark.png
Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 month by a bot.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13


Hello, remember me? I haven't been on here for almost two years. I was near the end of my training with you and would like a refresher and a finish up when you can. Let me know. Thanks. Selene Scott (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Selene ScottSelene Scott (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Selene! Of course I remember you :) Unfortunately, I've had to close my adoption school due to time constraints. However, if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask on my talk page anytime. I will always try to help. Anything in particular you would like refreshing/advice on? Bellerophon talk to me 21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, everything really! I should be able to go back and reread the work we did together I think as a refresher course. If I have any pressing problems with creation or editing I'll put them to you . Thanks for that. Great to hear from you again! Selene Scott (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
Great to hear from you also Selene, drop me a line any time. Bellerophon talk to me 21:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Category request: Category:FIA World championship winning cars[edit]

Hi there - the intention was for this to be a parent category so that we can have "F1 championship winning cars", and others for WTC, WRC, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July drive and August blitz[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone!

Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here!

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit mistake?[edit]

Hey there, I just made an edit to the Josh Hartnet page. I removed a repeated statement. But after it was done there was a strange outlined box with some partial info in it not related to what I removed. I don't know what it is but it looks bad!! (Selene Scott (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC))

Also could you take a look at a paragraph I included in the Argon page. Its lacking any highlighted links and probably needed its own heading in the index but I didn't know how to make it. Thanks (Selene Scott (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC))
jeez where's my head tonight- the paragraph is in the misc. heading and is about the use of Argon gas in High Frequency machines.(Selene Scott (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC))
Hello Selene, sorry about the late response I've not checked in for several days. Am I correct in thinking you have resolved your problem? Bellerophon talk to me 13:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
No. Still don't know what happened or how to fix on Hartnet,and the Argon page needs references which I have no idea how to do. "Selene Scott (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)"

Stylistic issues[edit]

Hi Bellopheron

l am sorry for the confusion about submission. I did not know three versions were submitted for review and l do not know how from here l can get the right one to you. If you are able to access it will be the latest version- written after taking advice from an initial rejection.

My problem is that l simply do not understand what the reasons for rejection and if the views expressed are consistent with in-house policy l will simply give up.

What l tried to write is an objective and informed piece as possible on the subject yet the reviewer says it is too essay-like and is not objective. It is hard to know how a piece cannot be essay-like because that is what an encyclopaedia entry is- an essay. It does not contain original research as the reviewer states and it draws upon a wide variety of reputable sources which are fully referenced. The reviewer implies this is not the case and this l find baffling. The entry does not seek to promote the interests of any individual or organisation but inform the reader about what is meant by the term used, how the practices described came into being, what those practices are, where it is practised and so on. In other words all l have tried to do is the who, what, why, where and so on. Nothing more. You might be interested to know that the reason l wrote it is because despite having it in my own university for nearly twenty years others not directly involved do not understand it. So l thought there is a job to be done.

I work closely with others in the field and the comments l received are that it is as comprehensive, fair and accurate a picture as it is possible to paint. Since it is possible the reviewer saw an earlier version l will re-submit again

Best wishes

Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon talbot56 (talkcontribs) 09:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello John, I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what draft/submission you are referring to... In response to one of your points though: an encyclopaedia differs from a essay through the absence of opinions/conclusions and the absence of novel synthesis. Both are features of essay writing, whereas an encyclopaedia article aims to reference all verifiable claims about a subject without learning in favour if any one view; unless of course the view is axiomatic. Additionally, an encyclopaedia article does not conclude by telling the reader what their opinion should be. It just presents the information. Bellerophon talk to me 13:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about page move from Belmond Ltd. to Belmond (company)[edit]

Hello, I wanted to check with you about the move of Belmond Ltd. page to Belmond (Company). I believe that the page move was not needed. Having read the WP:NCCORP guidelines, I see that they state: "When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate". The page gives several examples of companies who use their legal status for disambiguation. Based on this, I think that the page was following guidelines as Belmond Ltd. Since this is the legal name for this business, it seems more appropriate than Belmond (Company). Please do you have any further comment as to why you deemed this page move necessary? Otherwise I would like to undo that edit and move the page back Laurashaikh (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)laurashaikh

Generally, a lot of experienced Wikipedians plump for (company) as it's generic and neutral. Some editors don't always feel using the legal status of a company is a neutral way of representing it. Also, policy dictates that Wikipedia use the company's preferred style of legal status (e.g. Inc. vs Incorporated) since this is not always known, many editors prefer to default to (company). In a nut-shell, the historical precedent is that often pages that include the legal status of a company can be less stable page titles subject to frequent discussion about preferred stylistics. I moved the page because I thought, and still think, it's the better title. However, if you really want to move it back, I won't kick up a fuss. Bear in mind that other editors may disagree with you. Please also ensure you move the page and associated talk page back correctly over the redirects. Simply clicking 'undo' in the article history won't work. Bellerophon talk to me 13:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)