User talk:Belovedfreak: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:14, 10 October 2010

In general, I prefer to keep conversation threads together, so if you leave me a message here, I will usually reply here, and leave you a {{talkback}} notification. If I leave you a message, I will keep an eye on your talkpage, but my watchlist has a lot of pages on it, so if I don't reply as expected, please give me a nudge here.

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

Œil-de-bœuf

Belovedfreak,

I do not understand why correctly-spelled Œil-de-bœuf was redirected to this Oeil-de-boeuf.

This is how Wikionary spells it : [1]

--Frania W. (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the article's at Oeil-de-boeuf, probably to do with WP:UE. I don't really have an opinion on it, was just creating the redirect so that Œil-de-bœuf wasn't empty.--Beloved Freak 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Taylor is a GAN again

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I have nominated Phil Taylor for GA again, do you think it will gain the GA status this time? It would be great if you could review it. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk ^guestbook 18:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, it was reviewed by someone else; sadly it failed agin but I will not give up until it is a GA. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk ^guestbook 10:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've only just read this. Sorry it failed again, but good for you for wanting to keep improving it. I wouldn't have reviewed it anyway because I've already reviewed it once for GA, and for PR, so I think it's better that someone else looks at it. Good luck with it though. It might be an idea to try and seek out some editors that have written FAs and GAs on sportspeople, and try and get some pointers from them.--Beloved Freak 16:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, i'm going to try that. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS September 2010 Newsletter

The September 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Church of St Peter and St Paul, Ormskirk

On 2 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Church of St Peter and St Paul, Ormskirk, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St Mary's Church, Purton

On 2 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mary's Church, Purton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St Andrew's Church, Wanborough

On 2 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Andrew's Church, Wanborough, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Valhalla

Thank you for tidying it up, I didn't wnat to take it on myself ha ha. Tom Green (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - no problem. :) --Beloved Freak 14:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Don't Cry

Thanks so much for going through the article! I will request it to be copy edited to fix prose. I am not sure how to get this request completed, though. I have not been editing on Wikipedia for very long and I am still getting used to it. Most of the questions I have regarding your problems with the article are on this page. Once again, thank you so much! Ashton 29 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I will have a another look if you like and make some changes to the prose. I didn't change too much other than obvious typos yesterday but I can see if there are improvements to be made. Having said that, I'm not the best writer in the world so it wouldn't hurt to have someone else look at it. You could try making a request at the film wikiproject, where you might find people who can write well, and are also interested in film articles. There is also the option of putting in a request at the Guild of Copy Editors. I've seen mixed results from there, but in the first interest we want to get it readable enough for GA. (That sounds bad—I don't mean it's unreadable as it is! Just could use a bit of polishing! :) ) I'll give you a bit of time to work on it, but I will go back to read and respond to your comments. It'd be great to see that article be featured one day, so I'm happy to help if I can.--Beloved Freak 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to the comments on my talk page: I understand your issues and it's fine, I don't mind going with whatever needs to be done to improve the article, so feel free to edit it where you feel is neccessary. If there is a major change needed, let me know. One user recommended starting a book reference for the article, however I have never done this before and I am not sure how to. I understand that a few FA pages for films have a booklist (Fight Club, American Beauty, Halloween). I also do not mind you editing the citations and sources, that is one of the main things that I wanted to improve for the consistency and that they source the statement correctly. Thanks once again! Ashton 29 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've worked on the citations and added some more comments to the peer review. I'll have a look at some books I have access to and see if I can find anything relevant.--Beloved Freak 20:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Hi, thanks for the notice, but I'm not sure how to do what you said. I mean I did place my info under the nominators, and it came up that I was the reviewer, however it disappeared :s. Maybe a bot?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you don't have to edit the WP:GAN page at all any more; not to nominate, not to review, place on hold, pass or fail. All you do is edit the template on the article talkpage. So, in this case, you would edit Talk:Telephone (song) and where Legolas has added

{{GA nominee|12:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)|nominator=— [[User:Legolas2186|''Legolas'']] [[User talk:Legolas2186|(talk2me)]]|page=1|subtopic=Music|status=|note=}}

you add "onhold" after "status=", (if you've put it on hold). The bot should then update the GAN page. What I don't get, is that it should have updated the GAN page when you started the review page, to add your name there. It may be because you manually added your name to WP:GAN; then the bot undid your edit here for some reason. It's all a bit confusing! I wouldn't worry about it, but I just wanted to let you know that the procedure has changed recently.--Beloved Freak 12:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, thank you for the detailed explanation! :). I was aware there was that change in the system. It is weird, those damn bots lol! Anyways, thank you

--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem! --Beloved Freak 20:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire churches

Thanks for the very good articles you are writing on these churches. And thanks for the links you made to the Paley-Austin lists, which is how I found St Bartholomew's Church, Colne. I've added a little to this article. Also for St Wilfrid's Church, Ribchester which I spotted in the waiting list for DYK. Keep up the good work. I had intended to write some articles on the Sharpe-Paley-Austin churches, but you are saving me some work. The trouble is I've got involved with conserved churches, such as here. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks, that's very kind of you to say so! I'm quite enjoying these church articles, which is a bit of a surprise to me. I'm learning a bit about architecture too! Thanks for adding to the St Bartholomew's article. I didn't realise the Ribchester one was at DYK! I'm well aware of your CCT articles; I still have your talkpage watchlisted so I keep seeing it pop up as you add another one you've created, or you get another DYK credit. I'm always impressed by your level of output! Anyway, these churches have certainly distracted me from a variety of other stuff I wanted to get done, and at some point I would like to do some more work on some Fylde-related articles. I'd quite like to see at least all the Grade I listed churches in Lancashire having articles. I've noticed that quite a lot of the architectural terminology articles are not in great shape (as I keep having to look things up to see what they mean!); might be nice to improve some of those too. More distractions... :) --Beloved Freak 00:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about articles on architectural terms. There is Glossary of architecture of course, but this is not always adequate, and you can't really make a link to it. I'm certainly no expert in architecture but, like you, I'm learning. I've even written some tiny stubs; Broach spire and Poppyhead (carving) come to mind. Fortunately the Pevsner series has a pretty good glossary, as I'm sure you know. But the descriptions of roof structures baffles me (so I usually leave it out — someone else can add that later if they have a mind!). I did write some articles on Lancs (and Cumbria) Grade I churches, but then got led astray by conserved churches.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about the Pevsner glossaries. I may make more use of those. Its one of the good things about Wikipedia that people can read about a church they're interested in without having to already be an architectural boffin, because they can click on a (hopefully) nice helpful article that explains the terms used. I do keep expecting someone who knows about these sorts of things to come along and read one of "my" articles and ask me what the hell I'm on about.--Beloved Freak 13:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just point to the fact that everything is verified by reliable sources, and then invite (challenge) them to improve it (with full inline citations of course). Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My GAN reviews

Hello again. I am not sure about the way I am reviewing GANs and think that I might be too easy on the nominators. Could you please have a look. Here are my 3 reviews – review 1, review 2, review 3. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr K... glad to see you're getting into reviewing. I'll try and have a look at those tomorrow, and let you know what I think. --Beloved Freak 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have given some thoughts at Mr. Kennedy1's talkpage.--Beloved Freak 12:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for going through each review and it's good to know that I am improving with each one. I will try to do a joint review for my next one but do I still put myself down as the reviewer or do I do something different? I have one more question though. Is it OK to change the criteria during a review like I did with History of FC Barcelona? Once again, thanks so much for looking at my reviews. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 :Hi Mr K... glad to see you're getting into reviewing. I'll try and have a look at those tomorrow, and let you know what I think. --[[User:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#006699; font-family: trebuchet">Beloved</span>]][[User talk:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#336666; font-family: trebuchet">Freak</span>]] 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 :Have given some thoughts at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr.Kennedy1&diff=prev&oldid=389874205 Mr. Kennedy1's talkpage].--[[User:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#006699; font-family: trebuchet">Beloved</span>]][[User talk:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#336666; font-family: trebuchet">Freak</span>]] 12:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
+::Thanks so much for going through each review and it's good to know that I am improving with each one. I will try to do a joint review for my next one but do I still put myself down as the reviewer or do I do something different? I have one more question though. Is it OK to change the criteria during a review like I did with [[Talk:History of FC Barcelona/GA1|History of FC Barcelona]]? Once again, thanks so much for looking at my reviews. [[User:Mr.Kennedy1|''Mr'''''.Kennedy'''1]] [[User talk:Mr.Kennedy1|<sup>talk</sup>]] 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)