User talk:Seaserpent85/Archive 2
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
UK Theme Parks
Just a note to thank you for your continued help with UK park clean ups and sort outs! Thanks! Sebastianoutfin
Lundy GA review
Thanks for your comments on Lundy. I will address them over the next few days (& I've asked a couple of others for help as well) - hopefully you will be able to see improvements by the end of the week.— Rod talk 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think I've tackled most of the issues raised. I can't find the repeated wikilink to the Blackbird. I can't find the info for a climate section. Also I've left the gallery as I don't think there is room to neatly fit them into the article & couldn't decide what to remove. Perhaps you'd take another look and any further edits or comments welcome.— Rod talk 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Speed Monster
|
On 23 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Speed Monster, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Your GA nomination of Roller coaster inversion
The article Roller coaster inversion you nominated as a good article has failed 
, see Talk:Roller coaster inversion for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Graphic Lab
FL Main page proposal
You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The Restaurant (UK television series)
I don't mean to be rude but I feel your changes have added very little and have made the site appear far more complicated. Whilst I realise that the new table at the bottom is a standard Wikipedia chequer board that often appears on reality show pages, there is no way you can claim it is an improvement of what was there previously. Furthermore your painfuilly incomplete character profiles read like something produced by the BBC marketing department... "Engaged couple Martin and Emma...". You've also left out information that was in the original. Please explain why you've done this.
Robertlondon 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello again!
The original page (after the initial paragraphs) was then given a title of "Series 1" then had two subdivisions of "contestants" (in the form of a table) and "episodes" (which was concise). I'm not sure whether you did all of the rearrangements yourself but it is now dividied into "CONTESTANTS", "EPISODES" and "WEEKLY RESULTS".
I ackowledge that you have improved the EPISODES section and it looks a lot better.
I feel that the information that you've added in your CONTESTANTS section is minimal. Furthermore you've still left out information (such as a restaurant's location) which was there originally. The article has become a whole lot bigger for very little extra information - such as newly engaged, pregnant, met at university and such like.
Your new WEEKLY RESULTS section just repeats (for the third time!) information which is already in the article. Admittedly it was already there twice but do you really feel it needs to be repeated for a third time? You say it's an "improvement". I don't see it. It adds nothing. It does not need to be "combined with the episode guide" to be give a more thorough synopsis. All the information of who was in the challenge and who was eliminated was already there. It was easy to see what was going on. Who is eliminated is now appearing in each of the three sections.
Tables should only be used when there is a lot of data which needs to tabulated to make it easy to read. On Wikipedia it has become overused with any reality show gaining one almost by default.
I'm sorry for being blunt with you but I was rather pissed off that you'd decided yourself to drop some information that other people had added to the article (in favour of lifts from the BBC website) and to add an unnecessary table. You obviously decided no consensus was required for you to do your major changes. I don't think there's going to be a ground swell of objection to your changes - because people aren't going to be as bothered as I am.
But if nothing else happens - take a step back, reflect on what you have done and ask yourself what new information does your table at the end actually bring to the article?
Finally I'll say sorry, because I know when you did your changes you did them with good intentions and I don't want to upset you in any way. We obviously have a difference of opinion.
Robertlondon 01:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
AWB errors?
Thanks What exactly was it that you did to fix the errors (please respond on my talk)? Sorry if there was any hassle. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
AIV
24.46.227.166 hasn't edited in hours, there is no need to report them. -- John Reaves 01:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Re:Wiki Ad
Hello, this is a notification that on my talk page there is a reply in the "Wiki Ad" section. If the link is broken, check the [[User talk:Ceres3{{{archive}}}|archives]]. This is not an automated bot, or message, but a pre-loaded template you can use.
--Coastergeekperson04 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Category:Category-Class roller coaster articles matches conventions of Category:Category-Class articles ... I think a consistent naming convention is a good thing, since it helps people find what they are looking for. -- Prove It (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Featured List of the Day Experiment
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
ROCO Newsletter
Amazing job on the Newsletter, it looks great. It is a pity the project has zero GA articles... ALTON .ıl 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Yeah, well it is only Wikipedia, don't really bother me tbh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastianoutfin (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed in WP:GL/IMPROVE that you mentioned that you wanted to use this image as a logo for a wikiproject. I would strongly discourage that. The usage of coats of arms is restricted in the UK. This is regardless of the copyright status of the image. We're free to display them anywhere as long as it's clear that they represent what they're supposed to represent, but using a registered coat of arms in a logo would be crossing the line. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've started work on Portal:Berkshire. I founded Portal:South East England, Portal:Hampshire and Portal:Oxfordshire. Along with the other maintainers at P:SEE, our vision is to see a portal for each county in the South East England area, the selected content of which P:SEE will then feed off of. Portal:Berkshire has been on my to-do list for a while. I know all about WP:OWN but creating portals often feels like a very personal achievement and I don't want you to feel like I'm treading on your toes - so I thought I'd better ask - would it be ok if I help out with the portal development and add a few selected items? I'll aim to use a similar set up as the ones at P:Hants and P:OX since they work well and are fairly easy to maintain. Cheers, Waggers (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
In the discussion you professed to being active in the roller coaster project. Can you look over roller coaster#Height specific where I've merged the information from the individual articles. Thanks --Stephen 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Berkshire
Hello Seaserpent85,
Just a note that I've created Template:Berkshire. As you're heavily involved with Berkshire material I thought it best to let you know about this.
Hopefully it will bring the county more inline with the rest of England. Typically, this template (added via {{Berkshire}} of course) should be added to those places included in the template. There is scope to add more material in the template, but alas my knowledge of the area is not great.
Hope all is well, keep up the great work please! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect of Norwegian Loop
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Norwegian Loop, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Portal Latvia
Hi, may I ask why did you change design of the portal ? It was disccused here that flag colors look bad and the pink background, in my oppinion, is terrible, besides you seem to have made several inaccuracies in the process (like misspeling name of the country) ~~Xil...sist! 18:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- You haven't stepped on my toes, I trust you have best intentions. I tried to redesign the portal last summer, prior to that it was rather inactive. I've set some parts of portal to update automaticly after some period of time (perhaps it would indeed be better if it changed randomly as you say), other parts get updated irregulary (however the news get updated more often this way then those from Wikinews). By the way I think guest book and did you know sections could be removed as these never get updated and don't contain much of useful information. As for use of flag colors - I understand that it is common practice, but in this case, I guess, the red color is to dark or something and it looks bad in page design - Latvian Wikipedia used to have Main Page with it and was eventualy redesigned, therefore I'm sure it is not just my taste - if you don't mind (or have a better idea) I'll put the old colors of the portal back ~~Xil...sist! 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Randomised content is okay. I know that other portals have all kinds of sections, but there isn't much good content on Latvia, situation seems to be getting better lately, but I've had a problems to find decent articles for selected article, I'm affraid that if new secions are made there won't be much to put in them. ~~Xil...sist! 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Ancient Greece
You said to use a category tree but I don't understand that well.Bewareofdog (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have left a message at WikiProject Space about the potential removal from FPORT. OhanaUnitedTalk page 09:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I had this portal reviewed a few months ago but I didn't get that much help .CAn you please look at the portal and tell me if it is okay .Bewareofdog (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just wanted to tell you I need help with the tab system .Bewareofdog (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I just dropped in to say bang up job on the Antarctica Portal, way to "take the ball and run with it". I intended to do a lot more with it but now it looks like I hoped it soon would. --Ictionary (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:UKTP invite
A tag has been placed on Template:UKTP invite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Requests for reassessment
Hey there ... I've been working on a few roller coaster articles as part of the WikiProject's destubification movement. How do I request a reassessment of them, to see if I've gotten them out of stub class, or at least see if I'm on the right track (no pun intended)? The articles I'm furthest along on are Goliath, Georgia Scorcher and Kraken, but each one still needs some more sources. I've also re-started an article on the three Journey to Atlantis attractions, one that was edited down to a redirect to the SeaWorld article. Any advice or guidance would be very welcome! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hey again ... new question. Universal Studios Florida just announced its new Hollywood Rip, Ride, Rockit roller coaster, and I went ahead and started the new page and redirected from its original Project Rumble page (the ride's code-name). I did append the WP RC box to the talk page, but herein lies the question: which infobox should be used? Someone developed a Universal Ride infobox based on the Disney infobox, but at the same time this is a roller coaster, so shouldn't it have a WPRC infobox too? RCDB does have this one on its list already, so the infobox would link properly. Opinions? Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Requesting protection...
...for the list of Apprentice candidates. Getting a lot of IP vandalism, which we may be able to hold off if we can get around to plugging in some biographical info of our own Fritzpoll (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Verifiability
When you add information to an article, like in this diff, please cite your source. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
"The one that got away"
Not got the energy for an argument about it (see the series 4 talk page) - I'll wait and see what edits go in and then we can argue it out on the talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Signatures
Hi, i noticed you have a nice way of formatting your signature. I've looked at my preferences, looked at the guide to signatures, but still not quite sure what to put in the box to make a nice signature. I'm a noob here and am only just getting to grips with the formatting styles. can you advise? many thanks Deltasquared (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Request for advice/assistance
A user has been adding information to List of roller coaster records and Tower of Terror (Dreamworld) that is counter to all the databases I've seen, and this user does not cite any sources. Specifically, he has been changing the height data for Tower of Terror in both articles. I put some polite warnings on his talk page and explained why I reverted his edits, but still he persists (although he seems to have given up on the records article). In this edit the user gives some pretty detailed data supporting his earlier edit, but he does not cite this data either. I'd appreciate your advice or assistance on this matter. --Skylights76 (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, I will follow your advice. Question: Am I right that all of RCDB's height numbers refer to track height only and exclude any supporting structures? If the supporting tower for Tower of Terror were 1000 feet, it would be absurd to call it a "1000 feet tall coaster." --Skylights76 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think height is measured as the lift hill or the highest drop, whichever is greater. For example, the terrain coaster Tatsu is listed as 170' on RCDB and "17 stories" (they're calling a story 10 feet) on its official web page, but the official page also says "263 feet in plunges," by which they mean the difference in elevation. (If there are multiple hills and drops, the sum total of the plunges would actually be a lot more than 263 feet.) It's funny, I thought about using the Stratosphere as an example in my post above but decided against it. Totally agree with you. Also agree about RCDB having errors/omissions-- see my attempt to start a discussion about this. --Skylights76 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you commented at the prior WP:PPREV for this portal and it has been through a good deal of changes and I put it up for a second portal peer review. Think you could stop by and comment at the peer review, and/or let us know if you think it is ready for WP:FPOC? Cirt (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that you're also of the opinion thaty this should be a redirect. What do you think we should do about this, since User:Butlermonkey keeps restoring an article Fritzpoll (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Disputed Fair Use of Image:S4Men.jpg and Image:S4Women.jpg
Hi Stifle, I'd like to object to your decision to mark these images for speedy deletion. At the very least I'd expect any decision to be delayed until this discussion is resolved. I am not going to argue with you over the specific terms involved in your said objection to these being fair use, however I'd like to point out that the omission of these images from an article about the specific individuals involved in the programme would "affect users' understanding of the article". Seaserpent85 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I really can't agree with that whatsoever. The images are completely irrelevant to users' understanding of the article — there is no need for people to know what the candidates look like in order to follow the article, and even if there were, it would fail NFCC#1 because all the candidates are still alive so a free photograph of them could be created. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of James Max
I have nominated James Max, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Max (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry that Twinkle dumped this on your page - I'm trying to resolve the content issue once and for all here Fritzpoll (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Links for Apprentice series
Hi
I saw you removed the links I added for other series, and stated your reason as:
"Not needed - all series are linked to from the navbox"
Whilst this is true, navigation does not just need to be from the bottom. Due to length of article, the links provide an easy, accessible way of navigating the series. Its an additional helpful extra. I think before removing it should be discussed, as I have worked very hard over last couple of days to improve formatting of ALL the apprentice series articles. many thanks δ²(Talk) 15:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just further to my post, I would like to point out that I added the links based on the links provided at the top of The Apprentice (UK) page. This page too, has a navbox at the bottom, but has a link at the top to the current series. So really dont see what the problem is? δ²(Talk) 01:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Seaserpent, thanks for getting back to me and the compliment. I am aware that I haven't yet finished Series Three, but (not to make too many excuses!) two events have occurred, preventing me from continuing for now:
- My dissertation is due tomorrow and I haven't finished it yet.
- My home IP is caught up in a hard block of quite a few thousand IP addresses, whilst an investigation takes place to find vandals.
- However, I will endeavour to finish editing after this weekend. I take your point regarding it getting cluttered in the future as series continue, but right now I think it aids editing and switching between articles quickly. As it progresses, maybe not add any more links to series. The "see also" style is not exhaustive in the WP:Manual of style so i think these are acceptable for now? δ²(Talk) 11:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)