User talk:Ki Longfellow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Your edit to Black Gold (horse) 2 Hello. 3 warning 4 barnstar 5 linkless 6 References 7 link to British 8 Gallant Man 9 DYK

[edit] Your edit to Black Gold (horse)

Your recent edit to Black Gold (horse) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello.

Hi. I realise you don't know me, and we haven't run across eachother before on Wikipedia, but I noticed you left a comment to the effect that you were re-thinking your involvement in Wikipedia, deleting some of your contributions, and possibly leaving.

If you wouldn't mind my asking, why? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first do you read or contribute to horse articles? I ask this in order to know if you're familiar with mine in particular? I've gradually and painfully discovered that how I write is not how a proper wikipedian writes, and rather than reduce the color (already greatly reduced by trying to write to wiki rules), of my articles, I thought I'd just remove those which are causing whomever to tag them with tone offences. I either have to do that, or cut away what makes the article interesting. Straight facts are not my forte. I can't remove them all even though some of them are almost entirely my work because others have contributed, and though those contributions might be small, still I have no right to erase their efforts. But most of my articles have remained untouched by others, and whenever I open one to add something and discover they've been tagged by "tone," it just takes the heart out of my contributing. I just wanted to remind people of certain wonderful horses I hated to see forgotten. Perhaps I can find somewhere else to put them? Or create my own site? I don't know. I did have such a lovely time on wikipedia and was intending to fill the horse section with forgotten champions and great old stories. But thank you for asking. ..Ki Longfellow 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read a couple horse articles, but not a lot of them. I'm not really sure if I've read any of yours or not. Are there any articles in particular that have been tagged with "tone" that I can look at? Encyclopedia writing can by dry, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Wikipedia's standards for featured articles (Featured Articles are supposed to be the best-of-the-best of what the Wikipedia community has produced) state that the prose in an article should be "compelling, even brilliant". To me, that says that it has some color. Do you know why the articles were tagged for "tone"? I sometimes tag an article with "tone", usually if it uses pronouns like "I", "we", "you", etc. Normally I prefer to use more specific and understandable tags if I'm going to tag someting. I would love to see more articles about great horses in Wikipedia, and it sounds like you would love to put them here. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 23:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I read Zippy Chippy, and I loved it. It was funny, clever, and for the most part well-written. I would even say it was "compelling". But I can definately see why some people might add the tone template to it. There is a whole discussion at Template talk:Inappropriate tone about that template and what is wrong with it, you might be interested in commenting there. The whole idea of tone on Wikipedia is slightly controversial anyway; the llth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, is often held up as the "the best encyclopedia ever made", and is often pointed to as being what we should strive to emulate; however, I bet that virtually every article in that, were it to be submitted to Wikipedia today, could be accused of inappropriate tone. One of the things that made that encyclopedia great was the colorful and entertaining writing. Like the writing in that encyclopedia, your writing is very colorful and entertaining. This is a good thing, it is not in any way a bad thing. However, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, and they are supposed to be sourced with material from reliable sources. What does that mean in relation to Zippy Chippy, for example? Your lead to that article is, "Zippy Chippy is America's favorite thoroughbred racing loser." That right there could lead to a tone tag, or a neutrality tag. Why? Because it is an opinion, and it is not sourced. If, on the other hand, you were able to say that John Doe, Equine Raceing correspondent for ESPN, calls Zippy Chippy America's favorite thoroughbred racing loser, that would be fine. Maybe a lead along the lines of, "Zippy Chippy is a thoroughbread race horse who, despite being from a long and distinguished blood line, has never won a race against other thoroughbread horses. Despite this fact, there may be a movie in the making about him, leading many to consider him America's favorite thoroughbred racing loser." That fleshes the intro out a bit more, draws the reader in and makes him/her interested, and reduces the "tone" concerns, especially if you can provide a source for people calling him America's favorite whatever.

Take a look at Al-Kateb v Godwin, it's today's featured article of the day. It's about a court case and one would think it would be boring and dry, but it isn't. The intro and the Background section are, I would say, compelling. They really make you feel for the poor guy's plight. Look at Seabiscuit since you are interested mostly in race horses and it is also a featured article. The differences between these and your writing style are subtle. In short, no one is asking you to write bland and boring articles. One thing I do is read the featured article of the day every day, even if it's not something I'm particularly interested in. That way I know what Wikipedia wants in its articles.

I'm sorry you are getting discouraged. I really think, based on what I've seen in Zippy Chippy, that you are a great asset to Wikipedia. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As a slight afterthought, I also read Boston (horse). I thought it was very good, and it does not seem to have the "tone" problems that I can see someone contending that Zippy Chippy has. Just thought I'd point it out. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 02:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ki, I was the person who, regretfully, had to tone down the lovely language of your Thekla article. The problem is clear - you are a wonderful writer but your Zippy Chippy style is not OK for this encyclopedia. I've looked at that article, the writing is great but the style is too racy, too opinionated, too complexly expressed and too personal to you, to be acceptable. That's a shame but that's a fact. Wikipedia is a dry compendium of facts and so your lively writing style may not fit. All this is only one persons opinion (but I am very experienced on WP having worked on pictures and text since January 2003). I've just read Boston (horse) and that is closer to the style WP is happy with. (By the way, Thekla has just been renamed as Thekla Social, makes it sound like a government department!) Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] warning

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Sysonby. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. TheRanger 23:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning for editing Zippy Chippy (diff). The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. // AntiVandalBot 15:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded for your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of thoroughbred horse racing history. Please keep filling in the gaps, and please don't destroy the work you have already done. It is much appreciated. 198.179.243.51 16:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I second this barnstar, and though I may be a few weeks too late, would like to repeat what's been said so far: your writing is fabulous, the stories are great, the fact that someone so knowledgeable is trying hard to fill in a pretty big gap in the 'pedia's coverage is *wonderful*, and if your articles can't be toned down enough to make people stop complaining without losing something important (which I recognize is unfortunately a possibility), I fully hope you'll find a way to get them published somewhere else anyway (preferably on the web so Wikipedia could possibly cite them!) :) Seriously though, thank you very much for your time and obvious effort. --Arvedui 11:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] linkless

Read it more carefully, it refers to incoming links from other articles, not links to other articles. You can view incoming links by clicking what links here, in the case of Iroquois Handicap, [1] there still are no incoming links from other articles. --W.marsh 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Re: Ben Ali Stakes. I believe this was not named for James Ben Ali Haggin, but for his horse Ben Ali who won the 1886 Kentucky Derby. You gave no reference in this article so would you please provide your source so this can be verified as correct. Also, you need to insert references in many of your other articles. Thanx. Handicapper 17:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just found an error in the Ben Ali Stakes. Haggin, did not breed Firenzi. Also in the Ben Ali Stakes article you created this link:

The greatest runner he bred himself was Personal Ensign Handicap|Firenzi.

These phony links cause others much work and often means that when an article is eventually created (such as I'm doing for Hall of Famer Firenzi/Firenze), that it may never be found. Handicapper 17:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. However, at Ben Ali Stakes you should do a proper source with a link to the Keeneland web page. Also with regards to editing, you frequently link names very selectively, leaving out some very important ones. While Wikipedia has no real policy on this, my guideline for linking is if they are a Champion in racing or a Champion broodmare or sire, a Classic race winner, and of course a HofF inductee. As to Firenze's breeder, your source is mistaken, probably because they didn't check the dates. Swigert bred Firenze in 1884 at his Elmendorf stud and sold her to JAB Haggin who raced her and stood her as a broodmare. Elmendorf's entire bloodstock was dispersed in 1891 and the property sold to C.J. Enright who in turn sold it to JAB Haggin in 1897. As such, your source didn't do due diligence and only looked at 1) Haggin owned Firenze who was bred at Elmendorf, and 2) Haggin owned Elmendorf. Thanx. Handicapper 16:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a few other suggestions for editing. I see you've been told more than once about the "tone" of your writing. It is important because your sincere effort will be in vain as sooner or late it will either be deleted or reworded to be encyclopedic. As to images you have used such as Image:Imp EthelbertOne.jpg, you need to give your source plus, copyright law means it is not whether the image is 100 years old but it is 100 years from the painter/photographer's death date. Too, I suggest doing an infobox for Imp etc. even though a little difficult. Again, if you don't do it, someone else will. Thanx again. Handicapper 16:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom, Great Britain or British English by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 00:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallant Man

No problem, I was just removing the most egregious bits before I nominated the article for featuring in DYK. Provided it remains fairly neutral, it should end up on the Main Page within a week. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it was just that the tone seemed in parts to be "overly flattering". And nope, prior to seeing the article on Special:Newpages I'd never heard of the horse. I'm just a fan of seeing articles in a decent state, with a fair chunk of referenced text right out of the gate. Not to mention that the 1957 Derby cockup'll make for a nice hook. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On November 26, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gallant Man, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

GeeJo kindly nominated this article for DYK. Feel free to self-nominate in the furture, the majority of articles are self-nominated. Well done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

On November 28, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kingston (horse), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks again. GeeJo was the nom again as well.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)