User talk:Bole2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Bole2, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dyslexia

Tom Cruise claims he no longer has dyslexia, as the article points out. --Yamla 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not add this category to any more articles unless the article itself specifically makes reference or unless you provide a reliable citation. --Yamla 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Don Hutson

That section in the Don Hutson is unsourced per WP:CITE and violates WP:NOR as well. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's from a view of the fans, not a good source. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the two other links you gave me barely talk about Rice, and the second source not really creible also as it's an opinion. Better off to leave it removed. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons fac

I noticed you nominated The Simpsons recently for featured status, but you had forgoten to archive the old nomination, and begin a new one.

According to "Nomination procedure" to archive anyone can follow this steps:

If the article you are submitting has had a previous FAC nomination, use the Move button to archive the previous FAC discussion. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1. Remember to change the old {{facfailed}} template on the talk page to {{facfailed|Television/archive1}}.

This steps are featured on the page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and are a general guideline for all wikipedians. So can I ask you kindly to archive the old nomination and start a new one? - Tutmosis 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leeds United A.F.C.

The references you requested have all been put in the Leeds article, I have been meaning for a while to further reference the article but haven't got round to it yet. --Chappy84 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing content from Leeds United A.F.C.

Hello! I noticed you recently removed a large amount of text from Leeds United A.F.C.. Since your edit summary was "changed song title," I assumed this was accidental and reincluded the text, but please either revert my change or let me know if I was wrong about this. If I was wrong in reverting, you might be able to avoid this happening again in the future by leaving a more precise edit summary. Thanks, Dar-Ape 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, then! I see that you've contributed a great deal to this article, so I trust you've fixed things up. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Dar-Ape 16:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leeds United Trivia

Speak to Qwghlm about it. He asked me to get rid of it. Bole2 20:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Qwghlm only made a suggestion, and not mandatory nor to you. As I have stated, many pages that have reached featured article status contain trivia sections. Also the information on marching on together which I updated, and you keep on reverting, is infact correct. Leeds! Leeds! Leeds! (Marching On Together) was the B-side to "Leeds United" as the information on Marching On Together states and this is taken from many leeds fan sites available on the internet if you wish to find it. Chappy84 20:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Has Qwghlm confirmed this with you? You are correct about the snong title. But would it not be better to Wikify it than to stick a main article link in the middle of a section. And as said before a triva section seems very uncyclopedia. If you'd like to keep the fact in the aricle you could sick them into an existing section. Bole2 20:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The only place he has made comments on it at the Peer Review at the top of his comment it says :
Some suggestions:
that's where that came from.
As for the song, the link to main article is there so people can find out more information on the song. If you want to change that to just the song title Leeds Leeds Leeds linked, feel free to. Chappy84 21:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I've dropped a note on Chappy84's page and also done some more PR work on the LUAFC article. The article's been improved a fair bit, but it still needs some citations. However the biggest obstacle to GA right now is the quality of the prose - as well as the odd spelling error a lot of it just doesn't flow very well, in my opinion - too many filler words and repetitions. Tighten that, get it more into summary style, and you'll have a much better article. Qwghlm 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chelsea F.C.

Hi. Some good work with the FA. I think the part about copyrighting the crest may have to go. I know copyright was one of Bates' reasons for changing it, but I can't find a reference anywhere. SteveO 22:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Haloflag.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Haloflag.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damon Hill

Are you personally concerned with the factual accuracy, POV, or anything else from WP:WIAFA for the Damon Hill page? If not, perhaps we can hold off on its review; the FAR page is a little backlogged and if the person doing the complaining is not likely to show there may not be any point in it for now. Marskell 15:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another editor removed it. I would suggest waiting a while to see if any specific issues are raised regarding it. The article looked fine to me and others WP:FAR talk. Marskell 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket World Cup

I did really get what you ment on your objection so can you please let me know. What did you mean by "Tournament and Media coverage sections need exspanding." like in - expand it with what other info were you looking for? because the tournament explains it as much as anyone can, i think. also "The "Performance of teams" section looks a bit odd stuck between two tables." can you please point out whats wrong with it so we can fix it. and please do point out original research too. thank you again for helping--Thugchildz

thanks, well I think your objections have addressed with the exception of moveing the table because if you look at Fifa_world_cup#Results its the same and its FA so please strike out you objection and comments (with <del>...</del>).--Thugchildz
sorry wrong suggestion but to let you know you objections have been addressed and it recommanded that you cross the ones you think is addressed--Thugchildz
Could you plese provide examples of Original Research and just confirm whether you think Media Coverage still needs to be expaned? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

can you strike out your oppose on the top?--Thugchildz

[edit] Monaco Grand Prix

Just a passing thought, but it would probably be a good idea to drop a note at the WP:F1 talk page mentioning that Monaco Grand Prix is a Featured Article candidate at the moment. That gives the community a chance to get their views in. Might be an idea to mention it to those who did most of the work on getting it to GA. That's me (done!), Readro, Alexj2002, and Skully Collins, although others certainly contributed as well. 4u1e 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monaco Grand Prix

Why did you undo all the edits I made to the Monaco winners table? The background is pink, so why not say pink instead of "dark"? And you have reinstated all the incorrectly sized flags as well. In particular, what is wron with multiple links? You are making the assumption that someone would be reading the table from top to bottom instead of just trying to find a single winner entry. Multiple links is far easier to use, looks better, and is in line with convention used in the vast majority of other grand prix and formula one articles. So why do it? Pyrope 17:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My question to you was "why are multiple links in a table wrong"? You haven't answered this yet. From what I can see, multiple links are by far and away the preferrable option because:
  1. They allow easier navigation if you are using the table to find a specific year's winner.
  2. They follow the convention used in the majority of other F1/GP tables.
  3. They are far easier on the eye.
What' your reasoning? Pyrope 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That's still not a reason. So why? Pyrope 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
A guideline is not a reason. For a start it's only a guide, and secondly a guideline is the result of reasoning, not a reason in itself. In any case, as I understand the links guides they relate to the use of wikilinks in blocks of discursive text, not in tabulated data. I fully support the reasoning in text situations, as most text is read in a linear fasion, from start to finish. In these cases, all you need to link is the first instance of a noun, and any more clutters the text making it hard to read. Tables are very rarely "read" at all, and are certainly not used in the same way as a block of text, so having a noun linked wherever it occurs makes sense. I have given you my reasons why I think that multiple links in tables are a good idea. So, why do you think otherwise? Pyrope 20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You remember right, but as I mentioned above, the guide is talking about text, not tables. I'm not in the business of proving people right or wrong, I prefer to try and follow the wikipedia ethos of doing things collaboratively. The reason I didn't rv your changes without asking is that I'd prefer to understand your point of view. Pyrope 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the effort of asking the help desk. They seem to be hedging their bets a little though, and they still don't seem to be thinking about how people use reference tables. If it is ok with you, I will change it back. Pyrope 11:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Leedsunitedbadge2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Leedsunitedbadge2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Edits to FA candidate, West Indian cricket team in England in 1988

Hi. In this diff ([1]) you wikilinked dates. In our peer review, we were told to unwikilink all the dates except those in the top info box. Which is correct? --Dweller 10:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Indian cricket team in England in 1988

Hi. Thanks for your comment in the FA discussion for the above article. The whole itinerary for their tour is here, there were several matches against county teams (nine, I think) - each match is mentioned within the article. Perhaps you could consider supporting the elevation of this article to featured status. If you have any further questions about the article, don't hesitate to get in touch. Cheers! The Rambling Man 07:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Collingwood

Hi, thanks again for your comments in our next FA discussion, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Collingwood. Your primary concern seemed to be the blank columns and/or rows in the stats tables at the bottom. I've addressed that now by removing them, leaving only a slightly thicker line in order to separate the individual statistics from their totals. Hopefully this covers your concerns. If you have any more comments, please do add them to the discussion, or contact me on my talk page. All the best. The Rambling Man 08:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Both sections you have concerns over have been expanded now. The Rambling Man 13:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not keep reverting Colly's article to have a solid thick black line separating the overalls from the individual rows, it looks awful. The light grey separation is much more appealing, and is useful to show the difference between the rows and the totals. Also, could you try to use edit summaries so that we can see what changes you've made to the article please? Thanks. The Rambling Man 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Night.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Night.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Featured articles that have not been Today's featured article

You do know that it's trivially easy to get wikipedia:featured articles to bold the used ones, right? That way, you don't have to spend the time and energy maintain a separate page like the one above. Just add:

span.has_been_on_main_page{ font-weight: bold; }

to user:Bole2/monobook.css Raul654 07:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, I see you have already done that, so I guess you are aware. Then, why the separate page? Raul654 07:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan FAC

The Michael Jordan FAC has been re-listed (which was probably a good idea). Thought you'd like to know, here's a quick link. Quadzilla99 17:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ipswich Town F.C.

Hi. I've removed the tag you placed here ([2]) as the claim is sourced and developed further in the article. Lead sections are supposed to be a microcosm of the content of the rest of the article. --Dweller 08:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to you on my talk page and now at the FAC page as well. There is no need to edit war, by rereverting. Please discuss at the FAC page. --Dweller 12:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've added some information to address your concerns on the nom page for Ipswich Town. I believe both Dweller's and my explanation should hopefully meet your minor oppose and would ask you to re-consider. After all, the article's FA nom is based on that of Arsenal F.C., a well-established featured article, and in the lead there are no citations and information that is expanded upon within the main body of the text, just like the Ipswich page. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read through the article and provide your thoughts. All the best, The Rambling Man 17:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps a compromise, I've added a citation to the statistic you have noted. Maybe this is sufficient to meet your concerns? Cheers. The Rambling Man 19:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Buc, can you have another look at the Ipswich Town F.C. article to see if the citation you requested is okay? And then, if you'd like, could you remove your oppose from the FAC review? Thanks very much. The Rambling Man 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Any chance you could spare one minute to look at the citation you requested in the lead of the ITFC article? Thanks. The Rambling Man 09:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/l/User_talk%7EBole2_5c7b.html"