This 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.

Please note, Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1 Fifelfoo ( talk) 14:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been bringing the AC, 33rd AC & the Deed up to date.

The AC had the 33rd legal time line there in point form so it was out front in the AC vs relying on people going to the 33rd AC page or having to do a lot of reading in the AC page to find out there is a major legal issue taking place in AC history...now over 18 mths worth.

I'm new at Wikipedia so I would like to understand how people can work together vs ending up in a copy & paste battle over content importance & placement.

Cheers, Vanburner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanburner ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Neil, as I mentioned in my note on SA, I noticed that the America's Cup article and the America's Cup (33rd edition) article had essentially the same amount of detail. The Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests that articles use "summary style", i.e. when there are sub-articles having more detail, the main article should summarize the main points leaving interested readers to find more detail in the sub article. Do you feel I have omitted anything important in the main article summary?

Also, I noticed your edit of the Deed of Gift article, incorporating all the text including interpretive resolutions. I'm uncomfortable including all of this detail when there is a perfectly good external link to exactly the same thing. I think the Wiki article should tell you what the Deed of Gift is, comment on salient points and history and leave the details in the external link.

Anyway, it's good to see that people who know what they are talking about are improving these articles. They need help!

We ought to start a "BMW Oracle Racing 90" article and use some public domain pix taken in Anacortes.-- Paul ( talk) 18:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

-

Paul, Thanks for reply in SA & I repsonded there before here.

"Do you feel I have omitted anything important in the main article summary?" -- It is not an easy read & has no relation to the time line ie: the date for oral arguments is hidden in the para

"I'm uncomfortable including all of this detail when there is a perfectly good external link to exactly the same thing." -- I disagree. The IR's are part of the Deed where clarifications & amendments take place. It could maybe be org'ed differently but you would know more how to. Also, if the A3 site disappears where will one source the IR's. It would be nice is someone in the AC community would post the Deed & it's items completely but they don't

"We ought to start a "BMW Oracle Racing 90" article and use some public domain pix taken in Anacortes" -- I can org that as I'm part of the SAYC AC web team & comm w/ the Anacortes SA gang. Do you want to start the page?

The section I rewrote should be a lot easier to read than what was there before, as it is now in narrative form and less that one-half as long as the prior version. I added a lead-in sentence for folks who want to know what the status is without reading a few paragraphs.

As to the Deed of Gift article, I'm not only objecting to including the text of the interpretive resolutions, I'm objecting to including the text of the Deed of Gift. An encyclopedia article is supposed to explain things, not dump things on people. For instance, the article on the Magna Carta is over 11,000 words in length, but it doesn't include the text of the Magna Carta. The text is referenced through an external link, just as the full Deed of Gift text was available through an external link before (and after) your additions. The Deed of Gift article should explain what it is, where it came from, when it was changed, by whom and why, and its central role in several controversial America's Cup challenges, but it should not contain the text of the Deed of Gift.-- Paul ( talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the Deed of Gift text was already linked to Wikiksource at the bottom of the Deed of Gift article. I moved all of the IRs to the Wikisource page, and removed all of the text from the Deed of Gift page.-- Paul ( talk) 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've created an article for BMW ORACLE Racing 90. If you'd can get a photo and add it, that would be super. It is just a stub article for now, so feel free to improve it.-- Paul ( talk) 00:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

good job on the AC table, much improved. Nuttyrave ( talk) 12:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, and thank you for your great contributions and help. -- Paul ( talk) 12:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I added a short section on litigation to the main article, while being fully aware that a more detailed treatment is contained in the 33rd America's Cup. I see that you have deleted it, arguing that the details can be found in 33rd America's Cup. True, but I think that a summary belongs in the main article, especially since the main article does mention the litigation with respect to the previous DoG match. Maybe the topic does not deserve a new section, but we could include the para that I added (and you deleted) in the section on the future?-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The 33rd America's Cup hasn't even happened yet. Until it does, I think anything more than a sentence or two is too much. The AC article needs a LOT of work. It suffers from WP:recentism and undue weight given recent events. Why add a paragraph about AC33 which is still in the future, when there are only two paragraphs covering the first 16 challenges and 100 years of the event? I did change the wording of the paragraph on "The future" to have an obvious link to the AC33 article. I think that is sufficient. You seem to be an AC fan. If you'd like to stick around and help bring the article up to snuff, it would be appreciated. There's a lot to do.-- Paul ( talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul, thank you for your clear explanation. I accept your point of view. Yes, am an AC fan, but right now I'm concentrating on the litigation (as you can tell) because that overlaps another one of my hobbies, disputes and dispute resolution. I will however keep your invitation in mind and see whether I can contribute to other parts of the article.-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 10:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I may seem intrusive, because this is not my talk page, please bear with me as I am on a roll with this America's Cup thing! I think only a mention should be made of the upcoming 33rd AC match on the main article, (there is one at the end of the history table). That way there is focus point for the news. Right now the challenger of record is BOR, but is there going to be a challenger selection series? The date set in court is february 2010, but the court directives are not hitting the right note with all the parties. You explain, but explain it in one place and we can all sleep tight. just my two cents opinion. Thanks for contributing! Nuttyrave ( talk) 17:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you've been doing a lot to improve the page. Maybe we could all agree if I add a one-paragraph summary, pointing to the main discussion of the mess?-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 13:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul, thank you very much for your clarification of Kornreich's clarification of her earlier decision on changing rules. I knew that I had to add something about that, but had not yet decided how to word it. When I saw Cory Friedman's post this morning, I knew that that was the right wording. So I was pleased to see that you had added that before I was able to get around to it.-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 11:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Paul, ref your update re most controversial AC "until recently" - would this not be better to say something like "........ until the 33rd edition....." with a link to 2010 America's Cup? Appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks Boatman ( talk) 09:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea & I see that Gautier has already implemented it.-- Paul ( talk) 16:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul, thank you for having spotted and corrected my mistakes re the hydroplanes that will be used by Alinghi. I had indeed misread both press releases (I skimmed them too quickly) and had also misread the Notice of Race. I thought that real-time weather telemetry was allowed, but it is not. Consistent with RSS 41, the wind info from the hydroplanes can be transmitted only prior to the start. So the item is not particularly interesting and should not be included at this stage. Thanks again.-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 11:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. There have been so many strange things about this AC cycle, that your assumption was not obviously incorrect. But as you point out, RRS 41 about outside help does shoot this down. It's hard to believe that in a little more than three weeks we will have a good idea who is likely to be the winner! -- Paul ( talk) 15:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, depending on who you talk to, one or the other side is heavily favored. If Alinghi wins, Oracle will surely continue court proceedings and the final winner won't be known until the appeals process is over, same as Mercury Bay. I don't know whether Alinghi would initiate post-competition litigation if it loses. We will see. Separately, there have been postings during the past 2 days regarding how on why the talks failed. Not surprisingly, each side is blaming the other. I figure that this sort of squabbling is not worth summarizing in the article. Please let me know if you feel otherwise and I will add a sentence or two. On a personal note, I see that you are based in San Francisco. I lived there in the late 50's, in the Marina District.-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 12:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Glad to see somebody else besides me, Tholzel, and some IPs clearly corresponding to one person are involved recently at George Mallory. I don't know if you've noticed, but the talk page has turned to mush, due to near-constant edits by the IP, which started with some speculation by IP regarding cameras, and has become incomprehensible as a result (check the history). I'm about to leave the page for fear that I'm going to be misunderstood there, as I believe has already occurred (Tholzel somehow now thinks I'm arguing with him, too). How do you get an IP to sign his own posts, leave them alone, and leave the posts of others alone? If you have time and are still bored, some help would be appreciated. Steveozone ( talk) 03:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate your comments on Talk:Sailing_faster_than_the_wind#Prillen.27s_edit_of_23_February_2010.-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 15:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Paul, re your edits on the 2007 AC page, would you mind going back and doing similar ones to the previous Cups - I dont mind which way they are listed as long as they are consistent! Mattlore ( talk) 01:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed all of the info boxes for the sub articles, but there is still a lot of work to do. I think the 1987 article is a good template in that it doesn't mix up the Challenger Selection Series with the America's Cup. All of the articles need cleaning up to make clear what is a yacht club, what is a boat, and what is a team/owner.-- Paul ( talk) 02:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Paul, In the article 1962 America's Cup there are two paras with descriptions of Weatherly and Gretel. There is some way to link from one article to a paragraph of another article (as opposed to linking to the full article). I cannot work out how to do this. Do you know how as it would complete several missing links from other AC related articles. Thanks, Boatman ( talk) 09:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You can link to a section in an article like this: Weatherly. However, there is enough info on both Weatherly and Gretel at the AC-Cyclopaedia site linked in the External Links section of the 1962 article to make dedicated articles for both of the boats.-- Paul ( talk) 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paul, A big well done for your America's Cup related work which has made a big difference in accurately capturing all the info and making the articles very readable and undestandable.

Also I want to review the use of meter versus metre in the 12 meter/metre related articles. We are into an area of differences in national spelling of words ie US english versus british english. The ISAF call the class the 12-metre class. Similarly for 5.5 metre, 6 metre etc The class association refer to their class as a 12-metre similarly for the other metre boats. So I would like to make a proposal that we move to accuracy and consistency in all 'metre boat' related articles to evolve articles to 'metre', probably with a note in the article talk page to explain.

A good analogy in wiki relates to naval ranks where in Germany a Captain is a Kapitan hence articles refering to a german captain are consitantly Kapitan XXXXXX and articles refering to a US captain are Captain XXXXXX even if written by a german in germany for the english wiki. Hence the rank of the person in the article does not revert to the nationality of the author or editor of the article. (sorry to ramble on so much but I am sure you get my point).

Are you OK with the above?? Boatman ( talk) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As you say, in the U.S. "meter" is the preferred spelling and "metre" looks very strange, plus American websites tend to refer to these boats as 12-Meter yachts. But, since the official name of the class is 12-metre, I'm okay with referring to the class name with the "re" spelling. I would like to retain the American spelling when referring to length. Is that okay?-- Paul ( talk) 17:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect solution. Boatman ( talk) 18:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As is clear from the banner and the talkpage, this article is under construction. Decisions about images are still being taken, and it is likely that some, e.g. Toscanini (who succeeded Mahler in New York) and Hugo Wolf (his Conservatory buddy), won't make the cut. Decisions on this and other matters are best made when the draft is complete and in reviewable form. I see you have pre-empted consideration by deleting Toscanini, justifying this in your edit summary. Edit summaries should not be used in this way - you should use the talk page to make your point, which is a fair one, rather than making pre-emptive decisions. Thank you. Brianboulton ( talk) 08:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Re this:

I couldn't agree more. Out there in the real world, nobody but French people attend 'premières'; nor do Anglo actors perform 'rôles'; nor does anyone eat at a 'café'; nor do they use words like 'whilst' or 'amongst'. But here, they seem to feel they have to do these things. I don't know where such notions come from. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is a sign of ostentatious (but false) sophistication, I think.-- Paul ( talk) 20:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see we're going to get on famously, Paul.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you don't mind me asking, but what happened here? Thanks. —  The Earwig  ^(talk) 21:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul: since I greatly respect your wisdom and experience as a Wikipedia editor, I wonder whether you would be willing to comment on the dispute at Talk:Robin_Hood_(2010_film)#Historical_inaccuracies.-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 06:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul, another skeptic has seriously modified the article on sailing faster than the wind. This is one more person who asserts, without evidence, that downwind VMG cannot exceed wind speed. Instead of just posting doubts to the discussion page, he has significantly modified the article. I reverted the edits, which were not supported by any citations. But he has now reverted them back. Isn't this an editing war that should be avoided? Can you please suggest how to proceed? Pleasee see talk:sailing_faster_than_the_wind#reversions. Thanks.-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 12:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed Mahler for Today's Featured Article for 7 July, his 150th birthday. Any support for this would be very welcome. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Based upon your edit summary, it appears that you inadvertently reverted my edit which restored "human rights activist" (taken out earlier this morning by another user). Drrll ( talk) 13:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to remove the "Human Rights" attribution from the article.-- Paul ( talk) 13:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you really, seriously, going to insist the source tags remain on the outcomes and secret ingredients for each battle, when you know perfectly well that the broadcast of the time sourced them, and that Wikipedia considers that reliable? It's utterly and completely different than mass adding scores, some as much as four years old, long after broadcast. Those scores need sources. The rest doesn't, and use of those tags for retaliatory purposes rises to the level of vandalism. Drmargi ( talk) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to insist on cites for the outcomes and secret ingredients, because I believe all of the winner/losers and secret ingredients in the article to be true, and I have no reason to dispute their accuracy (why would anyone fabricate them?) However, the veracity of those data points is no different than the presumed truthfulness of detailed scores recently added to the article. Since I haven't watched every episode, I have to take editors' word for it that the secret ingredients and the winners are correct. For the same reason, you should accept that the scores are correct 1) because there is no reason to fabricate them, and 2) you can easily spot check a few scores (I did) from the sources provided by User:Chefsuffolk. There really is no reason to drag out this disagreement any further, and I consider it finished. Shake?-- Paul ( talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. EyeSerene ^talk 19:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's revisit the cited ranking. I was tired and misunderstood the FBI Advice Against Ranking - they were talking about ranking law enforcement agency performance, not per capita city rankings. So the last sentence and cite aren't OR.-- Lexein ( talk) 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But the current reference is from "CQPress" and doesn't explain where the "Score" comes from or how it is calculated. If the ranking statement goes back in, it would be nice if we could find a 3rd party who quotes it instead of using this reference as a cite. Let's discuss further on the Talk page.-- Paul ( talk) 20:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I've already added sources indicating that there were already Chinese people in the area by the 1840s. Ah Toy had worked the streets as a prostitute during the 1840s, and by 1850 owned and operated 2 brothels of her own. The area was most likely laid out prior to that time. 2 of the sources I've included are both excellent books, incl. one about life in Chinatown betw. 1840-1950. Regards, MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.115.155.107 ( talk) 18:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Paul.h. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Pier 26 San Francisco Embarcadro October 2010.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor ( talk) 04:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Paul, do you mind making this point also on the editor's talk page? They are making way too many such changes. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 04:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been some minute changes to Option #1. Please view at Talk:Sarah Palin. Thank you Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! My name is Annie Lin - I'm the Campus Team Coordinator at the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm contacting you because you're listed as a resident of San Francisco, and we're currently looking for a friendly Wikipedian to teach students in a University of San Francisco class how to use/edit Wikipedia. This is a role titled the "Wikipedia Campus Ambassador," and you'll basically be doing in-class presentations about Wikipedia, running Wikipedia labs/workshops, and in general providing face-to-face Wikipedia help for the professor and the students in the class. The time commitment is about 3-5 hours a week (with variations throughout the semester), and for this particular University of San Francisco class, most of the workload will be between March and May.

Please let me know if you're interested!

Thanks. Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) ( talk) 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am interested, but must decline unless this is a night class. Unfortunately, I have a real job. -- Paul ( talk) 20:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I made the mistake of basing my reversion on your edit summary rather than your edit. Owen ( talk) 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Owen. And thank you for taking the time to explain. Such courtesy is rare, but appreciated!-- Paul ( talk) 20:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You removed the "Sister Cities" section at "San Francisco". I am new to wiki-editing. Could you please tell me why that section was removed? Vikram8 ( talk) 02:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring San Francisco (estimated annual readership: 2,710,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing San Francisco to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not read that in any of the media regarding the notice, do you have a ref? talk→  WPPilot  17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's in the protocol, and mentioned in this article... "The transition to a new Challenger of Record is expected to be a carefully managed process as prescribed by the Protocol. 'We have given 90 day's notice of our intention to withdraw as we are required to do under the Protocol,' says Murray. Given that there is either a backup Challenge believed to be from a Canadian club or either Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (Artemis Racing - SWE) or Yacht Club Italiano (Luna Rossa - ITA), the new Challenger of Record will be named by the Defender, Golden Gate Yacht Club. " http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Americas-Cup:-Iain-Murray-explains-reasons-for-Australian-withdrawal/124684 -- Paul ( talk) 17:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Great then we should include it in the wiki, if you have not already put that in as a ref. Thanks! talk→  WPPilot  23:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What did you do to the entire section regarding the challenge? It looks like you removed it all as well as any ref to the AU challenge? It is now part of the history of the cup and should have remained. Wikipedia is not a current event encyclopedia and historical issues such as that should remain intact. talk→  WPPilot  23:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved the section on the 2017 AC35 to it's own article in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. The AC35 challenge isn't historical yet, it is topical and does not belong in the main AC article. There are several links in the AC article to the AC35 material. An article on AC35/2017 is the right place for those details. -- Paul ( talk) 02:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)