User talk:Huadpe

I recently wiped this page because there had been no changes in a very long time, and the content here wasn't relevant anymore.

If you have a question, comment, concern, or other statement to make regarding an edit or talkpage comment of mine, feel free to post to here, and I'll do my best to get back to you.

Huadpe (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia: Supply & Demand Article
Hi Huadpe! I've seen your message at the talk page of the Spoken Wikipedia project, and I'm very willing to review / help with the recording you've uploaded. I haven't yet listened to it, but I should be able to get to it this Sunday. My review "style" is to be pretty in-depth, in order to give you the maximum information on where to improve and where you've done well, so please don't take it personally if it turns into a long list of corrections–it just means I'm being very, very picky! Let me know if you'd prefer another reviewer though, and I can point a project member to your message. Cheers! Maedin \talk 06:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a detailed review. I'd like if you would be able to prioritize the critique though.  E.g., things which are "must fix," things which "should be fixed but aren't as critical," and "tips for next time." Also, I am editing this using GarageBand for Mac, and converting the .m4a to .ogg with Switch.  If there are quality issues with the encoding there, I would appreciate any technical tips or software recommendations to help. Huadpe (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maedin beat me to it! :) I'll leave some comments as well later today.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  10:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll fight over it, lol! But, Hassocks does have more experience, and if supply and demand takes him back to his university days, then he has one up on me!  I'll wait and see what Hassocks has to say about the recording, and I may add additional comments, :)  Maedin \talk 13:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

←Indeed, I have briefly been reminded of circa October 1999, when by day I would listen to a leather jacket-wearing Professor lecturing about this very topic, and by night I would eat pizza and try to chat up the nice girl in Room 122. Good... anyway, I have listened to the recording twice: once in the way that a casual user would—all the way through while doing something else at the same time—and once reading the article at the same time, pausing and making notes. I'll make some general points which apply to the whole recording, and some specific points in respect of the first 4 sections, which takes us to about halfway. Similar specific points apply at various times during the second half of the recording; Maedin may wish to make specific reference to these.


 * Background noise is a major problem at some points. Some screaming girls (?) make a few appearances in the first 3 minutes or so, and pop up again later.  There are also bits of what appears to be traffic noise, notably during the backward bending supply curve section.  In contrast, other parts of the recording are nice and quiet in the background.  Some general tips: close all windows and doors when recording, and if some noise does occur mid-recording, pause briefly and speak the affected sentence again.
 * I've analysed the sound file using Audacity, a program I also use to edit and enhance my spoken files. Good news: the volume is at a perfect level: high without being clipped at any point.  The background noise—not just the occasional bits mentioned above, but the ambient "white noise" during sections when you aren't speaking—could do with being reduced, which can be done in any editing program.  I'm not familiar with GarageBand, but looking at the Wikipedia article, it seems to have similar editing features to Audacity.  You seem to have enhanced and normalised the audio level very well.
 * Your inflection is excellent; it makes the recording more interesting to listen to and provides effective emphasis. I like to think of the use of inflection as being the audio equivalent of hand gestures, head nods and so on.
 * Your treatment of graph captions is generally good—informative without being intrusive. I tend towards one extreme in spoken articles—I never read any image or graph caption—while Maedin prefers to give quite a full "treatment", and it's really down to personal preference.  I think that in a technical article like this, with lots of graphs which are referred to in the text, reading captions in full is highly beneficial.
 * Your enunciation can sometimes be a bit unclear because your speech is fast. Some sentences "tail off".
 * Similarly, larger gaps between sentences and between paragraphs would be preferable. I go for slightly less than second between sentences, about 1.5 seconds between paragraphs and at least 2 seconds between section headings.  This can be closely (although tediously!) controlled when editing the file.
 * There are some misreads and hesitations, which is fine as they can be edited out. Always be sure to edit out any such glitches, though: even small hesitations or corrections are quite noticeable to a listener.  Reading the article through (visually, without narrating) before starting the narration can reduce these, as you know what's coming.  Having said that, I do sometimes narrate articles "on the fly" without having given them more than a quick glance over beforehand!  Again, it's personal preference really.
 * The recording has been made in stereo, making it larger than necessary; for voice recordings, the quality of a mono file is almost the same. It's easy to convert stereo to mono in Audacity; I expect there's a way of doing it in GarageBand.  Let me know if there isn't.

Specific bits and pieces:


 * The background noise (screams and suchlike) are loudest and most frequent in the first 2-3 minutes. Unfortunately these would be impossible to edit out fully.
 * Section headings are read inconsistently. The format "Section Number.  Section Name." is best, I feel.
 * The first graph caption is not quite distinct enough from the surrounding text. Others are well done though—for example at 02:49, saying "The figure is described as:" is good.
 * Most technical terms are well enunciated (e.g. "perfect competition" at 01:42, "law of supply" at 01:56, "law of demand" at 02:15, "diseconomies of scale" at 03:56), but some could be clearer (e.g. "ceteris paribus", 02:09). This is particularly important in a technical article like this, which introduces lots of concepts which may be unfamiliar to the listener.
 * The final sentence of section 1 (03:18-03:25) has several problems. Very rapid and a bit unclear as a result; "surplus" unclearly pronounced; last two words read as "is released", and corrected after a pause.
 * A misread causes a change of meaning from 03:58 (second paragraph of Section 2): should be read as "For a given firm in a perfectly competitive industry, if it is more profitable to produce than to not produce, profit is maximized by producing just enough...". It has been read as "For a given firm in a perfectly competitive industry, it is more profitable to produce than to not produce.  Profit is maximized by producing just enough...".  I always listen back to my raw recordings while reading the text in order to pick up things like this, which are easy to do.
 * Traffic noise very noticeable in the backward-bending supply curve bit, and the graph caption is rushed and unclear.
 * At 05:06, the "after the skyrocketing price of oil caused by the 1973 oil crisis" clause is rushed and has mistakes.
 * The child labour paragraph sounds like it has been read on the fly without being checked over first. Two banging noises as well.
 * At 06:23, a slight change of meaning: "Just as the supply curves reflect marginal cost curves" read as "Just as the supply curve reflects marginal costs curves".
 * Around 06:54: "Two different hypothetical types of goods with upward-sloping demand curves are a Giffen good..." comes out as "Two different types of goods with upper ... hypothetically upward-sloping demand curves".
 * Pronunciation: "Veblen" has been read as "Velben". This is the only mispronunciation I noticed, though.
 * At 07:22, wrong emphasis in "Comparative statics of such a shift traces the effects from the initial equilibrium to the new equilibrium."
 * 08:07–08:10: big gap (easy to edit out though).
 * Second half of first paragraph of section 4.1 is confusing for the listener because of wrong emphasis, fast pace and some hesitations.
 * At around 10:08: "the equilibrium price will increase" is read as "the equilibrium price will decrease", then hurriedly corrected.

As I say, many of the above can be edited out, although if the result sounds too choppy it may be better to re-record the sentence or section. This is a good and encouraging first effort. I'm away for 6 days now, so I'll leave Maedin to make extra comments and to recommend which are the most pressing concerns and which are more minor. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  21:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made the changed listed in the detail section. The only major thing I haven't changed is the time between sentences, paragraphs, and sentences.  My pace of speaking does not coalesce well with the gaps you proposed, and I do not have the ability to in a reasonable amount of time add breaks of those time lengths.  I will take gaps into consideration in future recordings, but my cadence is what it is, and I am much less likely to make errors when not trying to fight it. Should I upload this as a replacement of the old file, or as a new file altogether?Huadpe (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for delay in replying, caused by being away from home) That's fair enough. It's certainly more important to speak naturally and in a way that suits you.  I suggest uploading as a replacement of the original.  Look forward to hearing the new version.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Giant Pool of Money
A tag has been placed on The Giant Pool of Money requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. MrNerdHair (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Post-election edit war syndrome
Thanks. Good, very smart changes; I'm very happy with them. I made a couple of other minor edits just now, which mainly consisted of splitting the "justification" section up: the part that was a broad assessment of the rationale behind the proposal, I moved up to the introduction, and the part that addressed local representatives I turned into a new subsection. To be honest, I more or less stopped paying much attention to it after I moved it from a personal subpage into policyspace, but thanks so much for taking an interest and for letting me know about your changes. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wild Mercury Sound
Not all my references are user created websites such as online music sites - amazing tunes and iTunes music store. As I am just a fan of the band, the information is limited, but it is already being discussed on their Facebook fan site and group. Hope this helps. Cotty21 (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll take a look at them in a minute. Please stop removing the speedy delete tag from the top.  I am re-adding it.  If you remove it again, you will be reported for vandalism. Huadpe (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Their current manager Darren Brooker in conjunction with destiny management (of Franz Ferdinand (band)) the culture there sister band listed as well as them on major music retail sites. Cotty21 (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The listings on major music sites aren't in the citations. Please add the citations if they exist.  Wikipedia requires that you verify the content in articles, not just assert it. Huadpe (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Urban Initiatives
I follow that the tone of this article was a little spammy, and the burden should be on the creator to give some indication of notability, but if these guys are who they say they are, then Wikipedia probably would benefit from having a neutral, sourced article on them. Instead of doing a speedy delete as you suggested, I'm going to WP:AfD this one. Keep up the good work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Roland Schwarzl
I have removed the prod you placed on the above athlete as I believe that competing at the Olympics is the highest level od sport open to an athlete and therefore makes anyone who has competed at the Olympics notable and if that doesn't make omeone notable then surely winning a european championship medal does make a person notable. If you disagree then we always have AFD, if it goes there please can you let me know. Waacstats (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Patent
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have now inserted two three new references to support the paragraph you added (by the way, thanks for this addition!). I am usually suspicious (possibly over-suspicious) when I see external links to commercial web sites. But, you are right, I should have replaced the references directly. Done now. I think the two sources I have added are more neutral. --Edcolins (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Nashville Secondary School
Hi Huadpe! Firstly, thanks for helping out in CSD areas. I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Nashville Secondary School- because: A7 does not apply to schools. If you have any questions or other message, please contact me. Thanks Kingpin13 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mueller State Park
I reformatted a bit (almost all in truth) of what you added to this article. I was in the midst of adding the activites when you added your bit. I would encourage you to look it over real quick and if you feel that more detail is needed please feel free to readd. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just put back the bit about its location. Seems useful to know where it is after all.  Huadpe (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree and amazingly I live quite a bit closer then I thought. I am from Pueblo. :) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sérvulo Gutiérrez
Your speedy nom. According to The Times he's Peru's most celebrated painter. Not that I knew that. I thought you might be interested to find out...  Ty  02:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, seems notable. When I nominated it, all that was there was basic biographical info.  Huadpe (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've put it up for DYK.  Ty  10:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from MIDI to MP3 Converter for Mac
Hello Huadpe, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to MIDI to MP3 Converter for Mac has been removed. It was removed by MissZ with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with MissZ before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current AfD. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Speedy deletion declined: Anita Rachlis
Hello Huadpe. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Anita Rachlis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: has published her work in a scientific journal, use WP:AFD instead if deletion is desired. Thank you.  So Why  06:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Course of a river
Hi. I'm afraid you've made a mistake on the deletion of Course of a river. You prodded it, User:Laavanya Koushik removed the prod, but you then reinstated the prod and also posted a warning notice on her talk page. As I'm sure you know prod notices may be removed at any time and may not be replaced (WP:PROD); your warning was about AfD notices which was not what Laavanya removed.

I do agree that the article needs deletion, and in fact I had already seconded the prod before I realised it had previously been de-prodded. Reverting your re-prodding would make the situation even more confusing than it is, so I have instead put an explanatory note on Laavanya's talk page so she may remove the prod a second time if she wishes. I've also struck out your warning. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Supply and Demand Spoken Wikipedia Article
Hi, just wondering if you are still working on the Spoken Article version of Supply and Demand. If not, I will be removing the article from the list in 7 days. Thanks! Cognate247 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)