User talk:Severo/Archive 2

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics again
Sure, after exams this week, I'll have plenty of time. Don't get too excited though, I ran the article through its paces last summer, and it didn't garner much attention. -AndrewDressel 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox needed
There is discussion about deleting the Infoboxneeded template. I thought you might want to chime in. Timneu22 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good articles
I did a lot of work on History of Milton Keynes to standardise the references, much more than I expected. You might want to look at that to see what's involved. I think it is a GA, except that very few people have contributed. I don't think I can nominate it myself, but I won't stand in your way.

If you have a look at user talk:Concrete Cowboy at about the 23 March 2007, you'll see how Gazman showed me how to run the automatic reviewer tool - the article has to get a clean sheet on that to be even considered for GA. I suggest you do the same as we'll need to work methodically through the snag list. I think it needs Firefox, it is not working for me right now using IE. --Concrete Cowboy 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I think that it is there but the question of "good writing" is always subjective and it depends on what the reviewer likes. They generally give feedback so if it doesn't make GA we know what we have to do to fix it.  After GA, we might even hope to get FA for 40th birthday! --Concrete Cowboy 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Towards getting GA for the main MK article, it is worth studying today's FA, El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda. --Concrete Cowboy 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to work on getting the main MK article to GA, it needs restructuring according to WP:UKCITIES, which is a big job. --Concrete Cowboy 17:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cesc Fàbregas
Thanks for adding the persondata temp on the page, much appreciated. Chensiyuan 11:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Aschleck.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Aschleck.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Not a dog 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jan Janssen
To create a disambiguation page for Jan Janssen, instead of renaming the original Jan Janssen article to Jan Janssen (cyclist), you probably should have created a "Jan Janssen (disambiguation)" page and added a line "For other people named J.J. see..." on top of the original. You've labored to change all the existing links, but the great majority of new links people make to Jan Janssen will be to the cyclist as well and few will check if it links to the right site. Your a cycling buff it seems, but even for non-cyclist people from the Netherlands, where the name is awfully common, "Jan Janssen" means only one person ;-) Afasmit 08:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, however I believe WP:DAB disagrees...
 * A disambiguation page is usually named after the generic topic (eg "Term XYZ"). "Term XYZ (disambiguation)" is not the standardized name for a disambiguation page, and is only used when there is a primary topic with an article at "Term XYZ".

From this, and WP:MOSDAB, I read that names should usually be disambiguated unless there is one clear recognised name worldwide. So, based on policy and guideline, I strongly disagree. Regards, SeveroTC 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that, from a practical point of view, the cyclist is "a primary topic". Despite "Jan Janssen" being such a common name (indeed, it is the Dutch version of John Doe), googling estimates 138,000 hits for "Jan Janssen" and only 87,100 hits when excluding "cyclist" and "tour de france" in a few languages, while 48 of the 53 main wikipedia links are to him (the gymnast, finishing 60th in the 1908 olympics (!), is unlikely to get more than the 5 he has now). No biggie of course. Afasmit 20:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Snelshall Priory
I've been meaning to write Snelshall Priory but never get round to digging out the references. If you have a copy of Markahm, maybe you could do it? Map with date here though there is a standard template we should use. --Concrete Cowboy 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for guessing re the Markham volumes. I wondered why else you would have supplied two identical[?] citations?  You have clearly marked them as different, you have two cites to the first and one to the second.  So I'm still confused. Reason? --Concrete Cowboy 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics - GA Comments
Hi., i left some GA review comments on the article's talk page. Kalyan 20:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry that i missed coming back to the review. Had it in my "to-do" list but somehow forgot. I think that the article is good but lacks one detail that bothers me much. i think the entire article will get simplified when you provide details on how each of the individual forces affect the bicycle. that way, all subsequent actions - balance, turn, tilt is a sum/interaction of these basic forces and thus will be much better to understand. i have made the same comment (in a much concise form) in the article's talk page under the GA comments. --Kalyan 14:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Kewl, take your time. Though it has been some time since we started, i am OK in keeping the GA-hold for atleast one more week so as to give you sufficient time to address the comment. --Kalyan 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Milton Keynes
I think citing an entire section can take quite a while on your part. On hold is something I often do for very minor things, not wholly uncited sections. Alientraveller 18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly was an outstanding issue. Either way, just remember you can always renominate an article whenever you wish. Alientraveller 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Confused me too - is the figure "200,000" he considers uncited? (which is a fair cop - so obvious that I didn't see it).  Or every other sentence in that section?  No matter.  It won't take long to rectify after a trip to the library.  Also, is there any relevant infobox we could use? --Concrete Cowboy 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the other "History of" cities have an infobox, but then again none have GA. What would a generic city history article have? "Founded"? - known in the US and AU, but nowhere else. "City status awarded"? - unique to UK.  "Crest"? All very forced to my mind. --Concrete Cowboy 12:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the section again, I think we have to confess that there is a lot of opinion in it. These are what we have to source independently. --Concrete Cowboy 12:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It'll fail again. There is still too much unsupported opinion. --Concrete Cowboy 12:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we are ok on that count now - the POVs are all gone (and some striking writing with it). The next problem might be to get citations for all the milestone dates, which will be a real pain.  I got the census data from Vision of Britain but the rest comes from all over the place. --Concrete Cowboy 16:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Just[!] a copyedit" - it's a tall order, especially given the advice that we get someone else to do it. I came across an "editors' wikiproject" somewhere - if we could find it again, someone might help. It would be fabulous to get FA before the end of 2007. An tehn of course there is the main Milton Keynes article, we've groomed and curry-combed the History article to within an inch of its life. The MK article is still a fairly scruffy pit pony with a long way to go to get close to GA! --Concrete Cowboy 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Roche
Tried to ensure proper referencing footing to alleged EPO usage - is this now appropriate? Potato eater99 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Severo Potato eater99 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Severo will you take a look at the recent amends on Stephen Roche and let me know how I should respond? Wholesale chopping and particular amends around alleged performance enhancing drug use... Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Potato eater99 (talk • contribs).

david millar
i think he is justifiable as a stage race rider as he has placed well in 1-2 week races. his problem is that he has failed to produce during the grand tours. while i accept that he is a time trial specialist he can often be his team's GC rider in shorter tours (paris-nice 2007 for example) Chisa12345 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * will you stop editing what i have added you annoying little twat. Chisa12345 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sean Kelly
hello Severo, I am also interested in editing cyclist biographies - I tried to change my user name but couldnt so did new account in my bikes name! but anyway the thing is im not sure how far we should go in detailing the biography of Kelly as there are books available, and a more detailed encyclopedia takes the value out of these books perhaps(?), the thing about Kellys early career is all in David Walsh's book Kelly which maybe is very difficult to get new these days but am not sure, what things do you think are relevant and should be added to this biography?; - things such as Kellys Olympic exclusion, stage wins in 78 and 80 or 81 tours, the sean kelly square that was unveiled in his town in 1983 i think, the fact that the year 1984 was a savage one for Kelly, the big parade after his tour of spain win in his town in 1988, riding for PDM 1989 to 1991 ending with the team dropping out of tour and the suspected doping network of this team in this 1991 tour which was investigated in 1997 I think, anyway just some thoughts, Dawesaudax 7 June 2007
 * Severo, thanks for advice, I added more information about Sean Kelly - using references from the web and so on and I also made a page about the famous stage race here in Ireland that he dominated in the 80s (have been interested in this stuff a long time but doing it now to avoid studying!!), Nissan International Classic I hope the articles are suitable, --Dawesaudax 12:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you don't see it (regarding BMX racing article
It is discussed there, but in short I DO provide sources, you just didn't read them. They are part of the foot notes and external links. More discussed there.Hunter2005 14:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Cycling sources
Hey, I just saw your message asking for cycling sources. I almost always use dewielersite.net. This website offers information in several languages, but the most information is available in Dutch. However it isn't that hard to understand if you know where to look. They have plenty of detailed results available, easily accessable per rider, per team, per race, per stage or whatever. If you need any help with the language, just let me know. Knurftendans 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it works pretty good in English as well now, which wasn't always the case in the past. Knurftendans 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar, it's really much appreciated, although I work on here with pleasure. Knurftendans 21:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

List of teams and cyclists in the 2007 Tour de France
Hi

I see you reverted my edit to List of teams and cyclists in the 2007 Tour de France. I did not fully understand what you said in your edit summary. What can I do to fix the problem?

Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 23:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Keinstein
Thank you for your welcome, and the tips! I do feel encouraged. It feels very good to have such a concise and accessible list of useful tips at hand, and I hope to be able to use them in due course; but  also, as for now, I have to allow myself some tottering and stumbling at my own pace... (allow myself, except in ethics and etiquette, I mean!) /Keinstein 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! How simple when you know all tiny little things... (I have discovered the Editorial Help, but have to digest it in small portions.) Of course I would not strike text in an article. /Regards,Keinstein 20:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Milton Keynes
Well most other cities (ahem!) have one, so why not? The category:Milton Keynes is certainly large enough. I don't know how to set up a WikiProject so if you do, please go ahead. --Concrete Cowboy 12:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To you goes the honour of announcing it at talk:Milton Keynes. --Concrete Cowboy 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of my comment at Lance Armstrong talk page
I take offence at your removal of my comment. It is a fact that blood doping has only fairly recently become detectable. Physiological facts likewise don't become non-facts because they are inconvenient for someone. --213.209.110.45 16:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your suggestions, the source was already in the article. Also, the statement you deleted referred to testing only being available from a specific timepoint onward -which is not a statement on a person- and that a certain gap in performance compared to other athletes who are known to have doped lacks physiological credibility. This statement did not refer to a person, but to the statement it was made in reply to. Notably, you did not delete that one, despite the fact that it DID make statements on a specific person. The article as it is is a fanboy hackjob, from a scientific level about as credible as intelligent design. If that is the standard you thrive for in WikiProject Cycling, the last thing cycling needs is that project. This year's tour and its prelude with countless confessions should have been testimony enough that athletes's statements about not using performance-enhancing drugs are devoid of credibility. But you still let the fanboys run rampant who treat as holy writ everything their great heroes tell them. --213.209.110.45 07:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement you referred to -the use of EPO- is sourced in the article. It mentions in-depth the research test done which showed he had used EPO. Something is only "libellous" if it is wrong in fact. --213.209.110.45 09:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Mauricio Soler
Fine, keep your shitty grammar. I'm not the one who looks stupid. Nosleep1234 14:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. Like I said, keep your shitty grammar. Nosleep1234 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

7 Stanes
You recently assessed the 7stanes article, as a stub. Just letting you know I've added (and am adding) more content, including a photo, so you may want to reassess it sometime in the near future. Lurker (said · done) 18:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments
"If you don't like something I've written..." If you insist on being 150% on BLP, how about you heed it yourself, instead of enforcing it with others only? Your calling statements of fact libellous while at the same time slandering away ad libidum against sources which happen to have their own Wikipedia article is POV-pushing in the extreme, and given that we're talking about an activity that is considered criminal in several countries, you should think twice about whether you really want to transform Wikipedia into a doping whitewash and destroy any credibility regarding WP:RS You could have avoided the whole ruckus by simply abiding by the very standards you claim you are constantly promoting -or showing some basic humility before labelling people "troublemaker" whose expertise surpasses yours by far. --213.209.110.45 15:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Bike result in minutes!
Wow, bro. A bike race result posted in minutes! (2007 Clásica de San Sebastián) You rock. --Dylanfly 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to listen to the audio feed on the computer, so naturally had Wikipedia up ;) SeveroTC 15:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

on Tour de France template
Awesome! I was trying to figure out how to get that to work ;-) Cogswobble talk 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Heavyweight limit
I've provided the anonymous user (who is, in reality, banned user BoxingWear/Projects/Vesa) plenty of facts to show him that anything above 200 pounds is a heavyweight. He, however, seems to be unable to grasp that "anything over 200 pounds" and "201 pounds and above" are not the same thing. In boxing, the upper limit for the cruiserweight division (the division immediately below heavyweight) is 200 pounds. Since 200 pounds is the upper limit, that means that for heavyweight you can weigh anything over 200 pounds. What the other user doesn't appreciate is that this includes 200 1/4 pounds and the like, not just 201 pounds.

For a cite, here's the World Boxing Council homepage: http://www.wbcboxing.com/WBCboxing/Portal/cfpages/contentmgr.cfm?docId=94&docTipo=4&orderby=docid&sortby=ASC MKil 20:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)MKil
 * This guy was told 100 times not to use boxinwear names or connect him with others, i can prove you he is wrong and he is a suspended member!
 * http://www.usaboxing.org/92_1978.htm Both amateur and professional boxing say it's 201, wbc or boxing boxrec are wrong, but they say over 200, so it's logical to assume 201 and more, so we do not need the word above 200.

The history of weight divisions: http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/Weight_divisions#History_of_the_Weight_Divisions I also told mr mkil, if he wants to include 200 lbs, i have no problem, as long as he mentions wbc rules, only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Always remember to sign my talk page please. I don't understand your edit summary, of what should I be careful? All I have requested is a reliable source to end an edit war? I'm confused! Anyway, I will look at this sometime in the next week (hopefully tomorrow) and we can try to arrive at a nice synthesis. SeveroTC 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want reliable sources, go to the governing bodies that regulate championship matches. Besides the WBC, there's the WBA ratings: http://www.wbaonline.com/ratings/rankings/2007/wba0607.doc and the IBF ratings: http://www.ibf-usba-boxing.com/. MKil 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)MKil

Heavyweight and amateur heavyweights same
Hello;
 * On the heavyweight page, we have this statement (before mkil destroys it)

The weight limit for the heavyweight class has varied over the years. In 1984, the super-heavyweight class was introduced as the unlimited category. The current super-heavyweight Olympic class is 91 kg (200.5 lb), which is equivalent to the heavyweight division in professional boxing. So if we take 200.5 that is rounded up to 201, so may be that's why the confusion, so 200.5 not 200.1 is heavyweight, because it's 91 kg. Simple as that. I thought you should know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Please sign posts on my talk page and keep discussion at the relevant place, namely Talk:Heavyweight. Please cite reliable sources for your assertions. I have looked at reliable sources and they do not match your arguments. SeveroTC 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How can I sign, i dont have account, also I am requesting, do not allow those words to be part of the talk, also i asked you to allow my reply to heavyweight, do not put back those names mkil put, he is doing that since forever to make me angry and create problems, do you understand me, he was told by others not to do it. It's rude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of what you write. Please do no alter other's comments, as this is deemed unacceptable behaviour (see WP:TALK). Please do not use my talk page as a place to air your grievances, I frown upon such abuse of my talk page and will continue to remove what I have already and what has already been written elsewhere. SeveroTC 21:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, look, go on boxing wikipedia (and boxrec users) users who edits here on boxing articles, email them in private/directly and you will find out i am correct, i will not give you any sources, because you do not want to read, is this too hard ? I tried to explain the difference on boxing and metric system, so read and look at the links you deleted and print them, then read them carefully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * I have gone out my way and found (and read) what I can only deem to be reliable sources, which I feel you have ignored. Verifiability is a core content policy on Wikipedia, and this dismisses emailing random people to try to uphold your opinion. It is your responsibility to provide reliable sources. I have only deleted abuse from my own talk page, if you feel you have relevant links please place them at the relevant place, namely Talk:Heavyweight. SeveroTC 21:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not following civility rules, you never did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Okay, this is my final response to you on my talk page. Don't threaten me with hollow remarks such as this is your final warning not to play with me. got it (which you chose to delete). Structured argument goes far with me, cowardly threats do not. Do not alter other people's comments on talk pages: if someone is making a daft assertion, let it be because then others will see they are being daft as well. One I have left here, and elsewhere, is your assertion that I am an administrator. I have no intention to be as I have a lot of project work to do. Your failure to sign posts makes you appear cowardly. Don't try to preach Wikipedia policy and guideline at me, I know the basics and a bit more which is more than you are willing to exhibit. I am not prepared to discuss this with you further, but would like to take the opportunity to thank you for coming to Wikipedia and trying to help. I hope you do decide to sign up and work as part of the community to improve a wide array of articles. This is the last word on here - all further comments from you on this matter on this page will be reverted on sight. Thanks and regards, SeveroTC 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup on cycling articles by Drunt
Hello Severo! Thanks for the cleanup you did in my cycling articles. After your edits I've seen a lot of mistakes I made and hopefully will improve that. I have also seen you mainly edited: -'infobox'(why do you want infobox clear of links?, I didn't know that was wrong) -A lot of typos -Subida al Naranco manual of style? Is that because it's from 2007 to 1941 instead of 1941 to 2007? -I have a bit of problem knowing how to edit cycling profiles(regarding achievements). Almost every rider has it's own style. Is Edvald Boasson Hagen edited in the proper way? -I think that in "Cycling race infobox" needs a section for the 'ranking' of the race(e.g. 1.1) -As you can see I'm quite a newbie in Wikipedia, so sorry for the mistakes Thanks--User:Drunt 03:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo requests and WikiProjectBannerShell
Hi - thanks for your comments. I have noticed the problem with the folded banners not dealing gracefully with WPBiography's needs-photo parameter. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the best thing is to do about it? It's really useful to have photo requests categorized into appropriate subcategories, and with WPBiography articles, it seems like the needs-photo parameter is a better solution than reqphoto, since it automatically causes photo requests to be classified the same way as the biography itself. So I hate to pass the buck, but I wonder if the right solution isn't for a skilled template editor to fix WikiProjectBannerShell and/or WPBiography so that the photo request box gets hidden along with everything else. (After all, this problem will arise whether or not it's the bot that adds needs-photo to a nested WPBiography article!) What do you think?

I'm still testing the bot, so if you feel that I've underestimated the problem, please chime in at Bots/Requests for approval/PhotoCatBot‎ to make sure the issue doesn't go overlooked :-) Tim Pierce 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
You're welcome, and thanks for spotting it! mattbr 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bentley Little
I was reading over the page of Bentley Little and came across the last paragraph in his personal life section. The the fan sites necessary to link to? (Though I believe quite a bit of the information provided stems from these sites.) Thus I can't decide if the external links should go or not. -WarthogDemon 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page protection
Hi, I've semi'd your page for two days. Please let me know if you want the protection lifted, or extended. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

GP de Fourmies
Hey there. I created Gran Prix de Fourmies, and tried to categorize it a bit, per the WP cycling project. Thought I'd check in with you and invite you to tinker with it. Cheers, --Dylanfly 13:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Defunct cycling teams
Tanks Severo for comment re Carrera, I was also thinking of making a page for Kelly's Skil team. If you have any suggestions for teams that made a big impact and would be a good story to tell please do give your opinion!--Dawesaudax 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing Talk:Eccentric (mechanism)
Have you tagged this article as a stub merely because it is short? It doesn't just cover bicycles. Perhaps you should have read the whole thing closely, rather than just leaving it to a bot. You might even be able to improve it.--John of Paris 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied at Talk:Eccentric (mechanism) (SeveroTC 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Milton Keynes
Hello Severo,

I came across your contributions regarding furthering the Milton Keynes article. You mentioned something about finding a suitable structure to enable getting hold of GA and FA status.... well, as a project master (so to speak), you may or may not be aware that WP:UKCITIES is a UK wide guideline set up this summer/autumn to standardise the layout for British settlement's entries. It's not set in stone, or a policy as such, but does include handy tips to help users write in a consistent and proffessional way. Just though I should let you know to aid the article along!

Also, I've just produced a county map for Buckinghamshire which will appear automatically in the place infobox. It should aid in bettering the presentation and context of Milton-and-Bucks related content! Hope that helps, -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Miche.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Miche.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  PxMa 20:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done SeveroTC 17:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)