User talk:Graeme Bartlett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Sources for Darwin Glass
Hello. Good work on Darwin Glass, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in Darwin Glass? You can simply add links, preferably as inline citations, or see citation templates for different citation methods. Thanks! Shawnc 11:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources for Darwin Glass now added
I have added text about the sources I used. But I am not sure how to format yet.
[edit] Kambah and Welcome
Hi Graeme. I notice you have been improving our article on Kambah. One thing I might point out is that you have been creating red links for many less notable features of the Kambah area. Please do not create wikilinks for subjects that are not notable enough to deserve their own articles. Things like creeks and smaller non-notable hills should probably not be linked. I would also question if every swimming hole on the Murrumbidgee is deserving of an article. Generally if these less notable subjects are to be mentioned they can be included in a part of a larger article. For example you could write a paragraph on Kambah Pool in the Kambah article.
Anyway I notice no one has officialy welcomed you to wikipedia yet, so let me copy and paste my stock welcome message to you which might provide some useful links while learning the ropes here at wikipedia.
Welcome!
Hello Graeme Bartlett, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
| The five pillars of Wikipedia | How to edit a page |
| Help pages | Tutorial |
| How to write a great article | Manual of Style |
| Copyright Information | User Page Info |
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. --Martyman-(talk) 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Hi Martyman, thanks for the welcome. I have taken on your suggestion and taken out those red links. If some one else wants to write the article on them they can link it in. In some of my other changes I have left the red links in because I plan to write an article on the topic. GB 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks for not taking my comments to wrong way. I just realised you may not have noticed the Canberra Wikiproject yet. If you are interested in helping fill out wikipedia's content in relation to Canberra you should drop past. Essentially it is just a central place for discussion and to focus attention and define guidelines. We have managed to get several Canberra articles up to Wikipedia's featured article standard: Lake Burley Griffin, Canberra, Yarralumla and History of the Australian Capital Territory. --Martyman-(talk) 07:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Geology additions
I really like all the geology additions. I do hope you get to Red Hill soon :-) See my awful attempts at Red_Hill,_Australian_Capital_Territory#Geology, which were taken from other sources but I really understand very little of it.--A Y Arktos 10:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- You have been busy addign a lot of good information. One thing about the additions though is the last sentence you have been adding "Natural History of the Australian Capital Territory covers more of the geology of the ACT" reads like a self reference to me. See: WP:SELF. I think the additions would be better with the last sentence removed. --Martyman-(talk) 11:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Technically it is probably not an explicit self refernce but it stands out as strange in that it is a sentence intended purely to link to another aritcle. Normally such links are made by highlighting existing text or though "See Also" or some other section with a list of links. Maybe I am just being picky though. --Martyman-(talk) 11:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
entry.
I have info for all the suburbs outside of Gungahlin, for which my maps are out of date. On Red Hill I thought that A Y's information was quite readable, so I suppose I should just try to make it more accurate. What I have been trying to do is summarise where what rocks are in each suburb, plus other major Geological features. Martyman -- how do you suggest I reference the Natural History of the Australian Capital Territory? I don't want to repeat too much detail so I want to put common information in this entry. This is the chance to get it looking better before we have to go back and change every one!
- I don't know, all I know is it doesn't read right the way it is at the moment. Maybe you could add one of the folowing templates to the top of the geology section (below the heading above the text):
- See also: Natural History of the Australian Capital Territory
- I think "see also" is the more appropriate one. Of course for it to be appropriate at all the natural history article should contain more info than the information included in the suburb articles. At them moment it is mostly something I slapped together from text from a few seperate articles. --Martyman-(talk) 11:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Your seealso with no space seemed to work just fine, should I really be adding the space? I tried it out on Red Hill. GB 11:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is that "Seealso" is a redirect to "See also" so it will work fine. It is just technically better to use the actual template rather than a redirect. --Martyman-(talk) 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Once again - thanks again for all the great work on geology around the ACT - it is terrific to see. Regards--A Y Arktos 10:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
Hi! I just wanted to remind you that good grammar, and overall proofreading are important in making an encyclopedia look professional. We appreciate all articles, even if they contain grammar errors, but error-free articles are even better. Books like Eats, Shoots & Leaves discuss grammar principles in a fun way. Or, perhaps some of your biological articles would belong better in http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Dichotomous_Key or http://www.wikispecies.org instead where they might get more attention to grammar by others interested in taxonomy? Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello unforgettableid,
Do you have a particular article that needs improving? I have found that Ediacaria is not good looking - I will fix it up. I am sticking to groups of organisms in my articles rather than going to the level of species, so I think they are inarrpropriate for wikispecies.
The Ediacaran fossils are especially significant as they represent the start of animal evolution. That in mind I am quite willing to fix the grammer - if you point me at the mistakes!
