User talk:Ryan Lanham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Ryan Lanham, 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 talk 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me or a helper Commander Keane on our talk page. Again, welcome!

If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page

Anonymous anonymous 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The former AfD'd articles

I'm taking a look at them, working a bit at formatting them in accordance with how Wikipedia articles are supposed to look etc. A few notes:

  • Disposition, formatting etc.: try to always write an introductory paragraph that briefly presents the topic and explains its significance. In a biography, one wants dates of birth and death, what the person was, and what the person was best known for. The subject of the article should be in bold.
  • Categories: add categories to articles, and add sort keys when apicable, for instance for names to make them sort under Lastname, Givenname, like this: [[Category:American political scientists|Mosher, Frederick]] Categories make it easier for someone with similar interests to find the article. Just don't overuse them, add the most precise category or categories possible, not the categories higher up in the hierarchy tree, but occasionally more than one to make the article findable from different directions. (If you find my explanation confusing, you'll probably learn better by just looking at how it is done.)
  • I notice that you add red links or have, in a few cases, separate articles on published books and articles. You might consider merging these with the biographies of the authors, to make those into fuller and more complete articles. You will see a lot of articles on individual published books on Wikipedia, but for works by individual authors, my view is that it is better to limit that to cases where the biography of the author is getting too long, or the treatment of one particularly important book and its history of reception and interpretation would get too large in the context of the author's article (obvious examples being things like The Origin of Species or Das Kapital). I think my view of Dwight Waldo would be more complete if I could read about The Administrative State in his article and in relation to his other publications and the development of his thought. If the section on the book ever gets too large, you can split it off again into its own article but leave a summary of that article in the author's biography (see Wikipedia:Summary style).
  • For collective works, journals etc, something else obviously applies - you should probably write something on the Public Administration Review.
  • Assessments and opinions: always try to attribute and source these. Don't just write e.g. that something was a seminal event, or that a person or publication has had wide influence - try to find someone else to quote or cite who says this. Obituaries are useful, if somewhat hagiographical at times, but also book reviews and a variety of other sources are useful to source opinions. This has to do with the Wikipedia neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability policies. It is OK to include opinions, but it should always be clear who holds a certain view. Contradictory views should be given room in reasonable agreement with their significance - i.e. you don't need to include every fringe viewpoint, but those views which are widely held or have received wide notice should be mentioned.
  • Sourcing: touched on above, but more of a technical issue: you may consider looking at Wikipedia:Footnotes and using the <ref></ref> system described there. It is very easy to use: you can add the footnote text with the references at the part of the main text it is supposed to support, but it will automatically be displayed at a section at the bottom of the page where you write <references/>.

OK. That's it for now. Good luck! Tupsharru 06:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expert Editors guideline

Hi!

I noticed from the village pump that a series of articles that you edited concerning public administration were proposed for deletion. Though they eventually survived, you seemed to (initially, at least) have been dismayed via the process, and had some comments on the AfD discussion concerning how Wikipedia deals with experts. I, and several other users, are working on a proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Expert editors, which seeks to improve the ability of experts to make meaningful contributions. The proposed guideline is not a major change in Wikipedia's operations (we're not proposing that experts be given greater privelege--that would be a significant overhaul that probably couldn't be implemented without support of the Wikimedia Foundation, etc.); but it seeks to clarify the role of experts (and non-experts) in improving the encyclopedia. We're seeking comment and suggestions, and welcome your input (if any) at Wikipedia talk:expert editors. Thanks!

--EngineerScotty 21:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward W. Soja

I have just deleted this article under WP:CSD, rule A7, because it was an article that did not assess the significance of its subject. I have left a copy of the sentence you wrote in the talk page Talk:Edward W. Soja; you can start from there if you want to create an expended article that includes evidence that this person meets the guideline WP:BIO. - Liberatore(T) 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I recreated this article (I was about to add a bit too it anyway), and moved it to Edward Soja, but it really ought to have had more content from the start. I was trying to be helpful but I'm afraid I know nothing about postmodern political geography, so this is the limit of what I intend to do. It establishes notability in a formal sense (distinguished professor etc) but doesn't explain what he is known for. Tupsharru 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/y/a/User_talk%7ERyan_Lanham_fbdb.html"