User talk:Crocodile Punter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome
Hello, Crocodile Punter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\talk 11:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Databox Message
Crocodile, thanks very much for the kind words. Great job addressing an important player in the financial services industry. In fact, I am a big fan of databoxes, however, for the reasons indicated below, I don't believe they should be used in the manner you propose.
The databoxes are a terrific way to obtain pertinent data about the subject of the box. This equivalent of an "executive summary" is of tremendous value. However, I believe their use should be limited to the specific subject matter to which they are addressed. If we stray from this logic, then there is no limit to the number of databoxes which would serve as cross references. It is, of course, the ability to cross reference which your usage gives rise to. Nonetheless, taken to its logical conclusion, every article with even the most peripheral or attenuated connection to a company would merit inclusion of the databox. If you and I were to agree to include only those databoxes which we believed were "material" or "substantial" or "significant" or whatever standard we agreed to, what would we do with all those persons who disagreed with our judgement as to what "material" or "substantial", etc.? As, hopefully, I will explain below, the number of companies which could be included in any given article would be enormous and we would be powerless to stop it.
For example, you inserted the Citigroup databox into Sandy Weill's biography, however, why should we stop there? In the course if his career, Sandy Weill absorbed scores of companies many of which already have their own databox, for example, Smith Barney, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Primerica, and the literally hundreds of other companies that Weill, or the behemoth that Citigoup is, touched. Take a look at the following link: http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/corporate/history/data/tree85x11.pdf, and you'll get an idea of just how many companies ultimately were in involved in creating today's Citigroup.
If your criteria for including the Citigroup databox was just the subject's last employer, then that could be pretty subjective, or end-up including the databox of a lesser employer. For example, Dan Rather, a very prominent American television news anchor, recently left CBS News and went to HDNet, would we include just HDNet because it's his last employer when CBS is clearly the most important employer the one for which he is best known?
If your criteria was meant to include the subject's "most prominent" employer, what then would we do with a person who was the CEO more than one prominent firm, for example, Louis Gerstner. Lou Gerstner has served as the CEO of both IBM and RJR Nabisco. Each firm is a major worlwide player in their respective field. Would we include both databoxes? If we decided between the two of us that we should include the databox of the firm the subject is "most known for", that could be somewhat subjective and I think the Wiki community would have trouble agreeing on inclusion/exclusion. In any event, it would not resolve the issue if your criteria was to only include those companies still in existence.
With respect to your addition to the Lehman Brothers page, the same logic applies. Think about it, many of the modern corporate worldwide giants, are almost by definition, the amalgamation of hundreds or thousands of companies. It is true that Lehman was once a part of American Express, however, the way companies are bought and sold, should we include the databoxes of each company that was ever part of another? This could make for some pretty complicated and lengthy pages. Think about companies that have been sold several times, like Pershing.
All-in-all, I don't think we could agree to a clear, comprehensive policy for the inclusion or exclusion of databoxes. Nonetheless, your inclusion of the databox has touched on a subject of great intellectual focus for me, that is, the consolidation of the financial services industry in the post WW II era. Sandy Weill, of course, played a tremendous role in this consolidation. I have often thought that Wiki really needed an article on this phenomenon and on that account, would be happy to collaborate with you on such a project. It is a link to this page which I believe most belongs on these pages. As to databoxes, I respectfully disagree with your position. ButtonwoodTree 01:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- If I may join in, I think the argument against the Databox in, say, Lehman Brothers is very simply expressed. The subject of the article is Lehman Brothers. So long as American Express is wikilinked in the Lehman Brothers article (which it is) then there's no point in repeating the American Express stuff in the Lehman article. To me, it's that simple. - Adrian Pingstone 17:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Qantas Flags
I like your flag idea. It makes it easier on the reader to know where the airline is from. My compliments... --Golich17 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Greetings
Notability for Indonesia tourist handbook - could you please elaborate - its not clear what your porblem is.... SatuSuro 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Edit summary comment needs to find its way onto the talk page or my talk page seeing i did the article mainly. I notice youve done nothing about the Moon article - they are the two largest used guide books by travellers in Indonesia in the last thirty years for a start - they create and have created ' the cognitive landsccape' for probably about the equivalent of 1 million travelers at least in that time - and there are implications for travel behaviour and both indonesian cultural and economic conditions, as well as a number of other trickle effects. I await with interest your response.... SatuSuro 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Is this really notable? It's the only Lonely Planet guide to have a page in wikipedia... is there a reason this book is so much more notable than other lonely planet guidebooks?
As a member of the Indonesia Project I have spent some time dealing with about 1,000 + stubs regarding geographical features of the Indonesian archipelago - and the serious problems of WP V and WP N - the creation of the article about the guide book is that one of the many threads in my 10,000 + edit stage of my editing on wikipedia is to verify against the moon handbook and the lonely planet books the correct naming of Indonesian locations (dont let me even starrt a rave about volcanoes of indonesia) as well as some other sources (notably NEVER the cia fact book for a start) - and the presence of the lonely planet guide is an intrinsic part of that project. I would hope you see the reasoning - that there may well be eventually some 1,000 stubs and articles that sit will at 'what links here' if you understand the project and i get the opportunity - god willing... :) SatuSuro 14:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- It will be notable in that it has lists of places, and things about indonesia that will make the article move well beyond a stub. I can assure you of that - as well as some of the critiques from academic works about guide books (which are not in any in wikipedia article) at the moment - I have trawled through some of the crappiest articles i have ever seen on tourism in wikipedia the standard is abysmal... :) SatuSuro 14:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you please note - the focus is on Indonesia - not lonely planet or the other rubbish out in the market that call themselves guide books - it is specifically this title, for the reasons I have given. If you dont understand - I have more or less single handedly created the Western Tasmania articles for wikipedia (with help of ccourse) and the Charles Whitham book is intrinsic with that particular project - as it is the most comprehensive source for information prior to Geoffrey Blaineys Peaks of Lyell - and that works as insurance for over 50 articles for V and N - and rather than only cite it all the time - it is also linked- as some people might find frequent refs to it and want to find out more a about it for reference purposes. If you could only understand the particular title is what I am focused on I couldnt give a dam about the wheelers empire or their competitiors it is a template ref - and I wish to keep to it and if you find the need to take issue over whch I am not interested (all the rest of the rubbish that call themselves guide books) I will need to ask for third or four persons to verify the need for this ref - I suggest time could be better spent cleaning up the tourism articles than worrying about this one title. Also I would appreciate it if you did. SatuSuro 10:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a die-hard inclusionist, who almost always says "keep" in AfD discussions, but the prospect of thousands of articles on every book published by Lonely Planet, Rough Guides, Frommers, Fodors, Let's Go, or Footprint, each with just the authors and table of contents, is mind-boggling. I would be dead set against that myself and would join in any afd if any body tried that - just go to Charles Whitham and Peaks of Lyell and see what links here - and how the issue that I have dealt with in the Westernn Tasmania project has been done - I also did my post grad fieldwork in Yogyakarta in Indonesia and had collected a vast amount of information about how the central javanese tourism authorities collected data- as well as how the guide books and maps from overseas publishers were frequently wrong with their information. - as a consequence could give you the equivalent of a ma thesis on th tourism guide books for central java and yogyakarta for the last 70 years - and the implications for the tourist industry in the region from the top of my head - but that is not really necessary I hope...
- I consider that a particular guide book that is being used in the way that Ihave proposed particular way does not create a precedent for every publication in every publishers stable to have an article at all!!!SatuSuro
-
- My apologies if I have broached the barrier with civility, i do get carried away at times over issues of certain articles - sorry about that.SatuSuro 10:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The issue with the indonesian tourism research was that i never published - however as I slowly unpack a moved house storage set of cardboard boxes - I will very slowly add material... SatuSuro 10:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW - I consider some of the tourism articles on wikipedia at the lowest commondenominator (just like the lead articles on maritime history in wikipedia ( I started WP:WikiProject Australian Maritime History ) ) - and I would rather very slowly (later this year) work on either helping to improve the tourism articles - they are almost substandard in my perception - compared to the quality of current academic studies of tourism - but I have three major projects to work through first - which will take at least six months at current times i have onSatuSuro 10:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Days later - I feel even less sure that my particular line might not be the most suitable - a fellow indonesia project friends suggested that I put maybe the main two - Indo Handbook, Loneley/s, and any others to mention - in a cpmbined single article - my sincerest apologies to take up taken up your talk page space -and I may well make a combined article after all - but involved with too many weird threads at the moment.... SatuSuro 09:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose Rwandan Genocide as this week's WP:ACID winner
AzaBot 23:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flags in Articles
Please do not add flags without discussion/consensus. We've had flags in many pages before, but we have decided that they are gaudy and not many people know which flag belongs to which country, therefore we have decided not to use them. Thanks.--Golich17 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merging AAdvantage
Every single part of information in the AAdvantage articles was moved to the new section in the American Airlines page. It has been a habit of many people to now merge such articles into the actual page just to avoid confusion and to make life simpler. Instead of a traditional link to the page, now it's right in the page. AAdvantage is only American Airlines' frequent flyer program which gives me even more reason to execute the merge.--Golich17 16:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Strategic management
You've made a recent contribution to the article on strategic management, and I've made a proposal to revert that article to a prior version that existed before vandalism in July 2006. Please see Talk: Strategic management#Once_a_great_article. Please add your comments to that talk page if you're concerned about this. Thank you. --SueHay 04:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Disputed fair use rationales
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CreditCard-AU-Qantas-Cobrands.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:CreditCard-AU-Qantas-Cobrands.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pyrope 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Requesting your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive
Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
