User talk:Darrell Wheeler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] WikiProject Guitarists newsletter
|
|
|
Hey everyone! It's been quite a while since the last newsletter went out but it's time to tune up those guitars, set the amps to 11, and rock out a bit. Or for us old guys, put on the fingerpicks and set the amp to 3. A lot of people have been laboring away at guitar articles and their efforts are to be applauded. If you haven't edited in a while, why not pick an article from Category:Stub-Class guitarist articles and expand it? Or better yet, pick one from the article requests and create it. More tasks can be found on the main project page in the WikiProject Guitarists open tasks box. I went through the member list and moved anyone who hasn't edited a guitar article in two months to the inactive section. If you're getting this newsletter, it means you are still in the active list. See you around --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself here. |
|
[edit] Fender Wikiproject Proposal
Hi, I have proposed a WikiProject for Fender Musical Instruments Corporstion. If you are interested, please add you name here. Izzy007 Talk 01:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Esoteric Christianity
Just a "thank you" for your dedication to and excellent contributions in the Esoteric Christianity article. Your contributions have improved it so much. Typing monkey 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Monkey, It was actualy your original rewrite that realy got the ball rolling. A tip of the hat mate.Darrell Wheeler 10:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Guitarists newsletter
|
|
|
Hello all! Time for the next installment of the WikiProject Guitarists newsletter. I recently went through and trimmed the member list again to remove inactive participants. I haven't been too active recently because I'm finishing a Master's degree but I'll have some more free time coming up. I will probably spend some time cleaning up equipment articles since many of them read like adverts or contain no useful information. We have a lot of great people working on the project, including professional guitarists and even luthiers. We have the potential to write a lot of great articles. If you are looking for something to do, see the open tasks on the main project page or see the column to the right for specific suggestions. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 23:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself here. |
|
[edit] Re: your note
Oh it was no problem - keep up the great article work. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blind Blake
Hey there. I looked into the image you mention. It is not automatically in the public domain unless it was made before 1923, which does not appear to be the case. Lacking any other copyright information, we must assume the image is copyrighted. However, we can use it under fair use because there is no existing free image of Blake. Therefore, I restored the image and put a proper copyright tag and fair use rationale. I commend you for actually having the patience to wade through all the image policies. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: References
Thanks for the note! First off, I'm betting that being pedantic is a benefit for a luthier - correct me if I'm wrong.
You have hit upon one of the many issues on Wikipedia that is never really settled to everyone's satisfaction. As you saw, there are many different citation styles and what matters most is that they are applied evenly and appropriately for your subject matter. In my opinion, "end-of-article only" references are best for historical articles that contain little or no content that would be challenged by another editor (thus requiring a specific citation). Lightnin' Hopkins is well-referenced but I prefer inline citations for biographies because people often question facts in biographies.
If you decide to do inline citations and footnotes as you did for Big Bill Broonzy, again, just be consistent. Either always place them outside punctuation or always inside. There is no consensus for which way to do it (surprise). Readers will generally infer that if there is a citation at the end of a paragraph, it applies to the entire paragraph. If you place them after individual sentences, they apply to that sentence.
There is one other issue - you mentioned bringing articles up to good article status. Doing that or, even higher, featured article status requires stricter application of sources. GA and FA reviewers strongly prefer inline citations and will often reject articles that don't contain plenty of them. If those are you goal, I would recommend reading their respective criteria at Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
Hope this helps! --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 01:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your argument is specious
WP:WEIGHT is designed to look at all the relevant subjects and then discuss them according to their prominence. Most homeopathic remedies are simply not prominent in relation to the substances out of which they are made.
Also, though irrelevant, the connection between Columbus and a flat Earth is a myth.
ScienceApologist (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no reliable source indicating that homeopathists actually "use" these substances except for homeopaths themselves. This is because they dilute the substances to the point where they are no longer containing any of the molecules from the substance. Therefore, it is highly contentious and POV to claim use for any chemical or substance on the say-so of homeopaths. Cheerio. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your argument is precious
Not in the sense that it is "contrived," but in the sense that it is "of high worth." Sir, you deserve a barnstar!
 |
The Surreal Barnstar | |
| Awarded for excellent reason and dedication to the Esoteric Christianity article. Keep the faith!Typing Monkey - (type to me) 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
! Thanks!Darrell Wheeler (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Big Bill Broonzy
Hi - I've replied to your post at Talk:Big Bill Broonzy. Thanks - Zariane (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] March 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Dom Turner has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. DougsTech (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
