User talk:Sterry2607

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives



Contents

[edit] Great to hear from you

Hope your trip was terrific. It seems as though you just left! I am a bit black and blue at the moment, slowing turning technicoloured, mainly jaundice yellow. I came off my bike last weekend, have learned my lesson but it is reocommended that I don't drive for a few weeks. If you would like to meet in Civic or Woden that would be fine. Can we make it the week after next = the beginning of April? Would love to hear about your holiday. Stellar (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sterry2607/ArticleChecklist

I like the checklist. I added a few things to it. You could put that out as a user essay or a straight essay. As it's generally useful I would suggest a straight essay. SilkTork *YES! 10:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest another step? The situation sometimes arises where someone creates an article containing a red link to Smiley Gladhands the politician. Later, someone creates an article on Smiley Gladhands the actor, thus unknowingly turning a whole lot of inappropriate links blue. Therefore when you create an article, you should check the "what links here" for inappropriate links. Hesperian 10:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea.
Sterry, to put it out as an essay, you would be advised to move it rather than do a cut and past. Move it to Wikipedia:ArticleChecklist and put it in Category:Wikipedia essays. SilkTork *YES! 09:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


I've changed the coding on the templates in the checklist so they are now clickable - allowing people with one click to see the templates, and what they say. So if you click on {{talkpage}} you'll see what it displays. SilkTork *YES! 08:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Things have moved on since we spoke, and there is a movement toward this format: ==References== / ===Notes=== / ===Bibliography=== with the possibility of either ==External links== or ===External links===. I favour ===External links=== as they are part of the reference section. See Black Narcissus, The Red Shoes (film), 49th Parallel, etc. SilkTork *YES! 10:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That old references etc issue again

I think good examples of referencing tend to look good no matter how they are done. What tends to bother people (like myself) is the untidy and poorly done examples - which, sadly, are the majority. FAs tend to be a law unto themselves in areas which are not governed by firm rules as often they are done by one or a small handful of strong-minded and individual individuals. Giano II for example dislikes InfoBoxes (as do I), and does not accept them on any of the articles to which he contributes. This is tolerated as people like Giano. There was a movement a while back in which a bunch of editors, myself included, attempted to standandise guidelines so that it would be an image in the top right of an article rather than an InfoBox. Despite the guidelines saying that infoboxes should not be used in the intro, people continued to do so. Infoboxes are popular, and many editors like having them in the intro. So the guidelines were redrafted to allow people to do it either way! Now, is that bringing the project down to the lowest common denominator, or following consensus? Hmmm. SilkTork *YES! 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Icing

"In the end I guess the important thing to focus on is good content and good sources for the content - all the rest is icing (sorta!)" Absolutely! And that is my main reason for being here - however, it's all too easy to get subverted into thinking that layout MATTERS! When I started on Wiki I wrote articles. These days I spend most of my time tinkering with policy, guidelines, rules, advise, AfDs, etc. And why do I ever end up caring about the brief flash of the Featured Picture? But I do go there now and again and give my opinion. Why do we have Featured Content? This is not a competition - this is not a hierarchy - this is not a selection committee. Let's, instead, have a helpful landing platform that is a portal into the encyclopedia, not an award podium for the largest egos on the project. SilkTork *YES! 11:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


I came upon Murder of Victoria Climbié - as my work in Medway Council Children's Service involves some knowledge of that case, I was impressed at how it summed up the main facts of the case in a helpful way. I thought it would make a good candidate for FA. I nominated it. I was then surprised at the process. None of the other people in the discussion felt that this would be a collaborative process in tidying up the article. No, one of their concerns was that the person who had done most of the work on the article was no longer active on the project. Another comment was that the wrong sort of dashes had been used! What the flying fish! I was stunned by that. I thought the process would consider if the information was comprehensive and trustworthy. Seems not. That explains why I have come upon FAs which contain inaccurate or misleading information, but which have the correct dashes and are attractively written. The first aim of an encyclopedia should be to be trustworthy and reliable, and it would seem to be an essential criteria that a FA article should tell the truth and be seen to tell the truth via references that can be checked. Wrong sort of dashes! And no pictures! When it became clear that I was expected to address all these concerns on my own I withdrew the nomination. I still don't know what the right sort of dashes are - and I DON'T CARE! Grief! SilkTork *YES! 07:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thea Astley

I see that you have moved the WELL DRESSED EXPLORER page to WELL-DRESSED EXPLORER. I have a copy of the 1988 Penguin edition and its title does not have a hyphen in it. You can see a scan of the cover here: http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/astleyt/welldexp.html Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an easy misunderstanding to make. I see that the blurb on the Penguin editon I have uses the phrase "well-dressed explorer" which is a bit of a problem. I think you're right that Astley did it deliberately. Wonder if anyone else actually noticed? Perry Middlemiss (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Hart

And thank you for keeping an eye on Kevin Hart (poet) too! The serial meddler in his article is debating me on my talk page if it is of any amusement for you. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:ArticleChecklist

I've moved it into the public arena. It deserves to be read by more people. Well done on creating it - a very useful essay. SilkTork *YES! 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed there had been no more development on it, so I assumed you had finished with it but couldn't bring yourself to put it out. SilkTork *YES! 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That's basically it, really, so thanks.Sterry2607 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Back of Beyond

Good, should make GA someday.--Grahame (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hart

[1][2] Hesperian 06:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope so; I like it much better than "promptness". :-)
(For future reference, I'm happy to receive emails, so don't read anything into the fact that I rather rudely didn't get around to replying to yours.)
Hesperian 06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow at last that is all over - I have vague memories started by reading all that and restraining myself - and it is something about 'poetry wars' - does that ring a bell? articles or items about some of the stuff that resembled the history wars thingo? Just thought I'd ask - cheers SatuSuro 05:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tennant

Sue - Thanks for fix up the detail. I have just read Ride on Stranger, and was really impressed. I am surprised that the novel is not a classic and well known. It seems to have almost disappeared into history. She is such a passionate writer and has such strong women characters. I will find my phone and call you. Stellar (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okey doke...I have always wanted to read that. I read, back in the 80s, her Tell morning this and loved it. I do want to read more. Will wait until I hear from you.Sterry2607 (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There was some good stuff on phillip adams last night about how few australian literature items are still in print - maybe its worth an art in oz lit - popular novels of the 50s or 60s that are no longer anywhere but libraries or second hard bookshops - publishers being such dags that they are with their back lists SatuSuro 06:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kibble

I'm sure I have some details regarding the Dobbie Award around here somewhere. I'll look into it over the next few days. We'll get there. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It might take till later in the week. I'm just back at work after a week off and a few problems have boiled up over that period.Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm still aiming to work on this but... Just have to see how it pans out. I added the 2008 winners.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The winners were announced on Tuesday night. [3] --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Secret River

You beat me to it. I was just about to delete those comments when you got in in front of me. I'm also going to delete the whole Homosexuality paragraph. It's opinion only and not supported by any facts. The sentences you deleted appear fabricated to me. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole Mistake paragraph is now under suspicion after the other work by this user. Do you have a copy of the book anywhere handy? Mine's been lent out to someone or other.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think our notes might be crossing in the ether. Anyway, I'm happy with the way the page is now. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan

Sorry about that shld have commented it as mistake (finally worked out how to get 'Friendly' to work), It's a good article! I assume you decided not to bother with the info about Tranter, obviously not covered by blp but agree, if they don't put such personal details in author bio's etc. then I guess we shouldn't. Ben--Bsnowball (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the article and the quotes. Here poems were the better of the two the other night, I thought. More original. I still haven't looked up Zinnias. See you soon Stellar (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Murray edit

Greetings. I have no problem with your treatment of my pic. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dendy

G'day mate,

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation_pages):

"Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web."

Hesperian 11:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)