User talk:Paultyng/Archives/2007/June

Attu Island

Great edits on Attu Island. Any chance you could also add cites to those facts? --Yksin 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my edits. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I'm not entirely sure how I should cite it. I listed the book I found the info in down in the references section as just a global cite, shoudl I include inline citations too? I don't have the page numbers handy but I can find them. (also just as a side note, this is my first real use of a talk page, so I posted this on mine, in the future should I reply to you here, or on your page, or somewhere else, typically whats done?) pw 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Other users do it differently, but my own preference is to keep conversations together. So, if I write to you on your talk page, I'll usually put it on my watchlist & look for replies there; but if someone initiates a conversation with me on my own talk page, I like to keep the conversation there.

Yes, usually inline citations is the best way to go, & best cite practice is too include page numbers. Since the book you're referring from is already listed in the reference, I'd recommend using brief cites that give of the form "Authorlastname, date, p. #." So:

Other users do it differently, but my own preference is to keep conversations together. So, if I write to you on your talk page, I'll usually put it on my watchlist & look for replies there; but if someone initiates a conversation with me on my own talk page, I like to keep the conversation there.

Yes, usually inline citations is the best way to go, & best cite practice is too include page numbers. Since the book you're referring from is already listed in the reference, I'd recommend using brief cites that give of the form "Authorlastname, date, p. #." So, a ref might look like <ref>Mitchell, et al., 2003, p. #.</ref> If you cite from the same page more than once, use the tag <ref name="whatever">Mitchell, et al., 2003, p. #.</ref> with subsequent references to the same reference given as <ref name="whatever"/> (note the closing / in the recurrences, which precludes need for a closing <ref> tag). There's more info about the <ref>...</ref> citation system at Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Unfortunately numbers can't be used in <ref name="whatever"> tags, so if I have to make lots of cites to the same book, I just use a simple code of A=1, B=2, etc. up to J=0, so you might have cites that look like this: <ref name="mitchell-AAB">Mitchell, et al., 2003, p. 112.</ref> (subsequent cites of the same page: <ref name="mitchell-AAB"/>), <ref name="mitchell-DJ">Mitchell, et al., 2003, p. 40.</ref>, etc.

Does that make sense? My best example of how I've used this citation system is in the article Yup'ik. Or my work-in-progress in my sandbox which will be integrated into the article on Peter Kalifornsky.

I'm glad to give any additional help I can. --Yksin 19:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I added 2 cites from the book, hopefully once I read the read of the book I'll have more info. pw 12:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! -- I coulda sworn that using numerals wasn't allowed in <ref name="whatever">, but either I was mistaken or they've fixed it now so numerals are allowed. In any case, seeing you used 'em has tremendously liberated me from that cumbersome substitute-a-letter-for-a-numeral code I've been using. Just goes to show you that just as with dogs, it is in fact possible for an old editor to learn new tricks. Yeehaw! --Yksin 17:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Anne Tyng

Hi Paul - I just read the comments from Yksin and have the same request for the Anne Tyng page (welcome to wikipedia!) - thanks so much for the new info! Her bio has been lying dormant for some time. Please let me know if I can help with citations in any way. yours, H0n0r 02:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it may take me a few days to look the stuff back up, is there something I should do in the meantime to flag the stuff as a work in progress or something? pw 02:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. The only thing I've ever seen for flagging is the tag, but maybe that's more for flagging things that you didn't do. I'm so glad that you're working on this article. I'm in New Haven and the Kahn barge just left today - it's nice to be thinking of Ms. Tyng on the same day. H0n0r 12:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Circulation Numbers

Paul - Thanks for the advice on the sourcing for EDN magazine's circulation. We maintain these links pretty well so they'll stay current. The old reference was many years old so I wanted to make sure the link reflected the current information. It changes every six months and unfortunately the source, BPA International, does not offer their own easy links like this. I'm open to any advice. Thanks.

1. Use Ulrich's. 3rd party independent source
2. I think an audited official report is defensible, but Ulrich's is an obvious choice. DGG 02:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The gin act 1751

Hi. I just found the other article (Gin Act 1751) and we edit conflicted.  :) Great minds think alike. --EarthPerson 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Barry Manuel

I am a little puzzled--Why did you place a speedy delete tag on the page for this baseball player? I never heard of him before, but I see he's for real. [1]? DGG 21:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake I must ahve typo'd when I googled him, Barry Manual :( pw 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bob Currier

First round draft picks deserve pages regardless of whether they played in the NHL.

To quote from the WikiProject Ice Hockey talk page:

First round draft pick is a top prospect. Even if the career goes nowhere, they'd be notable as a bust.

Such is the case with Ryan Sittler and so should be the case with Bob Currier. [To be fair, Ryan Sittler is the son of HoF Darryl Sittler, but I suppose notability for Currier could come from the fact he was the Flyers first pick that year and didn't even play in the NHL, and the Flyers second round pick that year, Bobby Clarke, went on the become the face of the franchise.]

--207.69.140.35 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

quite right, that's the general practice here DGG 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

When putting on speedy notices

it is usual to place a warning to that effect on the pags of th authors. You are not required to, but most people do. DGG 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a bot was doing it for me so I wasn't sure it was necessary, I will from now on. pw 22:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reed Business Interactive Network

1. Do not remove templates from pages. When the template is deleted, it is automatically removed.

2. We always have templates for publishers, used for the pages on the major publications they publish. If you want to propose a change, the Village Pump is the place,

I looked through very many publishers in List of publishers and did not see templates on like the top 20-30 or so, so I don't think this is the case, if it is I apologize, but again, pages like Random House and other big publishers do not have templates so I'm not sure why its such a huge issue. pw 22:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

3. When you want to propose a template, follow the instructions on WP:TfD.

DGG 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

'Warning--you are doing harm to many pages, and I will block you unless you get in touch with me.' here on on my talk page. I am not the only editor who has noticed.

DGG 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is the other editor, and how is what I'm doing harm? I cannot take any administrative action, I am simply making suggestions based on what I've read on the wikipedia guidelines. The administrator who responsds to the speedy is the only person who could actually inflict harm. pw 22:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are actually in violation of a number of issues by harassing me on my talk page. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers:

When giving advice to newcomers, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized strictures and structures, which take time to learn, and which benefit from periodic re-examination and revision.

and WP:Assume good faith, etc. Perhaps this other administrator can shine some light on how anything I have done is so horrendous. Before even editing the Reed Business articles I had asked for guidance from an administrator. pw 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, relax, I was trying to get your attention (smile). First off, I am that administrator who could have inflicted harm, if I hadn't caught the problems. which is how I came here.

I'm trying to teach you, not help you. people did this to me when I came here, sometimes roughly. I'm grateful, and I consider them my friends. A for biting, you may perhaps not believe it, but I am in the gentler half. Some people would have blocked you for messing up the template. The amount of corrections for that is such that templates are one of the places not to use BOLD. (the principal others are merging and moving--they can really mess things up.)

Speedy requires on co-operation. We try to clear out the speedy nominations as fast as possible, so admins do make mistakes, and you need to help us out. If in any doubt at all, use PROD. For pages which are apparently neglected, it's great & should be used more.

As for Reedbusineess, I'll follow this up, because there is a jounals project. I know the guy you spoke to, he's sesible, but I'm trying to add a few details.

As for LJ, you removed a little too much just now. I was in the process of adding the material back. Argue on talk pages, not edit summaries. DGG 23:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll lay off the speedies and publishing for a while, and stick with my history till I learn more about this I suppose. Thanks for the communication. pw 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

friends

Thanks for the comment, so here's a good chance to try to make a fresh start.

In general it is the peculiar custom here that people start off sharply (who really likes being challenged about something they've done?) and eventually understand each other. I've gotten to know some good people that way.

First, I have been here since last october only, and became an admin about 3 months ago. I came here, as many people do, to work on a particular topic, and then very slowly got further into things bit by bit. I still edit some stuff on my field, but mostly what I do is to try to rescue potentially good articles in anything I know enough about to tell. I'm in general what's called an inclusionist, I try to find reasons to keep, not reason to delete, but this varies by topic--I tend not to like local schools and fire departments. All that I really use my adminship for is to delete the worst of the junk I come across when checking proposed deletions, and sometimes to look at a deleted article to comment at Deletion Review. There are a lot of things about working here I like, and also a good many that i don't; of the ones that I don't, I let most of them ride and try to change a very few. This is a big place. DGG 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)