User talk:James Chenery: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:56, 7 August 2009

Emblem

You're right. You can't use Wiktionary as a source, because it doesn't fit the criteria for reliable sources. Of course, if the Wiktionary article lists some good sources itself, you can use those without any problems.

Those sources are a lot better. To improve the article further, I would recommend looking up books on emblems in particular, rather than dictionaries (I've already seen two such sources in the article). Also, if you feel like giving it a go, you could try to standardize the format of the references using WP:CITET. (Using templates is confusing to a lot of people, so if you don't, I won't hold it against you.) - Mgm|^(talk) 07:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for Get Your Sexy Back, what can I do specifically to clean up the page?

You said the links are not meaningful, but there are very few 'anti binge drinking' wiki pages. I feel that all the links I've included are relevant, especially in terms of binge drinking. How should I move forward to deorphan this page then, if there are no other resources? Can you help me? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athenak (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Editing articles from April and/or May 2007

Hello, I noticed your challenge. I've cleared out the articles R._L._Bhatia, Licentiate, and Primeira Linha. (I swear, that backlog keeps getting larger while I'm not looking.) Sophus Bie ^(talk) 08:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! And I've finally knuckled down and figured out how to organize them on my user page. (Also, I agree, the List of male superheroes ended up being significantly less painful than I expected.) Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone finished Social software (computer software) while I was gone. Just letting you know. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was me ;)--Kojozone (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, James Chenery. You have new messages at Arteyu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 05:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Penang

Are you doing the map? Just want to have an update. Cheers! Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your help pal. Take your time, do them as you please. (: Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 06:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, James Chenery, thanks a lot for the BarnStar. I like to be in the darkest depths, probably I should change my username to The Dark Lord. :D Just a bit lazy about the edit summaries... but I'll try to get better. Cheers--Kojozone (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for mine. Glad to be appreciated. (While I'm at it, thanks, Kojozone, for your help.) Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Designer's Barnstar

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Thank you for the maps! Keep up the great work! Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Japanese relations

I doubt anyone will dispute your recent edit at Japan – United Kingdom relations; and indeed, your justification is reasonable -- "Anglo" (see article: Anglo) is incorrect, according to the United Kingdom article "British" should be used.

However, I would be disinclined to extend the logic your argument in terms of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Amity and Commerce (1858) or the Anglo-Japanese Alliance (1902-1923)?

If we assume that your edit is best in its context, then what?

Does this imply that we need to add a few sentences to each of these articles and possibly others which use the inexact "Anglo-Japanese" modifier? I wonder, for example, about the article about Ian Nish, who is considered an expert on the subject of Anglo-Japanese relations, e.g.,

Ian Nish and Yoichi Kibata. (2000) The History of Anglo-Japanese Relations: The Political-diplomatic Dimension. Vol. I: 1600-1930; Vol. II: 1930-2000. London: Macmillan. 10-ISBN 1-403-91967-4; 13-ISBN 978-1-403-91967-0
______. (1972). Alliance in Decline: A Study in Anglo-Japanese Relations 1908-23. London: Athlone Press. 10-ISBN 0-485-13133-1; 13-ISBN 978-0-485-13133-8 (cloth)
______. (1966). The Anglo-Japanese Alliance: The diplomacy of two island empires 1894-1907. London: Athlone Press. [reprinted by RoutledgeCurzon, London, 2004. 10-ISBN 0-415-32611-7; 13-ISBN 978-0-415-32611-7 (paper)]

How does Wikipedia take into account long-term usage and evolving terminology like this?--Tenmei (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the titles of the treaties you mention are somewhat Anglo-centric, the articles concerned clearly identify the nations involved, so I do not think there is any need for clarification. Readers ought to be able to infer what "Anglo" might mean from the article.

It was out of concern for the international readership of Wikipedia, and the sensibilities of those who are British, but not English, which prompted me to change it in this instance, where there was no compelling reason for using "Anglo-" over "British" that I could determine.

It is possibly an instinctive habit learnt from living in Northern Ireland. I wonder if part of our use of "Anglo" stems from the UK being governed from London, and if so, how devolution affects things? I suspect the "Anglo-" article needs a little improvement.

Anyway, I shall consult a number of Northern Irish people, a Welshman, a Scotsman, and possibly someone from Cornwall, and see whether they care, and what they have to say.

Thank you for the message. Will you be attending any of the Asiatic Society's events in Tokyo later this year?

Best regards, --James Chenery (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that your edit was elegant, but I hesitated to say so. I still haven't figured out how or why I infer a something fine in a mere edit summary; but there you have it. Sometimes it leads to rediscovering a small thing I'd forgotten without noticing. Thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing question about rewriting leads from single sentence to multi-paragraph

Hi. I've been working on the oldest of the old articles to be copy edited, and I've noted that many, such as Pluto (Marvel Comics), have single sentence leads. I recently submitted Sharon Kay Penman to be reviewed, an article I've taken from stub status and taken from in-universe to real-world. The article had a single sentence lead, which led to what would have been a grade of B to a grade of C. I've reworked the lead, but this is a very long winded way of asking whether copyeditors should be rewriting the leads on articles that have been on the backlog for many years? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm afraid more often than not the mood takes me to do a complete rewrite which means I will be at this for a very long time! However, I have managed to clear some of oldest from summer 2007, and I'm helping editors who ask for copy editing, so generally it's become a busy place for me. At any rate, I won't worry about rewriting the leads for each article I find in the dusty recesses. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 01:45, 31 July 2009 edit Victoriaearle (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 61,987 edits →‎Copy editing question about rewriting leads from single sentence to multi-paragraph: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:56, 7 August 2009 edit undo Victoriaearle (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 61,987 edits →‎Copy editing question about rewriting leads from single sentence to multi-paragraph: on rewriting Next edit →
Line 77:		Line 77:

	Hi. I've been working on the oldest of the old articles to be copy edited, and I've noted that many, such as [[Pluto (Marvel Comics)]], have single sentence leads. I recently submitted [[Sharon Kay Penman]] to be reviewed, an article I've taken from stub status and taken from in-universe to real-world. The article had a single sentence lead, which led to what would have been a grade of B to a grade of C. I've reworked the lead, but this is a very long winded way of asking whether copyeditors should be rewriting the leads on articles that have been on the backlog for many years? Thanks. [[User:Truthkeeper88\|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88\|talk]]) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)		Hi. I've been working on the oldest of the old articles to be copy edited, and I've noted that many, such as [[Pluto (Marvel Comics)]], have single sentence leads. I recently submitted [[Sharon Kay Penman]] to be reviewed, an article I've taken from stub status and taken from in-universe to real-world. The article had a single sentence lead, which led to what would have been a grade of B to a grade of C. I've reworked the lead, but this is a very long winded way of asking whether copyeditors should be rewriting the leads on articles that have been on the backlog for many years? Thanks. [[User:Truthkeeper88\|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88\|talk]]) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

			:Thanks for your response. I'm afraid more often than not the mood takes me to do a complete rewrite which means I will be at this for a very long time! However, I have managed to clear some of oldest from summer 2007, and I'm helping editors who ask for copy editing, so generally it's become a busy place for me. At any rate, I won't worry about rewriting the leads for each article I find in the dusty recesses. [[User:Truthkeeper88\|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88\|talk]]) 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)