User talk:Honette: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by Tara5dimitRi - "→‎Sacagawea sculptures: new section"
TheseusXav (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Line 124: Line 124:


I've added the entries. Barbara <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tara5dimitRi|Tara5dimitRi]] ([[User talk:Tara5dimitRi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tara5dimitRi|contribs]]) 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I've added the entries. Barbara <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tara5dimitRi|Tara5dimitRi]] ([[User talk:Tara5dimitRi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tara5dimitRi|contribs]]) 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== A Message from Avaloan==
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, <b>open wikis</b>, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are <b>largely not acceptable.</b> (This doesn't mean it is not allowed totally)

Self-published material may in some <b>circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications</b>

That Wiki page dedicated for Dragon Age Series and is maintained by experts and well fed by reliable sources
so it's allowed consider that circumstances.
Please read the policy again.

<b>Reference</b>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCE
Self-published sources (online and paper)

and thanks for your concerning ,if you found any mistake done by me in any wiki pages in wikipedia please send it me right away
cause that may help for another reader.
-Thanks
By Avaloan

Revision as of 15:43, 3 September 2010

SEMI-RETIRED
Honette is no longer very active on English Wikipedia as of September 2010 to focus on its personal life goals. Account is checked 2 or 4 times per month.
Nothing exciting here ...

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation


There are currently
2,812 articles in the backlog.
You can help us! Join the
September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive


The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.

Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Thanks from the GOCE

Thank you very much for signing up for the Guild of Copy Editors' September Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two years, to the summer of 2008! We're going to need all the help we can muster to reduce the backlog to a manageable size. We've set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog, and getting the total under 5000. To do that, we're going to need more participants. Please invite anyone you can to join the drive! Once again, thanks for your support! If you have any questions, contact one of our coordinators—ɳorɑfʈ Talk!, The Raptor You rang?, or SMasters (Talk).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Torrens Park

Thanks! (Either, it must have been too late at night, or the wine was good.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I was following JohnKelly14 and that lead me to the Adelaide suburb and school articles (which I never knew about). Most of them require copy-editing (and more). Nice meeting a local ,  Davtra  (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i) Yes, JohnKelly14 is a bit of a worry - I've just spent most of the last hour preparing information to demonstrate to him that he is (pause while I look for polite words) "ill-informed".
ii) "Most of them require copy-editing (and more)." - Whether they do or not, (and no-one is arguing that they don't), ANY and ALL improvements are appreciated! (And not just by me!)
iii) I had a look at your user page, but I couldn't identify our overlaping interests. From my user page can you identify any? (Having just reviewed my user page, I see I need to upate the sections referring to Adelaide and South Australian geography, history and politics!!
iv) And yes, it IS nice to meet a local!
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I don't think we have shared interests. I'm mainly here to copy-edit articles. It's a great exercise. I get to improve several skills.  Davtra  (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
for your thankless work in cleaning up SA school articles. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! (but ... )

Closed. This courtesy notice was to simply inform my edits, and the discussion dragged on. My skull is cracked far worse than I thought.

Everybody appreciates you dilligence! (c.f. Barnstar from the monkey.)
But in a few cases you're being a bit overzealous. I thought at least twice before making this posting, because I'm not quite sure what to say. The best I can come up with is to say: Please note that a few people have reverted some parts of some of your edits. You might want to review their edit comments, and their edits, and think about what they're saying.
But otherwise, please keep up the good work. As you have seen from the postings above, (mine included), your work IS appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting fresh below
hehe I agree with you! I must have been on fire or something. In regards with this, I deleted The Reds (how is it significant?), and the word today isn't precise language. Does today mean 22 August 2010, on the day that word was added, in 1980s or 1990s? I believe it's better to use something like As of 2005, the school caters for nearly ... To be honest, most of the school articles aren't well written for an encyclopedia.  Davtra  (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several questions there.
I deleted The Reds (how is it significant?), - Hard to answer. If I asked you: "How is 'The Crows' or 'The Power' significant?", what would your answer be? My answer would probably be very similar to that. (And note, "The Reds" have been "The Reds" since 1869 - much longer than 'The Crows' or 'The Power'.)
"and the word today isn't precise language." - I disagree. Today is quite precise. And unambiguous, too. When it becomes incorrect, then it's incorrect. But it's quite precise.
"To be honest, most of the school articles aren't well written for an encyclopedia." - No disagreement from me on that statement!!
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Reds" since 1869 Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? I now believe that is "significant" and worthy!
As 1869 is the year of the founding of the school, I don't think it's any more (or less) significant than the founding of the school. However, I'm sure I could be conviced otherwise by a well presented case ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's quite precise. How is it precise? I believe that depends on the context? In my view, the text is accurate but not precise.
I don't see much future, and I do see LOTS of words, in the continuation of that.
In response to your comments, perhaps it's more useful if I say: 'Replacing "today" with "since xxxx" is probably a better solution.' (i.e. OK. Good points. I'm convinced.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No disagreement from me on that statement!! You know, I think I should rewrite the school articles instead of tagging words (I'm new to this tagging and template business)  Davtra  (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But it sounds like a high risk strategy to me. It appears to me that armed only with logic and a knowledge of good grammar, you are thinking about embarking on an activity in areas where you don't know the background, history and predjudices. A worthy motive, but perhaps problematic, and likely to elicit antagonism? Personally, I wouldn't. And if you decide to do so, I suggest you VERY quickly develop a VERY thick skin. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. If it's too technical, I need not touch the subject.  Davtra  (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In regards with this, I believe it's better to be specific (for example, the school has some # clubs for students). What does many mean (and under what context)? There are four examples presented. Assuming the school has four clubs, to the school or students, four clubs may appear many but not to others Nonetheless, many isn't actually needed.  Davtra  (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Assuming the school has four clubs" - Why would you assume that? I wouldn't. In fact, I wouldn't assume anything! I would proceed with extreme caution ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Nonetheless, many isn't actually needed" - I either don't understand, or disagree. (Or both?) "Many" indicates that there are more than the four mentioned. (Which, independently, I know for a fact to be true, but there is no way that you could have known that.) What I'm trying to communicate is that things aren't always black or white, PARTICULARLY where people and their opinions are involved. i.e. Be careful and conservative in your assumptions, and if something is important, verify the information rather than assume that logic applies; where/when people are involved, logic is often irrelevant! (By-the-way: By now you've probably realised that I'm not the world's best speller.)
Again I'll emphasise that I'm NOT wanting to discourage you. On average you're doing a great job, and as I've said before, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is appreciating your work. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By-the-way: I'm trying to be helpful. If I'm just being an interfering busybody, please say so and I'll go away. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your inputs! I appreciate your helping. Most of these "issues" can be rectified by re-writing or re-wording/copy-editing them and adding references, so we need not debate. You are right, it's best not to make any assumptions at all. There may be good information, but if it's poorly written, it may convey the wrong meaning. I need your feedback on the Prince Alfred College's lead section. Do you see any issues in the lead section? I'm trying to write it from an international perspective; I need confirmation that all Wikipedia's core policies apply to all articles?
The data (such as The Reds) I deleted are back into articles because they can be verified (with references). (I shouldn't have deleted them.) You brought a very important point, verifiability (not truth). Some articles contain no sources to support facts and hence my tagging and removing. I'll be checking data using online databases and add references to support facts. Thanks,  Davtra  (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've lost track of the conversation - see below. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

breakpoint for editing convenience

I'm going to summarise this discussion. The above discussion isn't productive, my fault for not communicating effectively (what you are saying may not be what you have said... d'oh!).

To summarise:

(a) my aim is to make the text clear, concise and precise as best as possible to best of my ability for the encyclopedia while following its policies and style guide, and to make the verifiable text readable and understandable for the local, national and international audience.
(b) your concern is my (premature) tagging and removing of words is unnecessary for certain text.
(c) conclusion: I should have been bold and re-wrote or copy-edit the text "on-the-spot".  Davtra  (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you've probably realised, I think your goals are laudable, and I support them. Also, I appreciate your efforts, and I'm confident that others do, too.
But I feel you may have missed a few points. And I'm afraid I'm not sure what question you are asking, and hence I'm not sure what answers you are looking for, and thus, what answers to give.
But I'm confident that we can't be "miles apart" ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident we can't be "miles apart" too. However, I'm afraid I have no clear idea what you want me to do exactly? My editing is not "perfect" and error-free. Mistakes do happen and editors correct (and never revert e.g. this) them. Just to be "safe", I'm going to stay away from all local school articles. Cheers,  Davtra  (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS Thanks for telling me that I was distorting information; a good editor never changes the meaning of facts. In regards with deleting content, my removing of data could have been in error. Perhaps you are saying the removed data is useful and can be improved? On a different note, my questions (in the context of local schools): What type of data has encyclopedic value? What is considered to be encyclopedic? How much detail is too much detail? How much detail do people need to read or know?  Davtra  (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify Drive

Since you signed up for the September 2010 GOCE event, I wanted to invite you to participate in a similar event: the September 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. In case you didn't know, "Wikification" is the process of formatting articles using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and adding internal links to material. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors. Thanks!

 ono 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 00:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm. This sounds fun! Something new and different.  Davtra  (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE drive has begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. --Diannaa (Talk) 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 03:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Sacagawea sculptures

I've added the entries. Barbara —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tara5dimitRi (talkcontribs) 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Message from Avaloan

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable. (This doesn't mean it is not allowed totally)

Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications

That Wiki page dedicated for Dragon Age Series and is maintained by experts and well fed by reliable sources so it's allowed consider that circumstances. Please read the policy again.

Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCE Self-published sources (online and paper)

and thanks for your concerning ,if you found any mistake done by me in any wiki pages in wikipedia please send it me right away cause that may help for another reader. -Thanks By Avaloan