User talk:ReadQT
I have been a consistent fan of Wikipedia starting in April, 2005 and have made numerous edits without a user name. I recently started editing under a user name, ReadQT.
They both look great so far, the first one has a bit of a problem in that only his autobiography is used as a source, and autobiographies aren't secondary sources. As regards the second one the section titles are fairly long see WP:MSH. I'll look them over further tomorrow, but they look great considering you're fairly new (aren't you?) Quadzilla99 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Robert Adamson
[edit]Hi ReadQT, I notice that you have been doing some great work on Robert Adamson. I did a little bit of work on him a few months ago when I was working on Poetry Awards. You've done some good stuff but I have a comment/question. When I was working on the article, there was the heading Works and then subheadings for Poetry and Autobiography. (These weren't mine - they were already there). I notice that you have changed Autobiography to Bibliography. I'm not sure why you've done that. My understanding is that for a writer's works you can use the heading Works or Bibliography, but here you've used the heading Bibliography for a subset of his works? I don't know much about Robert Adamson and so there may be good reasons for your editing, but I just thought I'd ask these questions in case there's a misunderstanding. You can ignore me and I'll go away without being offended! Cheers, Sterry2607 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Replied to above question on Sterry2607's Talk Page.ReadQT (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good on you for adding references. That's important. However, I think I will change that bit back to what it was, to be more like the Australian writers I've been working on. Have a look at it and if you think it doesn't make sense, let me know. Thanks Sterry2607 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate your letting me know. Cheers, Sterry2607 (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The Informant
[edit]Hello, I noticed that you created The Informant (2009 film). I wanted to inform (heh) you that the notability guidelines for future films stipulate that there shouldn't be a film article until production has actually begun. This is because there is a false impression that the film will be made, when there are actually various factors that could interfere with production. I was wondering if you could take one of the approaches suggested under the future films department's processes. I think the best approach might be to create the book article and place condensed information about the project in development there. See what I've done with Frankie Machine (film) and Shantaram (film). If production does begin in April, the article can be recreated. This is a pretty simple process, and it's just to establish a threshold between films that will be made and films that linger in development forever, such as Logan's Run (2010 film) and Fahrenheit 451 (2009 film). Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the film is technically in production. From what you've said, it's undergoing the pre-production stage. Filming is not scheduled to begin until April, which is still a month off. WP:NFF states that shooting must have begun because there are numerous films that have come close to production but did not start as intended. See The Fountain and Watchmen (film) as a couple of examples. We can't really say beyond personal opinion that filming will begun unless it has already done so -- we can't account for true certainty. I ask you to reconsider, as I don't think it would be too difficult to create a stubby book article (for which the plot summary would actually belong, since the film is not guaranteed to follow the book perfectly) and have a Film adaptation section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, great. :) I'll see how I can help -- two heads are better than one, you know? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Great, you took care of it well! I've changed The Informant into a disambiguation page, and The Informant (2009 film) will redirect to The Informant (novel)#Film adaptation for the time being. A small suggestion for the future -- you can create the novel's article separately and change the film article into a redirect. That way, if filming begins, the redirect can be undone, and you'll have the old layout back. Other than that, though, nice work! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see you kept up with the film! I just moved it to The Informant (2009 film) because that's the proper title per naming conventions. I would suggest trimming down the plot summary to just the premise because we don't know how closely the film will follow the novel. Also, you may want to go to The Informant (novel)#Film adaptation and revise it to be shorter and point to the film article using the {{main}} template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy First Day of Spring!
[edit]
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
LEONIE ADAMS
Hello ReadQT. I've finished with the most complete website about the poetry of Léonie Adams. I have listed at my site, over 80 of her poems, 2 of my own literary essays on her work, and photos. I've also written the most complete timeline on Miss Adams' life. The website is www.myspace.com/leonieadamspoet
You are more than welcome to read my site on Leonie Adam's.
I've listed this site twice to Wikipedia's Léonie Adams' links. Please do not re-edit this link from the current page. Thank you,
Norman Cotton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.137.192 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Please use the Preview button
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Erich Kästner, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Also, you might want to consider WP:RED . Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with the suggestion to consider WP:RED's principle that redlinks often belong when they point to "an article should be created for the topic." This was the case with choral poetry, a major topic in Archaic and Classical Greek poetry, with seven redlinks to it (there should be more). Wareh (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind reply. No problem! Cheers, Wareh (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hallo, I notice that you did a lot of constructive editing on this article in 2007 and 2008 - you might be amused to know that there was a duplicate article, under the title Peter McDonald (critic), existing at that time and up till today. I've just tonight merged the two, which have coexisted since Feb 2006 - see Talk:Peter_McDonald_(critic)#History of a merger. PamD 21:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)