User talk:Stellaemundi
Denning
[edit]The bibliogrpahy section of the article is intended to list the books that are in use for references in the article, not to collect a list of books about him. Also the url aprameter should only be used to link to online versions of the book, not Amazon pages. David Underdown (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Message to David Underdown. I am impressed by your vigilance. I have repositioned the books concerned to the External Links section. These books constitute the first proper academic study of the jurisprudence of Lord Denning and, as such, are of considerable relevance to any user of this Wikipedia entry who wishes to embark on a serious study of the work of this important judge. I apologise for putting the references in the wrong place but feel that it is important that users of Wikipedia have access to information about this very important, recently published, work of serious academic scholarship whcih supercedes all of the references in the bibliography.
Dr Charles Stephens MA[Oxon] LLB [London] PhD [London]
- External links is really intended for websites, so I've created a new "Further reading" section - we don't generally link direct to Amazon, a link is automatically created for the ISBN number which takes users to a special page where they can find links to library catalogues and online retailers in order to find a copy of the book if they wish. Since you appear to be te author of these books, you should also in future be aware of Wikipedia's policies on conflicts of interest - you potentially stand to benefit from increased awareness of these books. It's usually suggested that you mention them on the article's talk page first so that disinterested editors can decide on their value. David Underdown (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that information David. I am quite new to this aspect of life; my main concern is that scholars should have access to my work if they wish to pursue their interest in the subject - I can see the problems this might create. I will try and put something on the talk page of the article.
Welcome!
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Stellaemundi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Further reading
[edit]That is the intent of a further reading section, but you should probably read WP:COI. Who is publishing the books? Ironholds (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The books are published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing and are based on doctoral research for which a PhD was awarded by the University of London in 2007
- Hmn, interesting. I note that it's essentially a group of former cantab scholars. I'm sure it would be useful in a "further reading" section - paste the info onto my talkpage and I'll format it properly and put it in. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perfect formatting - I'll copy them along now. You're welcome to stay and edit, by the way - we can always use a good English lawyer. I've got articles on Lord Denning, Lord Mansfield, Norman Birkett and the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to (I think) an excellent standard, but it's far too much for one user. Any help expanding and improving the coverage of English law on Wikipedia would be greatly appreciated. Ironholds (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation. In principle I should be very interested but, just now, am a bit pushed for time with teaching committments. However, in the longer term, I shall suggest to my colleagues at the Open University that involvement in the law pages of Wikipedia might be something which we should consider. Thanks again for your help. (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that no harm was probably intended, but the above article is an internal review written by people commenting on and copyediting the page for its listing as a "good article" (an article which covers a subject properly, with good grammar, prose, referencing, coverage and the rest). It is not intended to be edited, and hasn't been since February because a review (excluding demotions) is a one-time thing. Placing an identical message on several pages, particularly when they're internal ones which shouldn't be edited, can open one up to accusations of spamming. I'm not accusing you of that, but I thought you should know to be careful in case others do. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)