Jump to content

User talk:Phoebe/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, you can check out the help files or you can leave a message on my talk page (don't worry, I don't mind :). Also, you can sign your user name with three tildes (~~~); add another one to append a time stamp.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but, for the most part, Wikipedia's literature entries are lacking. Maybe you can improve some of them (if you're so inclined, that is). Anyway, have fun and don't worry too much about messing up. -- Notheruser 06:38, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hm, where to start? Well, some authors have anemic entries (Stephen Crane, Thoreau, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, John Steinbeck, Alan Paton, etc.), some don't have an entry at all (Walter Mosley, Frederick Forsyth, Lorraine Hansberry, Irving Wallace, etc.), and most other entries can be greatly improved upon. As for some classics currently lacking coverage, Invisible Man, One Hundred Years of Solitude, The Call of the Wild, and The Chosen come to mind. Of course, those selections are slanted towards my literary interests which you may not share. If not (the horror!), you can always check out the list of books and the list of years in literature; you're bound to stumble across a missing article or one you can greatly improve upon. Lastly, I'll suggest writing about a work or author that interests you; you'll have plenty of opportunities to write about insipid topics in college. ;) I look forward to reading some of your additions. Notheruser 17:43, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Have opportunities?!? I've had opportunities! Which is why I'm not getting my master's in English lit, as well! :) I'll investigate forthwith. It promises to be pretty slow going, but enjoyable.

Brassratgirl 21:51, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oops! :) I mistook library science as an undergraduate offering. -- Notheruser 22:15, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
No worries, everybody thinks that. But it's actually a Masters or PhD program, at least in the states. I'm not sure about other places...hmm, this seems to be leading towards an article topic. Damn! They're everywhere! -- Brassratgirl 22:29, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Many people here write on literature but very few can write about oceanography and ecology - especially fishery and marine ecosystems. You might look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ecoregions as a guide to what needs to be done, and for the over-arching organizing we need for such topics. Also list of ecology topics could use a great deal more attention. User:Anthere is a notable contributor on these issues, biodiversity, Gaia philosophy and so forth. You might want to say hello to her. Welcome, and enjoy. - a. troll

Hello there. I noticed that marine ecology et al seemed to be lacking. I'll do what I can. It's not my field per se, but I am working with a fisheries professor on a marine conservation textbook in my "day job" -- so I'm learning a lot and have access to a lot of resources. I'll look forward to getting a few free hours (days? weeks?) to work on this stuff. cheers! Brassratgirl

Saw your addition to sturgeon. Nice collection of old public domain drawings and photos at NOAA you've discovered. Check if it is mentioned on the Wikipedia:public domain resources page, if not maybe you can paste the link there so anyone who might be so inclined can use their collection. Regarding attribution, the policy seems to be putting copyright info on the upload page. You don't have to state that it is used with permission, you don't need to get permission from a public domain source; once work is in the public domain, anyone can use it without fear of any copyright infringement. Giving a link to the original source on the image page, though, is a good idea, as well as stating in the alternate text in the image markup or on the caption that it is courtesy NOAA. Wikipedians have no problem with giving credit (but putting a permission statement right on the text page is new to me, but then again I have only been around here six months or so myself). I've gone ahead and done that for you on the sturgeon page. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. — Alex756

Have done. Was a bit confused on how credits worked. I have a tendency to cover my bases when citations are concerned, (occupational hazards of academics). Brassratgirl

Redirect vs. See


Welcome aboard! Good job on Earring!

Re: Edwardian -- If the entire article can be referred to another, we don't say "See X". We use redirect instead. Like this.

If there are many "see also", it needs disambiguation. --Menchi 20:23, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Eh. I wasn't sure, since "Edwardian" can also refer to "of the Edwardian period" as well as "Edwardian period"... but I see you've made that decision for me :) Brassratgirl
Somebody else independently did that later actually. In any case, the two adjectival distinction is relevant only in Wiktionary. In Wikipedia-links, it doesn't matter which meaning one talks about, the reader can get the info from Edwardian period. In another word, Edwardian alone isn't encyclopedic. For example,
"Edwardian" refers to:
  1. "Edwardian period"
  2. "of the Edwardian period"
Such a small and -- bluntly and take no offense -- uninformative article really isn't encyclopedia material. On the other hand, it's totally suitable for Wiktionary. And you seem to have a knack for Wiktionary. Maybe you should try that out (but don't abandon Wikipedia! :-). Perhaps you'd like it.
How to access the redir page: See Wikipedia:Redirect#How do I change a redirect and/or access its history?.
--Menchi 06:09, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello Brassratgirl

Could you review List of ecology topics and perhaps update it with fish related concepts ? I know little on that topic, but I suppose some ocean/lake/river ecology concepts might fit well :-) Thanks. Anthère