User talk:K kay shearin
Welcome, Kay! --Larry Sanger 02:19, 31 October 2006 (CST)
Category re queen consorts
Hi Kay, far be it from me to discourage boldness, which I generally admire, I don't think we should use categories as a special kind of article, but your latest Category entry Category:English queens consort would imply we're doing that. Actually, we are long overdue discussing the whole matter of categories and what to do with them. Frankly, I think we should probably delete them all and either start over, or do something entirely different. I hope I'll have time to elaborate more tomorrow. --Larry Sanger 22:27, 31 January 2007 (CST)
Very short articles and BSD
I'm not going to mark Hemlock for speedy delete (as well as other somewhat recently created stubs of yours which would otherwise fall under the category of very short articles (<2 sentences and <50 words) and are candidates for deletion. I kinda wish the deleters would wait a couple of days so that folks would have a chance to remove the BSD tag if it is on their watch list, though. James F. Perry 22:18, 19 February 2007 (CST)
- Now I'm confused. Anyway, here is why the stubs have been getting tagged BSD (from the BSD guidelines)::
- "really, really short articles: it consists of two sentences or less, or 50 words or less, which have been left on the wiki for more than two hours."
- But are you telling me that people actually go in and remove the square brackets which create links? Or are you talking about links such as the one on the Hemlock article to an external source?
- Oh, and I'm working on the Trial of Joan of Arc page. It is currently in the History Workgroup. I was thinking of moving it to the Law Workgroup where it would go with other famous Trials (Socrates, Scopes, Nuremburg, etc). What do you think? James F. Perry 23:07, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Edits by "Rob Levin"
Okay, now I think I get it. The West Memphis article was edited by "Rob Levin" and his edit removed the links you had put in.
"Rob Levin" is what is known on WIkipedia as a "drive-by editor". He hit the Joan of Arc article as well. The drive-by editor will go from one article to another, to another, and so on, making sometimes major edits before moving on. The edits are almost never constructive, never well informed, and this user was blocked. That is something that happens on CZ, but not on WP (the blocking, that is).
The actions of such users are actually quite insulting. I have been working on the Joan of Arc article for several weeks and, in the process, have read several whole books on the subject. Then this clown comes along, looks at the article for 2 minutes,and makes a whole bunch of changes, and leaves no note in the edit summary, and moves on, leaving me to clean up the mess. As if he can do in 2 minutes what it took me several weeks to do after reading a number of books on the subject!
Take a look at his "contributions". And note the time stamp.
James F. Perry 12:56, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Multiple Workgroups for articles
Apparently, articles can be placed in more than one category. The following page indicates that the new Article Checklist has space provided for up to 3 categories:
This is nice. It means I don't have to wrestle with deciding whether Joan of Arc goes in History or Religion and such questions.
I have started a listing of High Priority articles on the Law Workgroup home page. I can't really develop it that far since I lack basic expertise in that field. The Trial of Joan of Arc article is likely to be the only Law WG article I work on.
James F. Perry 18:05, 20 February 2007 (CST)
The Big Write
Larry Sanger just created the following article:
If I'm not mistaken, you're an Editor, so you can nominate articles. I just expanded the Trials section on the Law WG page. The entire list could probably be usefully expanded to between 100 and 150 articles.
Two really important ones: Magna Carta and Inquisition.
James F. Perry 20:36, 21 February 2007 (CST)
- I am continuing to add articles, bit by bit, to the High Priority Law WG list. Two trials articles just added: the 1919 Black Sox baseball scandal and Flood v. Kuhn (baseball anti-trust exemption). Let me know if yoiu think these, or any others, aren't really that high priority.
- I just checked at Wikipedia and they do not have an article on John Goldmark (Goldmark libel case). I do not believe I am wrong in my assessment of this trial's importance. WP doesn't have an article on the Trial of Joan of Arc either.
- One known problem: there is a very strong U.S. centric bias to the listing so far. There really isn't much I can do about that due to limited knowledge of the subject elsewhere in the world.
- James F. Perry 20:39, 22 February 2007 (CST)
I added the Supreme Court cases you mentioned plus the Standard Oil anti-trust case. All were on my short list except Gideon. I will go through the whole list and add case numbers, but use a piped link. The case number will show up in the title, but not on the WG listing.
I took out the baseball cases. They will go in Sports WG Top. Flood v. Kuhn will no doubt be put in Law WG, but not Top.
And I took out the Outlawry section. Maybe some stuff there (Al Capone, Bonnie and Clyde, Jesse James) belongs in Law, but not Top.
Is there a Title IX case we are missing?
James F. Perry 10:28, 23 February 2007 (CST)
Goldmark case (article title)
In the next couple of weeks, I may be starting the article provisionally entitled Goldmark libel case. But . . . that makes it sound almost like it was Goldmark who was charged with libel. So maybe just Goldmark case?
There are a few other "famous trials" which might be added: Boston Massacre, the trial of the Dakota Sioux in Minnesota during the Civil War, Susan B. Anthony (?), Haymarket, Billy Mitchell (military court-martial), the Chicago Seven.
James F. Perry 15:10, 2 March 2007 (CST)
Hi, I'm nominating the article you wrote on HBO for speedy deletion, It's only one line long and hasn't been touched since february. Feel free to remove the tag if you're going to work on it in the near future. Daniel Coates 08:59, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
Thank you for the notice about John Calhoun. I just checked, his full name is John Caldwell Calhoun and in Wikipedia he is referred as "John C. Calhoun". I think the title needs to be changed to John C. Calhoun or John Caldwell Calhoun and the redirect John Calhoun to there. But I don't know how to move a page, though. Can you help? Thanks! By the way, thank you for your expert improvement on Gideon v. Wainwright, which I started. I saw on your page that you've worked in ACLU, that's awesome, I would like to work there one day :) Yi Zhe Wu 00:48, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
- I googled it and found "John C. Calhoun"'s hit far exceeds the other two, and I've done moving it by copy-paste and changed John Calhoun to a redirect. I agree about that ACLU does things for us that nobody else does, they have really good points in freedom of speech, criminal justice, drug policies, and students' rights (something that would affect me). Cheers! Yi Zhe Wu 14:33, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
- Hey! Constable User:David Tribe just send me a message which explained and stated only constables can move pages, so he reversed the copy paste and moved it in the conventional way. He also said in future a page move should be requested in firstname.lastname@example.org . Thank you. Cheers! Yi Zhe Wu 20:13, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
Ah. Sorry about that, it was my mistake. When I saw these entries, I added some new ones, and then I saw other ones seemed to be alphabet so I rearranged my insertion to alphabet. Thanks. Yi Zhe Wu 13:21, 14 April 2007 (CDT)