User talk:James4750/Archive1

Better late than never Welcome!

Hello, James4750, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! When in doubt, trust your commonsense. James470 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Template:Reflist
When adding articles, please use template:reflist under the reference section. It is easier to format and put into columns. Thanks.-- LAA Fan '' 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

project tags
new cats and new arts need 'em - it is well worth looking at other categories that might relate as well - never hesitate to ask for help at the australian noticeboard - more substance is needed beyond mere lists - have fun SatuSuro 06:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In the name of WP:AGF and a few other civilities required - please accept any apologies from me about my considering the titles of the created articles as idiot titles - one very big thing in wikipedia is reducing ambiguity and being very careful about context - the titles do nothing of that by being pruned down.

Content that actually provides context and adequate meaning and sufficient clarification always comes before pictures. The longer titles and better introduction (ie lead paragraphs and or sentences) would have saved the Australian project and yourself a lot of potential bother, I am suprised other editors have been so kind to you - it must be a weekend or something in Australia - I would have thought you would have had either title renames or even suggestions for deletion. Please consider carefully the problem that is created by ambiguous titles and lack of clarifying lead sentences and paragraphs. SatuSuro 07:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is more room for expansion with simpler titles than if you were more specific. Like the shark one couldn't have included the story about the guy who fought off a shark with a pocket knife if it used the same one as the American article. James4750 (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Koala attacks in Australia


The article Koala attacks in Australia has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gnangarra 13:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * see Articles for deletion/Koala attacks in Australia your welcome to make comments. Gnangarra 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Request - Octopus attacks
I see you add back the list non fatal attacks, with an edit summary saying that a merge cant be discussed without it. As you consider it unfair to discuss without this content it would be helpful if you actually participate in the discussion so that others can understand what is so important and why the need for a separate article. Gnangarra 15:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Article layout
Suggest you read WP:MOS, causing large amount of white space in articles make reading difficult, there is no need to use clear after each section, if there is insufficient space reduce the size and quantity of images in use until there is prose within the article. Gnangarra 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * see also Layout Gnangarra 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored the article back to point where I had addressed the problems caused by the template and the number of images in use, note that the images havent been entirely removed the line for extra images have been placed in tags so as appear has hidden text to editors who can restore the images when ther is sufficient prose to enable the flow of the article. The RS tag has also been restored as the primary sourcing for the article relies unreliable sources to assert the topic is notable and not a synthesis or original research. Gnangarra 16:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stonefish attacks in Australia


The article Stonefish attacks in Australia has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Stonefish don't attack people; their sting is a passive defense. The issue of stonefish stings would be more appropriately covered in the pre-existing stonefish article without splitting off content.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

You may also want to join the discussion over at Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board - there is concern about this series of articles generally. For my money, the 'attack' theme is problematic, and in general it would be better to cover these issues in the relevant animal articles. There's no good reason to have separate articles about stonefish and stonefish stings when the sting is the most notable feature of the animal. --GenericBob (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. While you're welcome to voice your opposition to the merge at the discussion section linked above, it is not appropriate to unilaterally remove the merge template from the article while that discussion is still in progress, as you did here. --GenericBob (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry mate, I have proposed Emu attacks in Australia to be merged into Emu, discuss at Talk:Emu. It is good material to add, just not notable enough for its own article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting the message out there...
James, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and thought I'd show you this tool if you havent seen it already:


 * Wikipedia article traffic statistics


 * shark gets this, while shark attack gets this.

Anyway, enter in a few other pages and see what you think. I have written a few Good and Featured Articles and would be happy to help you write some. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the number of views shouldn't count toward whether an article is notable. James4750 (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but unnnecessarily splitting up material sometimes makes a subject harder to navigate and can impact on the message being sent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It allows another way of finding the information, for instance someone going to the beach and wanting to find what to look out for can find the articles on marine nasties easily. James4750 (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)