User talk:Joe Quick/Archive 5

Joe Quick

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5

thanks

Thanks Joe, by the way, two more students have put up articles Leopards as taphonomic agents and Bone tools - I would be grateful if you would weigh in and give encouragment, critique etc.

Lee R. Berger 05:54, 15 October 2007 (CDT)

Question

I'm just curious, is your last name derived from "rapido" or is it just Quick? Call it a long-standing curiousity... --Robert W King 21:57, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Kennewick

Hi Joe,

Just going through Kennewick - couple of things. I would personally not concentrate on the controversy, but on the anthropology. What I mean by this is that I would introduce the fossil (sub-fossil) first e.g. what it comprises, skeletal part representation, geological situation of the find, taphonomy etc. in a dispassionate voice. I would then go on to its significance and then its discovery. Only at that point would I delve into the debate around "is it or isn't it" and "what to do with it". Although I have a clear bias to one side, these debates are incidental to the fossils importance as one of, if not "the", oldest human remains from North America. At this stage, when I read this article, I get the feeling that the author has a non-reburial standpoint - not sure why but thats what I "sense" - and we do want to remove any aspect of non-nuetrality. I would add photos or even a scanned newspaper article to give the article some spice. If you have some of the data on the first bit and can add it, I'd be happy to weigh in.

Lee R. Berger 15:22, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

workgroup assignment _ Yoga

Joe - Thanks for your input on this. My greater concern was actually changing the Category to which Yoga was assigned. Does changing the Template then change the category page, or is that a separate operation? I'm writing from my Blackberry, so I can't sign this properly. Michael J. Formica

And, now, thanks for the tech lesson. Truly appreciated. Ihave to say that I'm getting a bit frustrated with the lack of participation in the topics that I'm working on, but I shall sally forth. Psych, in particular, is a horror show! --Michael J. Formica 08:08, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Biography Workgroup

I was just going to suggest it, and see that you already had. How do we add a workgroup? It seems like the suggestions are there, but there's no follow through. Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 09:29, 11 November 2007 (CST)

checklist

You're like a dynamo. :) Chris Day (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2007 (CST)

It's really just a matter of working out a system and having watched enough articles develop to know when I need to take a look at the edit history or swing by the wikipedia article to make a quick comparison. I also have a couple of handy tricks I've worked out. :) Gotta be done for the night though - I have class in 7 hours. --Joe Quick 02:11, 21 November 2007 (CST)

Yeah, thanks for all the subpage work, Joe! But I notice you're into these articles titled "list of...". These should themselves live on subpages of other pages (i.e., in most cases they should be Catalogs but in some others they might be Related Articles pages). I wouldn't expect you to make all the decisions this would involve (unless you want to)...but basically, somebody is going to have to undo all this subpagifying work you've done on the "list of..." pages. Sorry! --Larry Sanger 21:19, 21 November 2007 (CST)

Yeah, I know. :) I've been skipping a lot of them and simply crossing them off the list so that somebody else can move them and have been moving other ones myself. The only time I'm placing subpages (unless I wasn't paying attention to one or two) is in cases like the lists of anthropologists that Lee Berger made a while back. He added subpages to the articles and created a metadata page but they show up on the list of unchecklisted articles because he didn't create the the talk pages. I'm making the talk pages just to get them off the list. I'll start moving lists and catalogs once I finish up this job, which is actually going way faster than I expected. --Joe Quick 21:27, 21 November 2007 (CST)

Reiki

Thanks for taking an interest in my article on reiki, Joe, I appreciate it! Feel free to email me or chat over MSN messenger, both are william@2038.org. William Porquet 16:57, 23 November 2007 (CST)

magic

Joe - thank you for your tidying up at magic. aladin Aladin 17:24, 23 November 2007 (CST)

See...

CZ:Media_Assets_Workgroup/Development. Dive in if you can or want to. Stephen Ewen 18:55, 3 December 2007 (CST)

Nara

Thanks for the Nara temple, great photo and I added it to Japan, history Richard Jensen 23:01, 17 December 2007 (CST)

See....

CZ Talk:Anthropology Workgroup/Priority list. Stephen Ewen 01:58, 18 December 2007 (CST)

Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)

Thanks for the notice to create the subpage. Did I just have to open that link & save the page? Or do I have to do more? (Chunbum Park 19:39, 20 December 2007 (CST))

Hmm. I think you must have seen an automated message that shows up when someone has placed the subpages template on the talk page but hasn't created the approval subpage yet. I created the approval page too, so you don't have to worry about it. But if you notice that message again, then yes, all you have to do is click on the link and then save the page. :) --Joe Quick 20:01, 20 December 2007 (CST)

Subpagination work

Thanks for all your subpagination work lately, Joe! --Larry Sanger 11:14, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Yes, you're a monster at getting through that list. I've done a bit and have no idea how you get through it so efficiently. Thanks a lot. Chris Day (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2007 (CST)

The goal is to maximize our internal articles by the new year. I figured the best way to do that would be to checklist the articles we already have. :^) --Joe Quick 23:45, 23 December 2007 (CST)

I added a few speedy delete tags as a result of working through CZ:Unchecklisted_Articles#Part_11. Software, Free thought and Jehovah's Witnesses just didn't seem to be up to scratch. What have you been doing with these types of microstubs? Chris Day (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Well, I've been speedydeleting a few, but a lot of them I leave alone. It's pretty subjective, but I look at who wrote them (to see if it's someone who is likely to keep working), whether they're from write-a-thon or geor-a-thon days (it seems rude to delete those), and I ask whether I learned something even though the article was a microstub. I also leave notes in the edit summary sometimes to see if I can trigger some attention out of someone who has the articel watchlisted. --Joe Quick 00:09, 24 December 2007 (CST)

Foto

En cuanto a esto, el correo es hjavier69@hotmail.com. Stephen Ewen 18:45, 27 December 2007 (CST)

You're right. That got in there because I chose "attribution" when I uploaded it. See the bottom of the source page.--Joe Quick 19:08, 27 December 2007 (CST)

Ready For Approval Page / Group Notifications

Hi Joe, are you going to be sending notifications to workgroup mailing lists regularly? I can add you to the 'approved senders' list to all of these so you don't have to sign up to every single mailing list, or wait for me to log in and get your post approved when notifying lists. Louise Valmoria 20:10, 5 January 2008 (CST)

lit. articles

Hi Joe, that's an interesting question in that yesterday, as I went for my evening stroll, I decided that I would henceforth write an article about each of the old (fiction) books that I reread in the future. I have hardly read any new fiction in the last 20 years, but I do reread some stuff from time to time. I decided to start with a 1956 novel by Michael Gilbert. But, like you, I began to ponder exactly what should go into any future articles. Now that you've asked me, I think that we should consider the following points:

• We are not writing junior high or high school "book reports", in which we simply summarize what happens in the novel (or short story), and throw in a couple of comments such as, "He's a good writer." "It bored me." "It was very exciting."
• We are not writing a college-level critical analysis of the work, as seen, say, from the view point of close textual criticism or whatever baloney they're using this year. In other words, we're not writing, "Poe's use of the comma is highly significant, in that it differs sharply from Hawthorne's use of it, and establishes a new guideline by which Herman Melville baloney baloney baloney."
• We are writing an encyclopedia-type article, which, to me, is not yet a clearly defined form. Over at WP there was a very pleasant and intelligent contributor (who was also an Administrator going slowly bonkers at the WP excesses) who wrote a number of individual articles about The Saint, the fictional character developed by Leslie Charteris. He, I think, handled his articles about the individual books in what I'm pretty sure is the correct manner. Take a look at this article, which I just pulled at random from a long list of Charteris books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She_Was_a_Lady You can see the information that he puts in:
  • Who wrote it, and when
  • How the book fits into the series
  • I think there's some more context given
  • A synopsis, up to a point, at least, that gives you some info about the plot and the characters but that would not spoil your reading of it.
• You might also take a look at an article I wrote for WP and then brought over to CZ about a book called The Interlopers, about the secret agent Matt Helm. I get a lot of various kinds of information into it, and I think that all future articles from me will be written in more or less the same format. I probably won't have extensive comments about the length of the book, as I do here, but the lengths of the Helm books did vary significantly over the years, and I thought it was important to mention it. I could have probably added some more personalized comments along the lines of "As Hamilton grew older, and his books longer (probably by editorial order) he grew increasingly long-winded and tiresome about some of his pet hobby-horses."

So I think it you're going to do famous short stories, you want to give us some info about the writer, even if you repeat it in different articles about stories by the same author. You should try to give as much context as you think is both necessary and interesting. For some of the Poe stories, for instance, you might say that this was one of the very first stories that might be considered science fiction; you would certainly put in for other stories that Poe is generally considered to be the Father of the Mystery Story, giving the names of the relevant three, etc. etc. You might have a word or two about the style of his writing, its accessibility, what sort of forum the story was published in, whether this particular story seems to have any connection with anything in Poe's life experience, etc. etc. And then, of course, at least some sort of summary of what the story is: where it's set, what it's about, why it was new at the time, what sort of reception it got from the readers, etc. etc.

There's probably a lot more to be said about this, but this ought to get you started -- or at least started in thinking about it. Hayford Peirce 12:17, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Andrew Carnegie

Approved! I believe you deserve some credit for this one ;-) I now unofficially nominate you for Approval Manager :-) See if you can get me busy! --D. Matt Innis 20:54, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Hehe. I thought it might come to that. :-) I'll see what I can do. --Joe Quick 21:02, 7 January 2008 (CST)