User talk:John Foley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sjorford (talk | contribs) at 14:16, 3 November 2004 (Balliol articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Leave a Message


It is now 13:26 on Thursday, October 17, 2024 Wikitime

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful

Cheers, Sam Spade 00:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

Further welcome

After seeing you on the bus and in the street I 'see' you here. Welcome aboard. Good to see someone else knowledgeable on legal topics is making a contribution. One project I have in mind and had intended to do - but I got distracted by writing the Fathers' rights page - was to produce a set of guidelines for solicitors in dealing with cases of implacable hostility, etc. Would you collaborate here in such a topic, perhaps linked to Fathers' rights? It might be worth using SFLA Code of Conduct as a starting point. Matt Stan 15:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that implacable hostility and its allied issues need to be set out and have initiated the page. Note that lawyer guidelines are not suitable for an encyclopaedia but may be better dealt with e.g. as a book. JPF

1895_in_sports

  • It might be just me, but the format of your addition to 1895 in sports doesn't fit the predominant style of those particular pages - it might perhaps be better to have a separate article on the 1895 Chess Congress (where it'll be possible to go into more detail), and then have a brief line about it in the 1895 in sports page, in the same style as the other links. Average Earthman 10:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll sort this out. JPF 15:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Grand International Chess Congress

Did you have permission to copy the paragraph about 1895 Chess Congress from the book website? If not, it might be a good idea to rewrite it in your own words. We try to be careful with copyrights at Wikipedia. Andris 21:18, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for caution. All that remains is the link to the book website. There was already a more complete page on the Hastings 1895 event which I had overlooked. JPF 21:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Father's rights articles

Hi. You need more than a link for an article. Articles that only contain a link are candidates for speedy deletion. Try creating the article in your user space until it is finished and then creating it as an article. - Tεxτurε 23:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland

There was a guy at the FNF conference in Coventry last year who was a worker detailed to the Sunderland contact centre. He reported that the mother visitors were all Arabs, and apparently in the Arab community in Sunderland it is more usual for patriarchal family values to persist. I haven't got the name, though the FNF office might be able to help. Matt Stan 08:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting up the article

If one follows a structured approach then the main article should contain a summary which can be fully more detailed elsewhere, which would be my preference for something that has grown too large. Some might consider it a nuisance that you moved the 'Updates' from the main page to the subsidiary page because they might have had their watchlist set to point at the main page, and will hence miss any updates unless they also set watches on the subsidiary pages. Also, unless you make clear some terms of reference in the main page you might find that others perform edits that duplicate what you've moved to the subsidiary page because they don't realise how you've structured the thing. In general in Wikipedia there are no rules about structure, and the ability to link anything to anything seems to negate arguments that the unplanned nature of the enterprise will inevitably lead to chaos. Your indication of relief that I didn't object to your carve up might also be indicative of some self-doubt on your own part? ;-) Matt Stan 08:18, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

T H Taylor

I replied on my talk page. Andris 16:01, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about my Welsh user page going bananas. I was away on holiday at the time and only just checked it out, but it seems okay now. Maybe it was something to do with the new page format? Deb 13:41, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wadham

Apologies if you thought it was a vanity entry - I will find a colleague to re-enter my accolade who will prove that you were being presumptive in your implicit denigration of my work. CJW Martin

United Nations

the United Nations, from which Wikipedia has received formal recognition,

This is news to me. Can tell me where i can find that? Walter 21:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Refer to [1] where Wikipedia displayed at the United Nations

Gender role

Dear John - I just found your comment on my user page. First of all: try to avoid writing on other peoples user pages, it's officially considered vandalism - which I understand was not your intention. I gave a reason for the removal on the Gender role talk page. See you there. Also note the section "don't be reckless" on Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages--Fenice 15:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) PS you may however write on peoples talk-pages, thats the "discussion"-tab on the top--Fenice 15:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon

He seems he went to both then. My original source was the list of former pupils of Westminster, and also the fact that we had a Gibbon prize at the school. It talks about both in http://50.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GI/GIBBON_EDWARD.htm (1911 EB), with a bit more detail than our article - so really we should lift some more text from there. ed g2s • talk 23:47, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Balliol articles

I'm not sure you need to split all those sections from Balliol College, as most of them would surely fit in the main article? It's not that important either way, but if they are going to be separate pages, they should have better names - Balliol College alumni instead of Balliol/Alumni for example - subpages aren't used in the main Wikipedia namespace anymore. sjorford 14:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Foley&oldid=7076718"