User talk:RenegadeStormie

Have started for goldfields - that is an easy one

there are some that are Perth based that were aimed at the whole state for distribution, still thinking on that

also, you should be beyond the beginners stage by now - AFC and all that, you have enough that are up to scratch to have as good examples

it is one thing to say where they are held etc (librarians thing), it would be good to see if you can find trove refs that allude to the papers or editors or publishers, to widen the context of the text of the articles... my edits tried to do that on some of them

cheers - keep up the good work, and dont hesitate to make queries on wiki, off wiki, or however... also available for real life consult as am a battye and sro habitue... keep up the good work!!!! JarrahTree 05:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a look at the category page you set up for the Goldfields-Esperance region; I was thinking it might be useful to have them in a sortable table, so we can include years of publication and status (i.e. current or defunct) to improve user experience - what do you think? RenegadeStormie (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

np - if you can create it, easy - add it!

I created one for the Gascoyne newspapers, however I am concerned it might be deleted. RenegadeStormie (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

never - pilbara newspapers has lasted long - its a parallel and complement and even potential productive overlap - never over my 10 years and 100k eds :) JarrahTree 10:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for all the energy it goes to make the column defunct, I still think adding a Trove ref about a newspaper makes it much more a wikipedia article than what it might look like now. If you could exchange the word defunct for a valid and viable trove ref, the more survivable the article is, believe me! JarrahTree 08:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are saying, but it does make it easier for people to take in the information at a glance - they can quickly establish which are current newspapers without having to scan through longer lists (which will be the case for other regions). So I would prefer not to take it out. I will add more references as I go.RenegadeStormie (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, ok, there is nothing nicer than a fresh bunch of trove refs, and as far as criterion on wikipedia - they help build up the status of the article with

WP:RS, not enough, and you leave yourself open... JarrahTree 10:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It is well worth trying the (year) establishment, and (year) disestablishment categories! JarrahTree 12:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

damm, got it so wrong - a check list point as to who was doing what - total misread on my part, sincere apologies. JarrahTree 08:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a caveat at the top of the table to indicate that the editor column is purely for our reference to avoid doubling up on work, for the benefit of SLWA staff and volunteers - which is its entire purpose, not to make it seem like we are the premier editors of WA newspaper pages. I have no problem with you adding a list on the participants page. But I do have a problem with you coming on to my talk page and being so rude. I appreciate that you apologised, but perhaps you could be more respectful in future communications so we can avoid these situations. RenegadeStormie (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, the misread and response was not appropriate. You have a good point. Will make sure a more circumspect response in future.JarrahTree 08:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible to have a discussion onwiki/online or elsewhere about what I tend to call project tagging ? JarrahTree 03:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Here is preferable for me (or another location on wiki) RenegadeStormie (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. You might note that when you have been updating your amazing lists (very very impressed by the thoroughness) you might note that I have added the project tags on the talk page - I think with adequate guidance they could be part of your guidelines. What do you think?

• Oz project
• WA project (or Perth if limited to)
• Journo project (I find that very very frustrating,... but dont ask me what I think of 'Ships' or 'Trains' grrr)
• assessment criterion
• talkpage tag (where arguments on article talk pages eventuate, always a good add on to remind)
• others when needed... (there is a very very annoying 'photo needed' one - and others)

I just think that if you have good keen editors they can add the project tags relatively easily, and it fixes up a major problem on wiki of 'un-tagged' items

Hope that is not too many topics in one go... JarrahTree 03:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The format of your excellent process page might have it as 4 talk page editing so that people dont get confused as to what is going on - just an idea

also there are a few cowboys out there who over-add projects like a freely associating rap singer on some hard stuff, but in most cases I do not expect that wa newspaper stretch more than the oz/australian project and things, and the journalism project - there might be something in an item that attracts one more project for some bizarre reason - but wouldtn expect more than one or two out of the total number JarrahTree 03:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info and the positive feedback. The talk pages are one of those things that I wasn't really sure about. So this is good to know! Will it be ok for me to just copy and paste the talk page templates and categories from the ones you have already done?

Sorry, but could you please clarify what you mean by a 4 talk page in regards to the process page? I'm a bit confused.RenegadeStormie (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you or whoever watches over what you do, understand that as far I am concerned they are the best (either your project page instructions, or the articles themselves) in the country - and pity we cannot have some way of giving it all very big bells and whistles acclaim I am sure we'll find some way to do so - from a 10 year 100k editor

I was looking at the numbers used for headings on your instruction page, 3 was for the main page space, I was suggesting a separate heading '4' for talk (then 5 for completion part

Also copy and paste and reverse engineer is always very strongly encouraged - you get to learn a lot that way JarrahTree 04:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Thanks. Well there has been a lot of great ground work done by dedicated editors before us! Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Good idea! Many thanks. Yes, I do a lot of copying and pasting!! RenegadeStormie (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think possibly um.... the categories only get added if you add the things inside the project templates....

I would suggest something like: -

• Main Project Tage (generic) {{WikiProject Australia}}
• State Tag |WA=yes
• Perth Tag (if for item published/distributed primarily in Perth, W.A.) Perth=yes will automatically add WA as well
• Class Tag ( if a list |class=list or if a stub |class=stub - see also Australia Project assessment guidlines )
• Importance Tag ( within Australian project |importance=low
• Importance in WA (or other sub-projects of Australian project - WA-importance=low
• Journo project (usual class=stub importance=low after WikiProject Journalism with the all important"| separator)

just an idea JarrahTree 06:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As eds come and go like most things in real life - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment is more or less dead, but that page will give an idea about how complex we can deal with assessment of project pages... a good one to check out re project tagging and all JarrahTree 06:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, my mistake. Maybe it would be better if you just fixed it up - please, if you don't mind? I suspect I might just get it wrong again.RenegadeStormie (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah - not wrong - it looks good, I can simply adapt part of this and what you have already done - there is never a wrong with this stuff, just different ways of looking at things. I'll try a bit... feel free to cleanup if it doesnt make senseJarrahTree 07:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it :) RenegadeStormie (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can see what I have done, in my mind not very tidy sequence, I suppose what would look better would be example of which bit of coding creates the cats - oz, wa, perth - with an eg inside nowiki frame - then the range of the usual for newspapers... anyways the weekend beckons and tommorows weather repoerts give me the creeps... JarrahTree 07:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It looks good. Much better when done by someone who knows what they are talking about. RenegadeStormie (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately project tagging is insufficiently modulated with rules or in any way policed - we have at least one non native english speaker who is up there in the galaxies with many good edits, but then some evidence that shows some bizarre word association adding of extra projects that suggest a psychpathology of greediness for projects well beyond common sense, then editors in the galaxies who have never touched a talk page in their edit history... it is a very very weird world we live in... JarrahTree 08:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, in about 1975 the Swan Express was acquired by Graham Maisey (son of Don Maisey) and Howard Wilcockson. I know because I worked with them for several months, having just moved from Sydney to Perth, before setting up my own writing and PR consultancy. The office was on the first floor of the (old) Midland Town Hall clocktower. Initially, weekly circulation was to Midland, Guildford, Kalamunda and the Swan Valley area. I took on the job of managing and distributing a weekly Morley edition with additional circulation in Bayswater, Bedford, Inglewood and Noranda. Things seemed to be going well at the time I had to move on, but I soon ceased contact. The printing was done on Wednesdays at the Sunday Independent (Vic Park). I don't know how "reliable sources" can be found for 1975-79. In time, if I dig deep in my papers, I may be able to find a few old numbers. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great to know, thanks for the information. Please feel free to update the page with any other information you come across about the title! RenegadeStormie (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - wheatbelt newspapers has the marks of being a well constructed and informative article - well done and keep up the good work - it puts other state overloaded lists to complete shame - the fact that we have a participatory collaboration that can break up into regional blocks and keep them readable referenced and reasonable size for the reader is what it is all about! If they ever ressurrect the coffee shop - I owe you one! (mind you the temp replacement is better than nothing) cheers and well done!! JarrahTree 07:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JarrahTree. Should be a new coffee shop going in, but I have no idea how long it will take! Cheers. RenegadeStormie (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should have reminded/warned you that the NSW work is not a good example :) - JarrahTree 04:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RenegadeStormie. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RenegadeStormie. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, South West newspapers, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Bradv 23:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Proposed deletion}} removed. Reasons (and discussion if necessary) at Talk:South West newspapers#Proposed deletion. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute crap - do not let new year shanannagans I dont think it meets our criteria rubbish even enter your mind JarrahTree 00:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mitch_Ames & JarrahTree for removing the proposed deletion and for the backup. Happy new year. RenegadeStormie (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RenegadeStormie. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

jo, ,umsmr od — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.109.152 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC) j94a, glg05"_ :)[reply]