User:Matthew Stannard/Scratch

Questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

Dori | Talk 19:47, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hi again Stan. I am not sure I understand your question. My post above was simply meant as a welcoming message and a couple of links to help you get started as an editor if you so choose. Could you be a bit more specific as to that you want to do and are having trouble with? I am following your talk page so if you want you can post here (or at my talk page, either is fine). regards, Dori | Talk 20:48, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC): Hi again. I don't think there is a real knowledge of what

Wikipedia covers in depth and what it doesn't. One thing I could point out is the cultural coverage of many countries is lacking. That's just one thing I have come across, but there is no overseeing editor at Wikipedia. There are however more experienced editors, and a better place to ask this question is on the Wikipedia:Village pump.

However, if you are looking for something to do, there are some pages you can look at, namely: Wikipedia:Cleanup (clean up articles that others have submitted), Wikipedia:Pages needing attention (similar to clean up), Wikipedia:Requested articles (articles that other Wikipedians want to be written).

Regarding, the edit links on the right, those are section edit links. You can divide the articles into sections when they get too long in order to improve the flow. You can also set up your Preferences to not show up the edit links but rather to edit sections when you right click a section name. See Wikipedia:How to edit for more information and nifty things that you can do, but you can create sections and subsections by using equal signs. See below for a sample. hth,

Dori | Talk 18:32, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

couple of tips

Hello again Stan. I noticed that you are editing on your talk page and I wanted to give you a couple of tips in case you are not aware of them. First of all, you can have pages under your userspace such as . Second, it's usually good to leave a note on the talk page of the original article you are improving that you are doing a re-write (if you are doing this). That way people are aware of the changes. Or you might just work directly on the article itself. This is up to you. Good luck, Dori | Talk 04:20, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Link archive

http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Fuck http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Naida http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon http://wikiquote.org/wiki/Confucius

In Finnish:

http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Naida

Moved from Talk Page 13-Mar-2004

Culture Pages

What I mean was many countries of cultures do not have a Culture of ... article about them yet in Wikipedia. I think it would be worthwhile to have something on as many of them as possible. Culture lists some articles, but even those are not all that complete. You can look at the list of countries or at the list of ethnic groups and see if you can find one that is lacking in the culture section and that you know something about. Dori | Talk 20:46, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Dog vomit

Trophallaxis. Explain. Psb777 00:40, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's what I figured. My e-mails are possibly widely but not universally so regarded. Franklin Jones: "Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger." Psb777 23:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Self-referential words

self-referential
word
newword
GNU
missspelt
glottal

I got those before seeing this: A link to sesquipedalian.

If missspelt is not allowed then many, many others would also have to be disallowed also. I think you must give the reason missspelt should not be allowed. That so-and-so would not allow it is not good enough. Did you see hyphenated and non-hypenated: Mutually-referential. Talk to Psb777 09:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Missspelt is self-referential but sjsjssj is not. I allege, however, that it is mis-spelt. Paul Beardsell 03:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bob Geldof

Hi. I'm sorry, but I redirected Sir Bob Geldof to the existing page Bob Geldof. You might want to re-add your contribututions, in context. Mintguy (T) 18:08, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Message Section

Matthew, presumably you're the Matthew Stannard I know. Psb777 14:23, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Quotes

As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport. (Gloucester, IV.i) from King Lear
http://quote.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogden_Nash

Finding out if anyone's reading your stuff

The hit rate is easy to get by visiting http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/. Choose the month, in this case March, move down to Urls and see the View all Urls link at the end of that table if your article didn't make it into the top 50. Beware, that list is long... Use you browser's find function to see your articles's rank and hit count for that month. --

Kerry v Bush: Who won the Shared Parenting vote?(McKenzie 63)

Kerry v Bush: Who won the Shared Parenting vote? Well neither, but an interesting side show was the placing of a question about “joint custody” on the Massachusetts State ballot. Around the world, shared parenting has become a left-right issue. Massachusetts is an interesting little laboratory of voting intentions. It is a “liberal” state, that is to say, it went for Kerry and returned a Democrat Senator. One of the obstacles facing the shared parenting movement worldwide is that, for no obvious reason, it gets marginalised as a “right-wing” issue. So all the negative press about the Geldof on Fathers programme was in liberal-left papers like the Guardian, Observer and Independent. Especially where it concerned Gelfdof’s views on marriage (he thinks couples give up on it too quickly) they lost no time in aligning him with those terrifying bogeymen of the sinister “Christian Right” – Bush voters! Yet Massachussetts voters went 8 to 1 in favour of shared parenting. (see page 5). In the UK, Margaret Hodge, after some rhetoric in which she decried the Tories turning of parental equality into a party political issue, turned it into, er, a party-political issue. When FNF visited Shadow Attorney-General Dominic Grieve MP about a year ago, he, like Hodge, said this must not happen; up, he warned, would go the shutters against any meaningful reform. We’d get window dressing instead. He wasn’t far wrong; July’s Family Resolutions Green Paper does look like window dressing. Yet when Grieve’s very reasonable Children Bill amendment was placed, asking for a presumption of equality, Hodge was withering in her dismissal of it, accusing Grieve of “Jumping on a band-wagon” and of “opportunism”. The amendment was roundly rejected. Labour has spent a century championing equality trotting, yet all their MPs - including some who support shared parenting, obediently trotted through the “No” lobby, while Tories and Lib-Dems went through the “Aye” lobby. There were no exceptions, no rebels, no MPs voting acccording to conscience. It was as if this were an issue comparable to high or low tax. The strange thing about this polarisation is that both John Baker, FNF chair, and Martin Crapper, vice-chair have been Labour activists. FNF has always been the broadest of churches, with members from all races, all classes and all political persuasions, absolutely not identified with left or right.

For Fathers' rights movement in the UK

Who am I today?

Checking my own ip address. 66.9.197.113 09:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And again: 66.9.197.113 09:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)