Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
I'm the culprit. Yes, you're right: the page is very long. But where does one start making cuts? (I entered the game only recently, and the page that I encountered [which had few entries prior to the 20th century] was chock-a-block with the pop music and Japanese comic book references—all of which I'd cut out if I had my druthers, but those, apparently, are what modern pierrotistes think are important. I'd love to read "Space Age Love," by the way.) I thought that maybe the length could be excused if the Table of Contents organized everything conveniently (so much could be skipped if one wanted to zoom in on a particular category or time period). Pierrot is a pop-cultural phenomenon, so it's understandable (isn't it?) that he'd be laden with pop-cultural references. So it's a difficult issue, knowing where to start throwing things overboard.
The book has been written, incidentally. Two books. I wondered who could be so familiar with Domer Howard's sonnets . . . Beebuk23:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just found your latest post. Thanks for the sonnet! You must confess that "wood and stream" and "jet propellant wing" is nothing short of genius.) And don't regret what you brought on "Pierrot": after some dark weeks of the soul, I've decided that my critics are largely right, and when I get my hands on the necessary materials, I'll rewrite the last two sections in narrative form and transfer all the lists to separate pages of their own (as the "Superman" page does). May take awhile: I'm in Bangkok and the materials are in Madison, Indiana. But it'll be done, eventually. Thanks for starting the ball rolling! Beebuk13:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I noticed you warned an IP 4 times for 1 edit. Was this an accident or were some edits deleted and hidden from the history? Because I looked at their contributions and they only made 1 edit to the article they are being warned for editing on. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I see obvious vandalism, I often check to see if there's other articles that person vandalized, and issue warnings for those too if that hasn't already been done. I've always had mixed feelings about doing that; on the one hand, it does quickly justify a block for multiple offenders, but on the other hand, I think that the rationale for multiple warnings is to give the offender the chance to think about what they're doing and stop on their own before getting slapped with a block, and just piling four increasingly severe warnings onto them onto them at the same time may not be in the spirit of why there's multiple warnings to begin with.
Per my previous reply: I thought about it, and posted a question about this issue at the Teahouse, if you're interested in following it. Ormewood (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that you took it to be multiple warnings for the same edit. But your post made me face up to the fact that I was using warnings in a way that I probably shouldn't be; the four warnings made in the same day to the same person (although not for the same edit) were a result of this. I'm revising the way I'm doing things now, so despite the fact that it wasn't what you thought, it still helped me to improve. Ormewood (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll make that change. I wasn't aware of the distinction; there's a lot of fine points of how Wikipedia operates that I'm ignorant of. Ormewood (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ormewood! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Issuing multiple warnings for multiple instances of vandalism, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
This was not a act of vandalism, it said 30 years ago, but the year date was 1892, so I thought it was an typo, and fixed it. Mystic880 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mystic880 I have already reported you, and you are probably about to be permanently blocked. My assumption of vandalism was partly based on some of your previous edits. My apologies if you are sincere. Possibly you can get it reversed. Ormewood (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mystic880 I don't know. I do pretty minor edits, usually, and am by no means an expert on how to go about reversing a block. There's probably a mechanism for appealing blocks, but I've never looked into it because I've never given anyone cause to block me.
Thanks for your copyediting on Stormé DeLarverie. I did have to undo two of your changes, however, as they altered quoted text. We can't alter direct quotations. If they are patently offensive, I think we can indicate changes in brackets or use the [sic] template. But check the WP:MOS to be certain. Best, - CorbieVreccan☊☼21:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CorbieVreccan OK. Wasn't sure if it would be accepted when I did it... I figured there was a good chance that it was someone's transcription of something said to an interviewer, especially given her age and the dementia, in which case capitalization, punctuation, etc. would have been added by the person transcribing what she spoke, and thus fair game for correction. Ormewood (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Age or dementia isn't going to affect caps in these quotes. They're from verbal interviews, so, yes, it's always going to come down to the interviewer and editor. But if that's the way it's published, that's what we quote, accurately. Check the sources if there are any doubts. All of the quotations I put in, I copied and pasted the online ones, or typed them up very carefully from hard copy, to make sure they're accurate. But there's always a chance someone altered them when one of us wasn't looking. So if you have the time, it never hurts to double check the cited source. - CorbieVreccan☊☼01:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
