|
User talk:ScarletRibbons  ScarletRibbons
ScarletRibbons (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Welcome
You are right that wikicode is an odd animal. My best suggestion would be to do what I do, steal code from someone else's page (and give them credit in the edit summary when I do). No reason to reinvent the wheel, and modifying that code is a good way to get comfortable with wikicode. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
April 2013
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your commentsMy reason for deleting your comments was that they made a dog's bollocks out of that page as well as other talk pages in which you have visited. They were left there in a rambling fashion as you snarled out your version of the facts as if you were reading the Riot Act. I did not create either article but have edited them. I really don't care whether you have a degree in history or Quantum Physics; you must learn how to state your suggestions for improvements on the articles' talk pages in a coherent, concise and organised manner.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
FootnotesI'd help you out in the articles but don't know Tudor nearly well enough. However, the essence of the wiki method is that if you do mess something up, and don't manage to fix it yourself, someone will be along to work on it. Here's how to insert a footnote. <ref>Text of your footnote</ref> plus at the bottom of the article, usually under the heading References, there must be either {{Reflist}} or <references/> (They used to output different-sized print but the latter was borged by the former a while back.) There are umpteen different formats for what goes in the references, including combinations of references and Bibliography. (There are even a few articles that use parenthetical references instead, and a woeful number that just list Sources at the bottom and have no footnotes; most of those are templated as needing to be fixed.) Policy is to follow whatever referencing format is already established in the article. In practice many people use the citation templates. These live here and there is also a widget one can install to get them semi-automated with a touch of a button in the toolbar. However, I personally don't like the Harvard style that was chosen, or the difficulty of fitting in complicated stuff like authorially revised translations taken from a particular edition or multi-volume works. So I just use a slightly simplified MLA style and type into the footnote. See any of the articles I list on my talkpage as having started. For the new-style academic References and Bibliography style, see for example Thor. (You can hit edit to peek under the hood at the code.) Remember that the History tab and the Diff link next to each edit there let you see how an article was changed, including the code, and make it easy to undo or modify what you yourself have done. Here's the official beginners' page: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The SheltonsPer Wikipedia talk page guidelines, I see Nyttend already restored your comments to the talk page. See, your comments about Margaret and Mary Shelton should be put back for posterity (and for the archives, eventually). Otherwise they will be impossible to find using the search engine. OTOH, what replaced them in response looks like user page material, and might be moved there. So Nyttend went to the history tab of Talk:Margaret and Mary Shelton, and activated "undo". (You can still go back and edit your comments. Nothing wrong with that if they're not part of an edit war.) I would put your replacement posting on User:Jeanne boleyn's talk page if you want that to be searchable, but she looks like a very productive editor for the history articles on Wikipedia. Check out her contributions: activate "User contributions" in the sidebar, while on her user page. Specifically addressing your situation and statements. You'll see, it'll all make sense. You seem to know that when you say are digging in your heels. Welcome to the mess! The search engine is your friend: please see "wp: intitle: expert" and see (at least) your Expert rebellion, et.al, for an example of its helpfulness. Also, to begin get a grasp on the vast volumes of Wikipedia to find articles at your level of "messy" see "category: incategory: History" or equivalently: Special:CategoryTree/History, where categories (C is for category) and articles (P is for page) for history is just the tip of the iceberg. — CpiralCpiral 22:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Collaboration and cooperation among editorsPlease remember that everyone here is voluntarily giving their time and effort to the project, and almost everybody is doing so in good faith, trying to do their best to help the project. This is so even in cases where you believe that those efforts are misguided. It is really more helpful to be civil to other editors. I hope, of course, that you will do so in order to be more pleasant to those other editors, but if you don't care about that then perhaps you can do so out of self-interest, because you are much more likely to find that other editors are amenable to your views if you do so, and you will find less opposition to your editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile!Congratulations! You have earned the
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! ~ Anastasia (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Muttering to Self in CornerOK then....dassn't open one's mouth on the talk pg of a GA article. Because that's perfect & may not be touched. (Even though I do believe there is a category or 2 above that, & pray, how are people supposed to know it's GA when it merely says it's been submitted for GA status & no one bothered to slap up another banner stating it was approved for such?) Nobility styles are whatever the hell people want them to be, not what they ought to be. Got it. Let's just embrace the mess rather than fix it. It's so jarring to read *Lady Dudley* or *Lady Amy* (the latter of which is totally wrong) a gazillion times in a single paragraph when the eye could just slide over *Amy* & not be distracted from article content (in addition to lowering the word count considerably). She was born plain Amy Robsart; knight's (or baron's or baronet's, who are born with the style of *Honourable* appended to their first name) daughters are not referred to as *Lady Amy*. (And why would an article be titled *Amy Robsart* when the opening line calls her *Amy Dudley*? That's not how history recalls her. You go with the more common use.) That *is* how historical biography handles it. Authors do not continuously refer to ladies by their titles but by their given names. She's just *Amy*. Period. Really irksome to keep seeing *Amy Dudley* used 3x in as many sentences in a row. We got it the first time! She got married & her surname changed from Robsart to Dudley. She's still just Amy. She's only *Lady Amy* from her marriage date until her father-in-law's attainder. Then she's plain old *Mistress Dudley* until Robert gets knighted. Then she's *Lady Dudley* until her demise. It's a lot easier to just call her *Amy* throughout (especially if that stuff is not going to be explained every time the way she is referred to changes), & that is why historical biographers do that. Men had many secondary titles. Like, say, Henry of Bolingbroke. That's what he was when he was born. Then he became the Earl of Derby. Then he became the Earl of Hereford. Then he became the Duke of Lancaster. Then he usurped his cousin Richard II & became king of England. Does anyone see his name continuously changing in a biography? No. It's just Henry, or Bolingbroke because his birthplace doesn't keep changing. Period. You don't keep changing the name of the bio subject every time he's granted a new title. It's too confusing for the reader. Henry's father, John of Gaunt, is almost never called *Lancaster*, but simply *Gaunt*. There are too many royal earls & dukes of Lancaster & calling him Gaunt is an instant identifier. However, if they lose a title, like through attainder, it is not appropriate to keep referring to them as *Lord Robert*, even if his daddy *was* an earl when he was born & then a duke before he lost his head (children of earls, marquesses, & dukes do get the style of *lord* or *lady* appended). Attainder means your goodies, & those of your descendents, are forfeit, end of discussion. When you are no longer the son of a duke, you are just plain old *Robert* until royal favour falls upon your head again (if ever). Try going to court in those days & see if the monarch still calls you *Lord Robert*. Not done. *Master Dudley* it is. OK, he got tapped to be invested as a Knight of the Garter? Then he gets to be *Sir Robert*. It's the sole goodie he's got. You don't keep calling him *Lord Robert*! You especially don't call him *the Earl of Leicester* in an article about his first wife, who died 4 yrs before he was granted the title! Amy was never Lady Leicester. WTH is this stupid *rule* that one may not call people by their first names? Seriously? I certainly don't see medieval kings of England being called *Plantagenet* throughout biographical articles! Nor their queens being called by their country of origin! They're Edward & Philippa, not Plantagenet & Hainault, for pity's sake. First names are used for them in articles, & that's the proper way to do it. Do we say Henry VIII & his 6 wives, Aragon, Boleyn, Seymour, Cleves, Howard, & Parr? It's ridiculous to shove modern US-only journalistic practice into historical encylopaedia articles (this is not done in the UK or the Commonwealth; they are still polite there & never refer to people by last name only in a news item, always calling them *Mr, Mrs, Ms, or Miss* as appropriate). Why is this a WP *rule*? It's stupid & it's not followed consistently in historical bio articles. And what is this rubbish where *king* & *queen* & lesser titles are constantly capitalized, as in *The Queen did this* or *The Duke did that*? No. Not done. (Only in UK/Commonwealth papers for the sitting monarch, not dead ones.) You can refer to them as *the King of England* or *the Duke of Northumberland*, sure. But the title itself is never capitalised. Just the county/country part. *King* is not a proper noun. *England* is. *Duke* is not a proper noun. *Northumberland* is. The King of England is the only time it gets a capital letter. Not that difficult a styles rule! Then they UN-captalise stuff that should be. Like, Queen regent or Queen consort. No. Both of them get capital letters, or neither of them does. It's Queen Regent or Queen Consort, or queen regent or queen consort. *Queen* not a proper noun, again, unless it is appended to something. It's a title. Therefore (with the exception of prepositions, of course), everything after it gets a capital letter if you're going to randomly capitalise *Queen*. If not, then it doesn't. But you can't capitalise it & then not do the same for its appendage. Oh, & *the longer the paragraph, the better*? Seriously? That goes against every rule of good writing! No one wants to run into a solid wall of text that goes on & on (as a long-winded person, trust me, I know this). It makes people skim & not read. Um, TLDR? The shorter the paragraph, the better, is what the rest of the planet uses, save for WP. That's nuts. I go past 7-8 lines, I get antsy & want to start breaking it up because it's too long. A paragraph shouldn't be any longer than that, tops. Like, I saw that someone wanted people to look over a Wars of the Roses article before it was submitted for publishing. I love the WOTR. I've written a series of articles on it myself. It interests me. So I go over. And I must confess, I couldn't finish it (I am going to try to) in a single read-through because I constantly hit enormous walls of text. Then I see articles where people are trying to edit them down because they've been told they're too long! Seriously? If that's what it takes to get all the info on the subject into an article, it's not too long! Some things have more info than others. Tackling as lengthy a timeframe as the Plantagenet dynasty is not going to be a stub! And then telling them to take out the list of Plantagenet monarchs to cut length? What? That belongs in there! It's not a proper article without it. Why have a separate article for the list? What, is this Cracked? This place is weird. It has stupid rules that only get followed *if* people feel like it (but Jesu forfend *I* suggest a deviation) & stupid code that's harder to learn than quantum physics. I dunno. Maybe I'll just become a spelling & grammar Nazi. At least that's easy to do, no coding required, & people don't yell at you for it. Well, not yet, anyway, I'm sure someone will. ScarletRibbons (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Disambiguation link notification for May 5Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Hillary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Re: your question at the TeahousePerhaps you saw the later responses to your question about referencing, but in case not, here are some basics. Typing <ref name=refname> (without quotation marks) will work fine, but <ref name=ref name> and <ref name=refname1> will not; the system only works when there's a single word, and it appears to think that "single word" means a group of consecutive letters or a group of characters inside quotation marks. Meanwhile, if you're using different pages from the same reference, you can omit the page number from the citation itself and then add it with {{rp}} after each copy of the citation. See what I've done at Bieker-Wilson Village Site, for example. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 14Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Hillary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asia-Pacific region (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Sappening?Any amusing dealings with our resident plank recently?!
HiJust saw your question at the teahouse. I know sometimes the helps doesn't help because I have trouble too, they are sometimes confusing. I am not a teahouse host and someone there may be able to answer better than me (they will respond to your question too) but this might help. See below where the image name is just typed in there? It is not a url it is the exact name of the image. Hope this helps a little better than my post at the teahouse. { {Infobox person |name = Casanova |image = Casanova_self_portrait.jpg |caption = A self portrait of Casanova ... |website = } } I put an extra space between the two {{ just so it wouldnt show up as a box here. Nice to meet you. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ~~JHUbal27 09:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Matty.007 09:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Disambiguation link notification for June 11Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Venables, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlingford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲水 09:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Disambiguation link notification for August 16Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 30Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joan of Lancaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancastrian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, ScarletRibbons. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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) ArbCom 2017 election voter messageHello, ScarletRibbons. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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) Talkback Message added 19:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, ScarletRibbons. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Kennedy Family Cancer ClusterYou posted a comment at Talk:Edward_M._Kennedy_Jr.#Cancer. Assuming you are correct, that cancer is over represented in "one small branch of the family", then the answer is oncogenes. They are now quite well known. Nick Beeson (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Unblock me! ScarletRibbons (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _185.209.178.61______. However, What is My IP has my location as New York City, which is incorrect. Confused by that, why would it be 100s of mi away? And I just did 3 edits (1 to my talk pg) yesterday! Now I can't even edit my own Sandbox. I don't get/can't find the rest of the Template: Autoblock pg. Not a tech whiz. Plus checked list of active blocks & it says I am NOT blocked. More confused. Just wanted to edit an article riddled with spelling errors. ScarletRibbons (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Decline reason: Something has changed between the 8th and the 10th where it seems now like you are editing from a proxy, VPN or webhost, specifically provided by MaxiHost. As it looks like it's on the same computer, you should try looking for programs installed during that time. Disabling this will allow you to edit again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. . Have you recently changed the physical location at which you use Wikipedia?(I don't need to know where specifically) Are you using a VPN? 331dot (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
|
.jpeg){kind=small}
