User talk:80.80.173.168

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vlad Ţepeş

Please, stop doing that. You are of no help. Wikipedia specified that there is no reason to link ad nauseam on the same page, and you are linking wrong words nonetheless (the modern Hungary instead of Kingdom of Hungary, the vague Turks instead of Ottoman Empire etc.). Why on Earth would you think this is helpful? Dahn 21:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, check that the link for Turks goes to Ottoman. Yours does not! I should know what I'm talking about: I reviewed this article to death, because of people who just can't get wikipedia usage right. You are linking words that are already linked on the same page. Could I be any more clear? What is the purpose of linking, mind you? Overlinking - read the article. If I don't revert, someone else will. You might wanna check this out as well: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Don't get yourself banned over such nonsense. Dahn 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Banned? From a Wikipedia Site? Dahn, I'm serious, u need to get something bigger in life to take serious. I didn't create the article, why not change it yourself if it's incorrect instead of crying about it? And another thing, you may have hours to spend doing this, I do not. I get on here because I enjoy history, don't change a thing, and simply link a few things to other things. I will TRY to be more observant in the future as to what things are linked to....You, in the mean time, try keeping your pocket protector from getting bent out of shape. To be honest, I'm impressed that you really are into history, and having things correctly linked on this site. It's admirable, and something we have in common. Next time, though, be a little less stressed out, and more free with advice, instead of acting like the whole world will crumble over a few things linked incorrectly.

I appreciate that you stopped doing that, and got passed the irony to see the kind words you addressed me. In my defense, I wouldn't have been "stressed out" if you wouldn't have changed things the moment after I was done reverting, which led me to believe that you were being a jerk (I see you are not, by the way). It was really stressful plucking that article the first time: it's endless rows of letters, and I had to check if infos (concepts, not just names) were not repeated (more annoying still is that many contributors did not check to see if they weren't mentioning things for the 5th time, or if their things weren't in blatant contradiction with others in the article). As for overlinking, might I suggest avoiding it by checking if the words aren't already linked in the article (or, pehaps, within the same screen - I find even that redundant, but that's me). Easiest way is to go to Edit/Find on your menu and type a section of the word; link the word on its first mention. Not every word needs to be linked - for example, sure "Turks" was in the article, but exclusively as variant of "Ottomans". We agree that going to Turks is of no helpto a user. Check featured articles (i.e. articles that have passed the "exam", and are approved by Wikipedia) as templates for such things. Thanks. Dahn 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dahn. I'm quick on the sarcasm. Always been. You'll be happy to know, though, that I have gotten your point, and now limit myself to linking only things that are not previously linked, and only after I have checked what linking it will send it to. I change only things that are incorrect, or incorrectly articulated (but only after I have researched it to varify I'm correct). I find it refreshing that someone is just as particular as I am about things being just right, even though this particular time I happened to be making your job a little harder, without my knowing it, of course. I doubt you'll have anything but high praise for me from now on. I enjoy history, and consider myself pretty sharp on that subject if it relates to ancient history or military history. This particular article peaked my interest, as I've always been into the 'real' Vlad. Anyway..

[edit] Early Film Edits

Hi! I've noticed you (or someone from your IP address) has taken an interest in writing and editing articles regarding actors and actresses in early cinema. This is fantastic, as there is mch lacking on Wikipedia in this department (especially photographs). One cause for concern, however, are the updates surrounding the personal lives of many of these actors and actreses. Early Hollywood was filled with many shady characters who frequently lied or embellished their biographies (and unlike today, it's harder to prove when certain people are full of b.s.). Furthermore, you may not be aware that many sensationalist books supposedly "exposing" Hollywood's dark secrets are often grossly exaggerated if not frequently fictitious (Boze Hadleigh comes to mind), and are generally accepted not to be reliable sources by most esteemed cinema historians. By posing information without sourcing, it becomes impossible for other Wikipedians to verify the information in these edits, and consequently you may find some of your edits reverted or re-edited. Generally acceptable sources include some (but not all) personal biographies, census records, and of course, cross-verified information (that is, information, shared but phrased differently from various internet or print sources). If you have information from another source (DVD commentaries, Axel Madsen, 1920s gossip mags, etc.) you are welcome to post it anyway, but be sure to either preface it with "X claims that" or include a footnote or bibliography, so that the consortium may either verify, refute, or qualify mutually opposing positions regarding such events. Happy editing! Wencer 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

REPLY: Hi!! Yes, I am aware of what you are referring to. I have been an avid reader of early Hollywood for many years. I have always found it interesting how dark those days were, and the shadier side of the film industry. I will not tarnish this site by adding anything I have not located through at least two sources. Mostly, though, although over the past few days I have done a bit on Personal Lives, my main thing is simply brushing up the bios..ie breaking the long drawn out biographies into catagories, making it more easily readable. You are right to be concerned, and I agree, and I have done my homework before adding or deleting something. It's good to know someone else takes an interest, and thank you for contacting me.

[edit] Hi!

Hi, 80.80.173.168 (may I call you Eighty?). Wow I can see you're doing some great stuff! Hey since you're doing all this stuff maybe you should get a named account - you don't have to of course, but it only takes a second. When I saw an IP address editing Jean Harlow I went TILT because that article is under regular attack from proxies. Enh no big deal just a thought.Herostratus 06:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello....I know what you mean, yea alot of people edit just rambling. I'm a stickler for fixing all these articles that are drawn out without any catagories. I'm not really into changing the wording unless I feel it is poorly written grammer, or if I think I can make it more understandable. I am a huge fan of Hollywood's 'silver screen' days, and find it interesting that there were as many scandals then as there are now, just better concealed. hahaha And while reading, I like making the articles more comprehensible. Most people, when they see a long drawn out article, they just aren't gonna read it. You know? Anyway thank you for the advice, and good to know someone is out there monitoring.


Regarding your edit to Colette:

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Prodego talk 22:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry about that. Prodego talk 22:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Its ok buddy.

[edit] For your reference...

Please do not capitalize the first letter of every word in a header. This is against the Manual of Style guidelines. Unless the words in the headers are proper nouns, or the first word in said header, the first letter should not be capitalized. Thanks. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

[edit] LGBT site

I'm going to remove all the links to the site you are inserting into several articles. It's a personal website and borderline spam. Also, in most cases, it's not necessary to put a person's sexuality in a header. Crumbsucker 15:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the whole purpose of confirmation was to confirm with legitimate websites. Remove them if you want, not a problem for me. I was merely inserting the site into an article which already contained that information, as a confirmation, and do not see the harm, and feel it adds exactly what this site is about..Information on famous personalities, places and things. I do understand the "not necessary to put a person's sexuality in a header" part, and don't understand your reasoning in that if it is done ONLY if it plays into the topic of that portion of the article as a whole..ie Oscar Wilde. Do you see my reasoning? If not, that's ok too. ALSO, I do not understand the "borderline spam" comment you made, since the website in question lists it's source websites, books, etc at the bottom of it's articles. Again, WHAT is confirmation, if not that. Respectfully..

[edit] Belated Welcome

Since you seem to be doing a lot of editing, I thought it might be helpful to have some links to important guidelines, etc. so here they are!


Welcome!

Hello, 80.80.173.168, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Mak (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/0/2E/User_talk%7E80.80.173.168.html"