User talk:Quoth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Warez
Hey thanks for your copyedit! It's definately appreciated! ALKIVAR™
00:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Sam_the_Ugliest_Dog.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sam_the_Ugliest_Dog.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 07:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rosemarie
Hi, Quoth. On the one hand, thanks for copyediting the article. On the other, it's not a nice feeling if people give me the impression they have to "clean up" after me. In particular, I do wonder if it's such a good idea (a) to use that phrase and (b) to have readers jump from her death date (which now appears to be exact) to a single footnote and then back to somewhere in the middle of the text. And I do remember the days when I wrote "Bibliography" and it was changed to "Further reading". Anyway, keep up the good work, and all the best, <KF> 16:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry if I've offended, but "clean up" is the catch-all phrase I use for general tidying of an article... Now that you've pointed it out though, I see it's obviously not the best way to phrase it :P I'll endeavor to use "copy-edit" instead. I feel the use of a footnote was more appropriate than attempting to nest further information inside that small section, and also allows for an explanation rather than a fairly unhelpful one word descriptor. I also think that the existence of the annotation on the dates serves as an obvious enough indicator that there's more to them than what was just read. Regarding the bibliography, I was merely editing in what I found recommended in the Wikipedia guide to layout. Thanks for making the time to leave me a message :) – Quoth 17:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removing n-dashes
I wondered if you have a specific reason for replacing "–" with the simple ASCII hyphen, in date ranges (I noticed the single change in John Wilkes). Using a hyphen or a double hyphen is a common simplification on typewriters, but all browsers can render the n-dash and m-dash, and we should strive for correct typography. In this case, n-dash is specifically the right choice for indicating a range. You can find this all written up in the style guides, and precedent passim, unless there has been a recent consensus I've missed. So I'm taking the liberty of reverting that one change, at least. Nonethless, I encourage your passion for detailed cleanup; I indulge it myself. Please don't stop. David Brooks 04:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've never replaced "–" or "—" with hyphens, but with their correct UTF symbols (found below the editing window in blue) as opposed to their HTML code. So while they may look like your standard hyphen in your editing window's font, they are in fact n-dashes, and are rendered such in the article. Compare the three and see: <hyphen> <ndash> <mdash> = - – —. This is part of the current Wikipedia policy on dashes (see the paragraph in bold). I've reverted back what I'd done, but thank you for calling me on it. I hope I've cleared up any confusion. Happy editing! – Quoth 08:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, I see your point. I have a strong disagreement with that particular part of the policy, because subsequent editors cannot see the difference between dash and hyphen; they look the same in the edit box (at least, they do in Courier) and I think that has bad consequences for various reasons, only one of which is the way we are wasting each other's time! Honestly, I don't see that typing the HTML entity is more difficult than alt-zero-what were those digits again or finding the right length in the insert menu. However, the guide uses "may", so either approach is considered correct. Enough breath wasted on this one, especially as I see an anon has made some substantive and ugly edits to the article in question. David Brooks 17:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why inserting mistakes is bad and ought not to be done
In your "edit" of the Black Dahlia entry, you changed the street name Normandie (correct) to Normandy (wrong). This street name is very well-known to most people as in the "flash-point of the L.A. riots at Florence and Normandie." You also changed the name Lillian Lenorak to Lillian DeNorak. "Edits" such as yours are one reason I no longer contribute to Wiki, although I do point out the more egregious errors. Please repair your damage. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.54.183 (talk)
- I noticed a number of grammatical and structural inconsistencies between the quoted text and its apparent source, seeing as how it was a quote I decided to do a clean copy of it, trusting the current source had been more correctly transcribed or proofed. I'll add the corrections into the text following each word, but still believe this is the correct way to quote a report (or the closest thing we have to the source). Thank you for contributing enough to alert me to it, although I can't say the sarcastic tone helped to illustrate in anyway. – Quoth 15:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding Royce Da 5'9"
Hello, I'm here regarding the removal of the "citations needed" annotation from the Royce Da 5'9" article. I added that to the sentence "Royce ... is better known for his freestyling skills — purportedly having never lost a rap battle" as Wikipedia is striving to to be a source of reliable information, and any reliable source needs references. We can't simply add a statement or opinion without citing the original source. Wikipedia:Citing sources states: "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." Instead of removing such a statement though, I decided it would be better to leave it there, but also warn that it doesn't have a known source and ask people to come up with one instead.
Regarding the other change of [[studio album]]s to [[studio album|studio albums]], in case you weren't aware of this syntactic voodoo, the first link works exactly like the second— incorporating the "s" into the link while directing the viewer to the "s"-less article. I had also moved his real name to the beginning of the article as recommended in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the birth name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym." Having it read "(born Ryan Montgomery on July 5, 1977)" makes it sound like he was born with that name but that it is no longer the case (and is in fact exactly what that space in the parentheses is reserved for, see Bill Clinton as an example).
For the above reasons I've partially reverted your last edit. If you'd like to see these guidelines changed, please do post in the relevant discussion area, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). Happy editing, and thanks for contributing! – Quoth 06:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, sure, nevermind the citation. Because when I read that, I had NO idea what to cite or what anyone else could cite. He has beat D12 in a rap battle, you can read that on the same page.
- About studio albums. I know, no need to explain. I changed it because it looks nicer.
- About the name: I took that from Eminem's page.
- Tuplad 10:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Unencyclopedic" how-to?
Why is a how-to unencyclopedic? People come to wikipedia for all sorts of information. Why can't how-to's be part of that? If a specific comment about the Underdogs' patch is made, that it is bad, isn't it our responsibility to tell them of a fix for the problem? At the very least, there should be a note that says "One fix to the problem can be found <here>" This information needs to be disseminated. Do you just edit for editing's sake?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22samurai (talk • contribs) 02:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it may very well need to be disseminated, which is why I simply commented it out instead of removing it completely. I generally edit to improve the consistency and flow of an article (as I'd hope you could see from looking at any one of my contributions), something which had been broken by the insertion of the large how-to in the midst of the "Technical overview" section (see diff.). I'm sorry that my removal of your recently added section has offended you, but unfortunately instruction manuals are something which Wikipedia is not, reasons for which are outlined in that article. As also mentioned at that page, a guideline for dealing with this type of information unfortunately hasn't been established, so please feel free to share your opinion on the matter at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. A previous but now buried discussion can be found in Archive 6 of that page. – Quoth 02:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Upon reading your blog I realise that this was only your second edit, I hope that you can see the reasons why it can't be included (at least in its current form) in an encyclopedia. While the information is unquestionably useful (as generally is any how-to), it is not what people expect to find in an encyclopedia, but is more the domain of wikiHow, or Wikihowto, as you found out. You could possibly also email Home of the Underdogs, and have them fix the problem completely, voiding the need for a how-to. I hope some of these suggestions are helpful, and that you won't hesitate to edit Wikipedia in the future. Please contact me if you have questions or are having trouble finding information about how things work at Wikipedia. – Quoth 03:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for responding in a professional way even when I didn't exactly extend you the same courtesy. As you've noticed from my blog, I learned a lot from this experience and understand you to be holding up the standards of Wikipedia. I was excited that I had solved a problem that was so bothersome and prevalent that a comment about it had actually made its way into the Wikipedia. I typed first and asked questions later, something, which I hope to do less of in the future. 22samurai 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Film
Please stop removing the {{Film}} template from film pages. Thank you, Cbrown1023 21:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, sorry about those few edits— I was under the assumption that the templates were used something akin to categories and if there was a more specific one in existance (horror films) then removing the more generic template was OK. – Quoth 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I know that you thought that, it is fine, though. I guess I could've been nicer... but I thought that you probably removed a lot of them and I had wanted to get cracking on fixing it; so I was a little hasty. Thanks, though.
- In relation to your thought; normally, yes. However, in this case they are two seperate WikiProjects. Films deals with films (surprise) and Horror deals with all horror (books, other literature, media, etc.). Cbrown1023 00:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why Mistakes Are Bad and Should Not Be Introduced Into Entries
In "editing" the Black Dahlia entry, you wrongly stated that the case is closed. It's not. Murder cases in the U.S. are never closed. You might check before making such statements, thereby avoiding elementary mistakes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.52.19 (talk)
- Ah, back again for another "scolding" I see. Thank you ever so much for once again gracing my talk page with your cheerful, yet informative, comments. Once again I will thank you for bringing this bit of information to my attention regarding U.S. murder cases, as of that fact I was quite unaware. While it did cross my mind during the creation of that sentence, by the time I'd finished copy-editing the section I had forgotten it completely. Luckily for all concerned, Wikipedia happens to be a "collaborative" process, and someone was able to catch my slight error. As the Black Dahlia article is still in great need of rewriting and referencing, we may need to talk again. In such a case, I'll ask you to try and follow the very simple instructions in the friendly looking box located at the top of this page. – Quoth 13:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
