User talk:ΑΩ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, ΑΩ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arnoutf (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Guide to referencing 2 ΑΩ 3 Regarding your edits to Jack the Ripper 4 Painting 5 Anti-Americanism 6 Sorry 7 Robert Donston Stephenson

[edit] Guide to referencing

Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.

Using references (citations)

Help another user by posting this to them. Put {{subst:refstart}} on their talk page or a relevant article talk page. Otherwise the link WP:REFB goes to a help page. I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can remove unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. Good references A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, and authorised web sites. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research (e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research), or another wikipedia article. Inserting a reference The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section (unless it already exists). This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code: ==Notes and references== {{reflist}} The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap): <ref>             </ref> Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference. Test it out Open the edit box for this page, copy the following text (inserting your own text where indicated), paste it at the bottom of the page and save the page: ==Reference test== This is the text which you are going to verify with a reference.<ref>Reference details go here</ref> ==Notes and references== {{reflist}} (End of text to copy and paste.) It should appear like this: Reference test This is the text which you are going to verify with a reference.[1] Notes and references ^ Reference details go here Information to include You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For an online newspaper source, it might look like this: <ref>Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]].</ref> When uploaded, it appears as: Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, 2005-10-27. Retrieved on 2005-10-27. Note the single square brackets around the URL and the article title. The format is: [http://URL "Title of article"] Make sure there is a space between the URL and the Title. This code results in the URL being hidden and the title showing as a link. Use double apostrophes for the article title (it is quoted text), and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). Double square brackets round the name of the paper create an internal link (a wikilink) to the relevant wikipedia article. Apostrophes must go outside the brackets. The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings to display the date in the format the user wishes. References not online You can use sources which are not online, but which you have found in a library or elsewhere—in which case leave out the information which is not relevant. The newspaper example above would be formatted like this: <ref>Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]].</ref> When uploaded, it appears as: Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, 2005-10-27. Here is an example for a book: <ref>Charmley, John (2006). ''The Princess and the Politicians'', p.60. Penguin Books Ltd., London. ISBN 0140289712.</ref> When uploaded, it appears as: Charmley, John (2006). The Princess and the Politicians. Penguin Books Ltd., London. ISBN 0140289712. Make sure you put two single quote marks round the title (to generate italics), rather than one double quote mark. Date format These formats are all acceptable for dates: [[2005-01-27]] [[27 January]] [[2007]] [[January 27]], [[2007]] Citation templates You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference Same ref used twice or more The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code: <ref name=smith>Details of ref here</ref> The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again: <ref name=smith/> You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. You can see multiple use of the same refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is. Alternative system The above method is simple and combines references and notes into one section. A refinement is to put the full details of the references in their own section headed "References", while the notes which apply to them appear in a separate section headed "Notes". The notes can be inserted in the main article text in an abbreviated form as seen in Harriet Arbuthnot or in a full form as in Brown Dog affair. Further information More information can be found at: Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference Wikipedia:Citation templates Wikipedia:Footnotes I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know. Ty 10:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ΑΩ

[edit] Regarding your edits to Jack the Ripper

Thank you for your recent contributions at the Jack the Ripper article. Due to on-going issues with that article, it'd be much appreciated if you could drop a line on the talk page to discuss your edits. Of course, simple explanations in the form of edit summaries are always nice as well. Thanks. --clpo13_(talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that request. Your edits seem pretty good, and would probably glide right through discussion. Discussing your edits prevents folk from spot-reverting your info, especially if it is contended material. Just a thought. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to discussion. You make good points. I stick by that need for citing the profiling tag, though. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Painting

Hi I saw you are a new editor, so welcome (I added the official welcome on top of the page). I noticed you experimenting on painting. This may cause confusion among regular editors, and I would therefore kindly ask you not to experiment on "life" pages. Wikipedia has a special domain that is setup for experiment, called the sandbox. This is a nice area to play around with the pages without confusing anyone else. Once again welcome, and have a good time editing. Arnoutf (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems this was not experimenting. They were conscious edits with a view to improving the article. Ty 10:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I understand that now. What I did see was that the editor AO made 3 edits on an article which (s)he subsequently reverted idenitifying those own edits as vandalism (using TW). This last thing "identifying your own edits as vandalism in the revert" is very strange, the tools have assumed good faith reversion options as well. Therefore I thought you were just testing how the editing worked. Sorry that I misunderstood the reasons for your edits. I hope this clarifies why I jumped to the (wrong) conclusion that you were trying out.

Please notice that there are no owners or professionals. Also, please consider that I have not talked about vandalism, as (IMHO) it was clear that your edits were in good faith (even experimenting may be good faith unless you know you shouldn't). To be honest, I thought your edits were relevant, and I was surprised you reverted them. (It was that surprise that contributed me to jump to the conclusion).

Anyway I hope you don't take offense, it was never meant to be given. Arnoutf (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I, or my account, was in some way the origin of this... confusion. The edit history of the Painting article does indeed make it seem as if I must have been reverting my own edits. I was wondering about that yesterday too. But I could not remember making that revert. Still, I suppose I may have. The odd thing is that it seemed as if some of the extra options were not working until the revert happened. warn - arv - csd - last - rpp - xfd - unlink - welcome; I can't say I even know what it all means, but I don't think any of those were there; most of them surely not. The optional assessment line at the top of the articles was there for some time, but disappeared. I tried to make it work by the other method mentioned in the "preferences", but couldn't. Same thing with the "categories line" at my user page - turned up after the "event" yesterday. I'm not sure, but I don't think TW worked either. So, when that revert happened, it actually made me wonder if there was some bug involved. Strange. Anyway, a misunderstanding it surely must have been. On my part too. ΑΩ (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, some of the more "advanced" automated functions/editor programmed routines tend to be fairly incomprehensible. Happy editing :-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Americanism

Hi there! Glad you are making constructive edits to the Anti-Americanism article. I've been like Horatio At The Bridge for the last month in a lone stand trying to protect that article from being butchered by one highly persistent individual. Colin4C (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ΑΩ, I was wondering if you could chime into the discussion going on at Talk:Anti-Americanism. Since you've been contributing to the article, your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hi AQ. I apologize for being so brusque on Anti-Americanism the other day. I said the edits were sloppy, but I should also have said they were helpful and provided worthwhile information. (I am a jerk, particularly, for dealing badly with a new editor.) I did shorten the additions but note that your main points are still there and do improve the usage section. Marskell (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Donston Stephenson

This is Howard Brown, right? Sorry, How, but you can't link to your own blog on Wikipedia, as blogs and messageboards are expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:External links policy.

I also find it odd that you spent so much time advancing the Donston theory on "Juives" without mentioning the all-important bit that Juives is NOT a word in French. I added a line linking to the letter in the Pall Mall Gazette correcting that claim to the main Jack the Ripper article (and cut down on the blockquote of Donston, as it's a lot to quote for no good reason). You should probably add extended information about it to the Donston article just to not mislead people into thinking Donston was right about his claims.

Also, your claims on the Ripper talk page that the term is not "Goulston Street Graffito" is all fine and good, as I know you personally object to the term, but it is the term used by most authors in the field. DreamGuy (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NO. This is NOT Howard Brown. And how wide off the mark you are... somehow fittingly, considering the subject. Your "misinterpretation" may perhaps go to show what a tricky subject philology can be... You're most certainly wrong about your claim here; Stephenson may or may not have been wrong about his. And it is really not for us to say, is it ?

I have read the article from the native French speaker countering Stephenson's claim. It ought perhaps to be mentioned in the article about Stephenson. I'm not quite sure, but perhaps there could be a quote from Howard Brown too: "The GSG’s message remains buried with its author; end of story. All else, from the two attempts by Roslyn D’Onston Stephenson to anyone else’s ideas, are conjectures for now." (Ripperologist, May 2005) Says nothing about Stephenson being right or wrong. "Conjectures...", sounds about right to me. But I'll say the true experts on a question like this would have to be philologists in some way specifically trained for it. Though I suspect any such reference will probably be hard to find. As for 'Juives' being a French word or not, it has been pointed out before - it is indeed a word in French, though most obviously an adjective.[1] And if blog links are expressly forbidden, that link to Howard Brown's blog will simply have to go. ΑΩ (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you sure don't speak like Howard... he'd never talk about "philology." I'm just kind of shocked anyone would link to his blog or even know of it at this stage considering that it's only been online a very short time. As far as Ripper authors go he's pretty obscure.

You don't talk like Mike Covell or Ivor Edwards either... and Melvin Harris is dead... and if you're Spiro you're acting different. I didn't realize there even was anyone else out there in the world other than those five who was so interested in Donston's connections to the case. Well, hey, I guess more people with an interest in any academic topic is a good thing. DreamGuy (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)