User talk:Ifnkovhg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Ifnkovhg, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

{{helpme}} HELP! I occasionally think of myself as a pretty bright person, but not lately. How do I insert a footnote? I've tried to emulate the format apparent in other entries when I'm in "edit" mode, but no dice. The citation template page was likewise beyond my limited comprehension. I acidentally damn hear wiped this page off the face of the earth. Ifnkovhg 08:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, have a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes. KTC 08:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Footnotes#How_to_use or Help:Footnotes. You can enclose the text of the footnote between <ref> and </ref> tags. The references will appear at the place where you place {{reflist}} or <references/>.

[edit] Example

This is a statement.<ref>This is a reference.</ref>
blah blah blah
This is another statement.<ref name="ref2">{{cite book | last = Cordell | first = Bruce R. | coauthors = Jeff Grubb, David Noonan | title = [[Manual of the Planes]] | publisher = [[Wizards of the Coast]] | date = 2001 | pages = pp. 198-203 | month = September | isbn = 0-7869-1850-8 }}<nowiki></ref>
blah blah blah
This is yet another statement with sharing the second reference.<ref name="ref2" />
blah blah blah
'''Referenes'''
{{reflist}}

will produce

This is a statement.[1]
blah blah blah
This is another statement.[2]
blah blah blah
This is yet another statement with sharing the second reference.[2]
blah blah blah
Referenes
  1. ^ This is a reference.
  2. ^ a b Cordell, Bruce R.; Jeff Grubb, David Noonan (2001). Manual of the Planes. Wizards of the Coast, pp. 198-203. ISBN 0-7869-1850-8. 

utcursch | talk 08:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added an example using the cite template, hope that helps. KTC 08:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

{{helpme}} How do I retitle the article?

You move the page to a new location. For future information, see Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page & Help:Moving a page. Unfortunately, to move a page, your account needs to be at least 4 days old, which yours isn't. What's the new article title you want it at? I can move it for you. KTC 05:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've moved it to Prometheus the Fire-Bringer for you. KTC 06:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to Pandora:

Your recent edit to Pandora (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 19:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Pandora edits

{{help me}} I radically changed the Pandora article as it was about a week ago. I pissed someone off. Who's the arbiter of what needs changing? Is there a threshold at which permission should be asked before making sweeping changes? I don't want to hurt feelings or otherwise step on toes, but my version ca. 11:00 eastern time on Sept 11 is a vast improvement. That's right -- I said it. Still, I'd like to get along.

Have a read of WP:DR on how to resolve dispute. KTC 06:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see an edit that were made on Sept 11 at all... The only revert I see was from VoABot II which made a mistake that you probably want to inform its owner about so s/he can make improvements. KTC 06:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} The Pandora entry as I found it looked like the version from 9:15 29 Aug, over the last few days I've been reworking it to the 5:44 12 Sept version. My version is a fairly radical departure? Should I not have?

Don't worry about it. You were just being bold. Improving an article you see need improving is what we're here to do. :) KTC 06:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to fix an editing conflict, and now every footnote is bunched in with n.12. I can't figure out why. Could someone fix it, please. I've *cough* helped enough.

It was simply one too many <ref> tag. They do not nest. I've also reverted your 2 later edits after that as I don't know whether you moved things around to try and fix the page or really wanted it. It was simpler that way for me. KTC 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Something screwy happened when I was trying to fix some footnotes. In edit mode, there's a section labelled "pithos into jar," but it doesn't show up on the actual page. WTF? NEVERMIND Ifnkovhg 04:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Noticing this just now, I was one of the "someones", an old editor who has this often-vandalised page under watch and who didn't pick out the edits that were authentic improvements. Some edits were "detected as vandalism" by VoABot II too. Bots, like people, can make mistakes. When one is editing, it's rarely going to improve an article to delete sourced information; other editors, vandal-worn, may misinterpret the action. It's time now, three months later, to go over the edit history and see what's fallen through the cracks. If nothing actually has, I'll be back to tell you I'm sorry for misjudging your edits at Pandora. --Wetman (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
this diff shows the material I've returned to the article. I hope none of my changes seem whimsical.--Wetman (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please check this

You seem familiar with history. Could you do me a favor and check Talk:Greco-Persian Wars#market theory. Thank you. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Greco-Persian Wars

Hello, Ifnkovhg, you posted at my talkpage "The article should only cover the events of 490-479: Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea, and Myucale. There should be some Ionian Revolt background, a bit about the Delian League and Peace of Callias, but only a bit." You asked my opinion, and it is that you're taking an artificially atomized approach to a subject that was ultimately not fully resolved even with the Peace of Callias. You need to think in terms of a fully "encyclopedic" treatment, one that satisfies the article's title. Just as the reader, in order to comprehend World War I, needs to understand the treaty systems that built up in late nineteenth-century Europe, so the full sweep of Greco-Persian Wars needs to be covered under this embracing title. Sections that are more fully treated elsewhere are usually given a hatnote-link to the specialized article: you may want to create an article that covers just the events of 490-479, that is, if your reading has convinced you that writers of history see it as a subject that stands alone. What is the name the best modern historians give those episodes of the larger conflict? That's your title.
A hesitant further thought that may seem intrusive, one that we needn't discuss, but which you might consider: since your edits at Pandora also deleted sourced information, I wonder if your feeling that some information "doesn't belong" here, and that the corrective approach is to eliminate it, isn't symptomatic of some more general culturally-derived approach to information. --Wetman (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your promptness, Wetman. I guess my confusion is this: the title and first paragraph lead me to expect a standard treatment of the Persian Wars, limited to the years 490-79 (as any authority on the subject would. I've taken Greek history in college, in grad school; I've read I don't know how many books and articles that treat the topic). The close treatment of the events from Marathon through Plataea would suggest that such an article is intended. But then it seems that the article morphs into a broader article on the history of Greek/Persian hostilities in the 5th and 4th centuries. (This strikes me as odd a topic as, say, an article titled "American-British Military Conflicts" that treats both the American Revolution and the War of 1812, but to each his own) Such a broad article, conversely, should be painted with broader brush-strokes. The stuff that happens in the Pentakontaetia is *not* to be considered part of the Persian Wars -- it is a convention that dates at least as far back as Thucydides (and arguably to Herodotus), and is followed to this day by every authoritative historian of 5th-century Greece. It seems imprudent, therefore, for us to reinvent the wheel. The *content* from "The Greek Counterattack" onward is good stuff, but is more appropriately divided into articles on the Delian League, the Peloponnesian War and Alexander, etc. I'm not going to touch the article, as I seem to hold the minority view in the Wikipedia community. Does this make any sense? I don't wish to be a dick. I know the Pandora affair means that my soapbox is stuck at the bottom of a well, but an article called "The Greco-Persian Wars" should (essentially) only cover the events of 490-479. An article about the broader history of Greek-Persian conflict from Darius I to Darius III should be called something else. Again, Happy New Year.Ifnkovhg (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing in Talk:Trojan_War

You asked me what you did wrong in Talk:Trojan_War. Actually, you did nothing wrong, but an anonymous user with IP address 76.171.125.231 edited your comments. You can read my message to him/her on the talk page. Wikipedia discourages editing comments, primarily regarding others comments but also own comments. Changes to comments are all right if you have given a permission to the user to change them, but I think that the user would have stated it in the edit summary if this was the case. I hope I managed to answer your questions. Best Regards, τις (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classical Greece

Hi Ifnkovhg- I noticed your interest in ancient Greek history. I posted a question on Wetman's talk page that has links to an article that may interest you. I'm sure the article needs work, but it's out of my area of expertise. -Eric (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, I see two problems. First, while this article correctly identifies the Persian Wars as ending in 479, the "Persian Wars" article chooses to date the end of the war at 449 BC. Wetman and I have butted heads over this. More importantly, the chronology is weird. It seems to jump from the 5th c. to the 4th, and then back to the 5th. Strict chronological order is impossible in such an article, but I think this area needs revision. Ifnkovhg (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree--that's why I sent up a flare to you guys, because the original help requester and translator don't seem to have noticed the proofread completion yet. I gave them a heads-up just now. Very little action on the article since I made my changes Dec. 17. -Eric (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tick tick tick tick

Thank you for your message on my talk page; I've posted a (genial) rant there in response. (Let's keep it all in one place.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] placement of images

{{help me}} I've looked at the templates page and I'm still lost. How do I orchestrate where an image is placed in article. I want to place one to the side of the opening paragraph. Thank you!Ifnkovhg (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Help:Images? The usual way is something like [[Image:imagename|right|sizepx|optional caption]] as the first line of the article. 131.111.8.97 (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)