User talk:Snorklefish

Welcome!

Hello, Snorklefish, 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:

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! - MPF 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snorklefish, good question, but no, no apostrophe, we should just treat "cartoons" as an nominal adjective. It's messy, though, the title is very awkward. And thanks for your kind words! Babajobu 17:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Wikilinks[edit]

Hi Snorklefish - it's fairly simple, if you find the same word wikilinked several times, the first word should keep its link, but every subsequent time you see word linked, then one can strip out the superfluous square brackets so they just say word, rather than word (you can give it a go on this sentence if you want!). I'd guess the example you saw was in Mango, where the cultivar 'Alphonso' was linked on every mention, rather than just the first.

Since no-one has given you a formal welcome yet (rather a bad omission!), I'll add one at the top of this page; the welcome message gives you links to the various editing guidelines which have more details of how to edit, and where to find info - happy editing! MPF 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin McGillis[edit]

Welcome! I tried to reach a middle ground between the sourced but very negative comment, and the unsourced good news show the other editor tries to make of it. To give a summary of the source (the numerous cases Mr. McGillis has opened, the controversy surrounding it, ...) is very good practice (supposing the source is reliable and not some mud slinging tabloid: I don't know the paper and have no opinion either way, although the article seems of higher standards than what you would expect in a tabloid): to take the one, most negative quote out of it (even when correct) is going too far in the other direction though, and is not a fair representation of the article. If we would have e.g. five reliable people all saying that McGillis is a nutcase, then quoting one of them would be very good: if only one person says this, then it looks more like we are trying to make Mr. McGillis look negative. Another editor has now removed the section and source altogether, which I disagree with: but it is a contentious article, and it will be hard to find a solution that is accepatbel to all contributors. Perhaps it is best if we continue this discussion at the talk page of the article, so that other editors can join it. Fram 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]