User talk:Wikieditor101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

My apologies[edit]

That was a mistaken warning; Huggle was too slow to refresh the screen. I'll revert myself immediately. Thanks, and welcome- the simplified ruleset is a great page to check out if you haven't already. Sorry again. sonia 23:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks in headers[edit]

Hi, just so you know, Wikilinks in headers are kinda distracting, and also don't reference the relevant portion of text. Inotherwords, with them in the text, the people reading have both relevance and potential interest to use as deciding factors on clicking. Not so much if they are moved to the section headers. You may wish to read up on Manual of Style. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

At this link, you will find the relevance section on WikiLinking (ie: linking it in the relevant portion of the text). And here,[1] "Section headings should not themselves contain links; instead, a main or seealso template should be placed immediately after the heading." Hope that helps. Feel free to leave any questions you have here, and I'll be glad to help out. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing dead links[edit]

Please read WP:DEADLINK and use the WayBack machine before removing citations, especially when they are the only citation and you then remove the text as you did at Jerry Falwell. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Today's edits[edit]

Making edits which violate WP:ERA are clearly not Minor edits. Stating that you are changing from BCE/CE to BC/CD to make an article consistent when there was only one use of AD and multiple uses of BCE/CE is misleading, and that was made worse when you claimed it was also to make it the same as other related articles while at the same time you changed one of those to BC/AD. These are clearly POV edits with misleading edit summaries or use of the M tag. You are likely to be blocked if you do this again. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Soviet–Afghan War, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Soviet-Afghan Reference[edit]

@Iryna Harpy: Yes that is the book. Not sure why it wasn't formatting right on the page, but it looks like you fixed it :) The reference page numbers I am not exactly sure of the exact page number but its between 485-500.

"Prove it" is fine for newspaper articles and other forms of online articles, but it really isn't in the least bit intuitive when it comes to books and journals. I've been a web developer since the early 90s, so writing HTML, XML, CSS, and coding in general is second nature to me. I much prefer to manually expand refs, so if you ever need assistance with tweaking refs in future, feel free to give me a yell. In the meantime, I'll pop the page range in. If someone wants to verify it, they can always check for WP:V themselves, or ask that it be checked. Face-grin.svg --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, just to let you know that I've gone one better. I found a downloadable PDF of the majority of the book, so I've linked it, found the relevant chapter (Chapter 59), added the precise pages, plus have verified the cite myself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: cool but how does that work with copyright stuff? I think its still in copyright. Wikieditor101 (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm a little concerned over copyright here, so I can revert it to the Google books ref (which doesn't have those pages available), but retain the chapter and page numbers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)