User talk:Histrydude
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
[edit] Internal links
I saw you had trouble finding the link for General Doolittle. According to Wikipedia:naming conventions (people), we rarely include a title in the name of an article. So General James Doolittle would have sufficed. However he was best known as Jimmy Doolittle, so that's what our article is named. That can be turned into General James Doolittle through an editing trick. Thanks for your contributions. -Will Beback 07:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent edits
Well done cleaning up those year articles! Keep it up, and someone might give you a barnstar! HawkerTyphoon 01:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] spelling out the numbers...
Hey, Dude. Thanks for your work on the years, but please have a look at MOS:NUM. ◉ ghoti 03:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Dates such as 18 November rather than November 18 are fine - they are British English rather than American English. If you want them to appear as November 18 you can set that in your preferences - don't edit the articles. Thanks. Secretlondon 23:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nice work!
Good catch in 1999 (re: Columbine). -- Jim Douglas 03:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edit to 1980
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Db099221 04:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits to the date pages violate the manual of style
Looking at the pattern in your contributions, it would appear that you are running a bot. Please confirm whether this is the case. Unauthorised bots are not permitted on Wikipedia.
Moreover, your edits are contrary to convention. See the August 2005 survey, and in particular Question 5 thereon. -- Smjg 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please respond to the above query. What standard are you following with edits like this?. In addition to the survey quoted above, the manual of style also says that individual date entries are to appear with the date on each line. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was not aware of all these editing rules and preferences. And no, I am not running a bot.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Histrydude (talk • contribs) .
No, I didn't think you were running a bot; that's why I changed the section heading. And it's possible that you stopped reading User:Smjg's comment at "are you a bot?". The important part of his comment was to let you know that those structural changes you are making to the year pages are different from the consensus layout described in the manual of style. As I told you several weeks ago, you're doing some awesome work cleaning up the date pages. It's tedious and time-consuming, and it's extremely appreciated. We just need to fix this one detail. The consensus layout for the pages described in the manual of style (see the above links) is something like this:
It looks like you're changing it to:
- January 1
- Something happened.
- Something else happened.
We definitely say be bold! when updating Wikipedia articles. But...there are some overall standards that we've agreed on, sometimes after years of back-and-forth debate. The page layout standards are documented in the manual of style. We want you to continue to be bold and keep working through the date pages; you're doing great work. You just need to be aware of the style guidelines while you're at it.
Do you know how many entries you've changed like this? It can't be all that many; it isn't extremely common for a lot of things to happen on a single date. Would you be willing to go back to the pages where you've changed the format and change it back to the standard format? Not in the sense of "drop everything and deal with this." Just sometime soon? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll consider it, as my overall schedule permits. I had shortening the articles in mind when I started that particular kind of editing, especially the ones that are close to 50+ kilobytes long. I would hate to see any of the calendar year articles broken up because of excessive length. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Histrydude (talk • contribs) .
Please review those standards, to ensure that your future changes adhere to the manual of style. At some point soon, someone will have to go back through the year pages and reformat those entries. Do you have a feel for how many entries like that you might have changed? Also, what did you have in mind in terms of shortening the articles? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
One more thing...when you write to a talk page, new topics go to the bottom of the page, and you should sign your comments with ~~~~ -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I did have one more question. That formatting change you were making -- did you see that somewhere, or did it just seem like a better format to you? If we have a conflicting standards document on here, we should straighten that out. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Where do I get those 4 squiggly lines to format my comments with? The formatting change I started did seem like a more concise format. I changed the years 1960-2006. I'm always looking for shorter ways to convey the same information in each date headline. Histrydude
- If you have a standard North American keyboard, the squiggly (tilde) should be on the shifted key to the left of the number 1 (the upper left corner of the keyboard). Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Found it!Histrydude 05:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks! Histrydude
[edit] One more time
Hi again. I'm a bit confused; it looks like you're still editing the year pages to put same-day items in the wrong format. We really need to adhere to the manual of style. Please don't make any new changes that break the style, and if you're already editing a page, please change the non-conforming entries so that they do adhere to the manual of style. I'm not sure if I was completely clear, but when a format is defined in the manual of style, it really isn't a personal choice thing. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please, I'm not asking you to go out of your way. I'm asking you, as long as you're in an article anyway, to please undo your earlier formatting changes and put the page back into a format that follows the manual of style. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Very well.Histrydude 21:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate it. And seriously, I really appreciate the hours of work you're putting into cleaning up the year pages in general. It's tedious and unglamorous work, but your fact-checking and cleanup of those pages is a major help to the project. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Histrydude 22:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)No problem. History is one of my driving passions, along with politics and religion.
[edit] Your efforts are appreciated
 |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| Awarded to User:Histrydude in recognition of many hours spent cleaning up the year pages. Your work is very much appreciated! Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Edit summary
By a quick look at your contributions, you appear to have never filled in an Edit summary field. A rule given on that page is: Always fill in the summary field. I encourage you to take some time peruse that page. -- Smjg 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Future history
Dude, thanks for all you do. Can you handle some more? Yes, you're the master of the past - the pastmaster. Year after year, you're there scrubbing away the cruft from the receding annuals. But what of the future? Who's watching out for the approaching years? 2014? 2100? The future will become the past all too soon. Do we really want it full of John Titor's predictions? I just started watching some future years. Care to join? Predicting the future is a lot of fun. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 10:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
