This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Butterscotch Beluga (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 4 October 2024 (→Demonization in other religions or movements: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:46, 4 October 2024 by Butterscotch Beluga (talk | contribs) (→Demonization in other religions or movements: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
|
Erroneous captions to 2 of your images on the St Andrews Cathedral page of Misplaced Pages
You have uploaded two photographs you have taken onto the St Andrews Cathedral page of Misplaced Pages. Both feature the Tower of St Rule's along with what you call St Rule's "western turrets". This is not correct. What you call "western turrets" is, in fact, the (remains of) the eastern wall of the (later) sanctuary. The parallax caused by the angle of your photos may have misled you. My source? Cruden, Stuart (1950), St Andrews Cathedral - Official Guide, Edinburgh: Her Majesty's Statioery Office, ISBN 0-11-490696-3. I guess any more recent guidebook with a decent map of the site would do, but Cruden's two maps and photo no. 4 seem definitive. I don't know whether you can correct your errors (if not you, who can?) but if they aren't corrected soon I shall raise the matter on the Talk page of 'St Andrews Cathedral'. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Would you mind correcting them for me then? Steven1991 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have edited the captions as you request. Unfortunately, the actual file title to one of them mentions the supposed "St Rule's Western turrets" and its image shows the deceptive parallax which might lead the viewer to accept the notion that the "turrets" (of the Eastern wall of the later Cathedral are actually in line with the axis of St Rule's Church, when your other picture shows plainly that they are not. I know of no way that the file's title (as opposed to its description or caption) can be altered/edited. If you know of a way, it should be corrected to avoid any further confusion. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your help. Steven1991 (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have edited the captions as you request. Unfortunately, the actual file title to one of them mentions the supposed "St Rule's Western turrets" and its image shows the deceptive parallax which might lead the viewer to accept the notion that the "turrets" (of the Eastern wall of the later Cathedral are actually in line with the axis of St Rule's Church, when your other picture shows plainly that they are not. I know of no way that the file's title (as opposed to its description or caption) can be altered/edited. If you know of a way, it should be corrected to avoid any further confusion. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Explaining my recent edits
Hi Steven. I recently modified some edits you made, and wanted to make sure I explained my reasoning and, if needed, opened up a dialogue. In the Zio article, I noticed some terms (antisemitism, ethnic slur) were linked multiple times, and often times the links were back-to-back. MOS:OVERLINK describes how we usually only want to link a term once per major section. Similarly, WP:SEAOFBLUE describes how we try to avoid hyperlinked terms back-to-back, as in a printed format, it'd be impossible for a reader to tell whether they're searching one big term or many small ones.
Misplaced Pages has a TON of formatting rules like this in the WP:MOS, and I'm still learning plenty of them. I just wanted to give more than a hyperlinked edit summary to explain and introduce you to the many, many standards of formatting you'll encounter here. For what it's worth, I don't think many bother to read the MOS all the way through; my approach is usually to just edit normally, and if someone cites a guideline while they correct something, then commit it to memory and move on. I just wanted to say that so you didn't think I was telling you to read that dry volume before editing further; that'd be a nightmare! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've also noticed you add a lot of block quotes. Per MOS:QUOTE, if we can paraphrase, we should, in order to reduce the risk of copyright violation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| I've noticed you doing the important work of adding a bunch of sources, and adding wikilinks in compliance with the MOS; you're improving the encyclopedia, and seem to be learning the arcane rules of the MOS quite quickly. Quicker than I did! Well done, and thank you for your help in improving Misplaced Pages! EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Antisemitic_trope#Number_&_quality_of_sources
Hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of removing the duplicated template on that discussion. One should be enough. Andre🚐 06:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, check out WP:OVERCITE and WP:CLUMP. You should trim and citebundle. 3 or 5 or 8 cites might seem informative but generally you can get by with less, and focus on the higher reliability stuff. Less is more. I once had a history professor that, when I turned in my magnum opus that was 4 pages longer than the max page limit for the assignment, she gave me a C and called it self-indulgent. It's a good lesson. Be succinct and to the point and cut and trim the fat. People will respond better and it makes for an easier to understand logical article structure. Andre🚐 06:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your humble advice. I am currently working on it with my best effort. Steven1991 (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sure you will. You might want to slow down and fix the problems for a while before embarking on any major new expansions. Keep in mind that other people are going to try to scrutinize and check your work. That's how it works. Thanks for being cooperative and trying to listen to feedback. That is critical. Andre🚐 07:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Zionism
Hey, be careful of your reverts to that page. It's under a consensus required restriction. "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page" I think that seems to include tagging as well. Andre🚐 21:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Would you mind having a look at the Nishidani’s profile? He just made a personal attack on me, while I found that it’s not the first time he had been criticised on his Talk page for doing so, let alone his edit warring that has already got him involved in arbitration cases. Would you mind having a look? Steven1991 (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I really can't help with that. You can start a thread at WP:AE but I recommend Don't template the regulars and don't pick fights lest you be accused of BATTLEGROUNDing. Other people have raised concerns similar to that before but I do not think they will be acted upon unless you can demonstrate a clear problematic pattern. Andre🚐 22:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Demonization in other religions or movements
I didn't intend to imply there were POV issues or factual inaccuracies in the section I edited & apologize if it read as such to you. I meant more that I was editing the tone to be more clinical & encyclopedic without changing the contents.
My comment on sources was in regards to the citations for Islamists & anti-Zionists in the following paragraph, both consisting largely of opinion pieces. Again, apologies for any confusion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)