User talk:KIC 8462852
Welcome![edit]
Hello, KIC 8462852, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Please respect WP:CITEVAR and respect the existing citation style. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I do not know what that is. If you could let me know I will be happy to comply. I am accustomed to Harvard type citation and I can not really work out what is being done here. Sometimes a citation is entirely included in-line as in the Babinsky, others go to a Bibliography? Of course I will follow whatever the standard here is.
- Of course I am profoundly sorry I am displeasing you. I notice how excellent your own contributions have been. The bad news I am afraid is that I plan a "lot" of edits on Wiebermacht literature, so please help me where I fail. KIC 8462852 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at the small print, it seems you do not want citation templates. But I see Babinsky, Millett, Harp, Smith cited with templates not from me? I shall fix mine directly as soon as I see your confirmation. KIC 8462852 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, they were already not consistent; it's too much of a pain to convert them. But it should be, as with Parshall, Russell etc, source in the refs section, just name and page(s) in the text. Much simpler and easier anyway. I am pleased to see additions, and especially extra refs, but let's stay consistent. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that was what I was doing! I will check through however and rectify any sins of commission on my part. It took me ages to work out just now what you meant by your "grrr" edit, because I certainly do not remember citing Salomon where she is cited. Since anything before breakfast (lunch even) is like in the Dark Ages at my advanced situation in life, I can not actually remember what I did with Salomon but it seems it was already there and I just used a named reference. Anyway I am happy to do whatever the standard here is. Finished here, for the time being anyway I think. I will work on that "Phyllis and Aristotle" page and then perhaps come and add some material for the various literary allusions. Chaucer for a start should be fleshed out. The art stuff indeed fascinating. Thanks for the welcome by the way. KIC 8462852 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, I had cited her already, but just once, so left her in the text (lazy perhaps). Once things are cited multiple times they should go down below, to keep the notes short. I don't see any point in linking to google books main pages, but a link direct to the right text page (or one of them) is very helpful. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I see actually I did a couple entirely in line (because I thought the system was that perhaps minor citation went inline). But I have put mine to the bibliography now and on a rainy night will deal with other editors' bad cites. I have been putting links to Google Book pages, but in their template which I like. In general I am a great believer in templates unless I see the source already has a preferred citation style, as I used in citing Wolfthal. KIC 8462852 (talk)
- No, I had cited her already, but just once, so left her in the text (lazy perhaps). Once things are cited multiple times they should go down below, to keep the notes short. I don't see any point in linking to google books main pages, but a link direct to the right text page (or one of them) is very helpful. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that was what I was doing! I will check through however and rectify any sins of commission on my part. It took me ages to work out just now what you meant by your "grrr" edit, because I certainly do not remember citing Salomon where she is cited. Since anything before breakfast (lunch even) is like in the Dark Ages at my advanced situation in life, I can not actually remember what I did with Salomon but it seems it was already there and I just used a named reference. Anyway I am happy to do whatever the standard here is. Finished here, for the time being anyway I think. I will work on that "Phyllis and Aristotle" page and then perhaps come and add some material for the various literary allusions. Chaucer for a start should be fleshed out. The art stuff indeed fascinating. Thanks for the welcome by the way. KIC 8462852 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, they were already not consistent; it's too much of a pain to convert them. But it should be, as with Parshall, Russell etc, source in the refs section, just name and page(s) in the text. Much simpler and easier anyway. I am pleased to see additions, and especially extra refs, but let's stay consistent. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at the small print, it seems you do not want citation templates. But I see Babinsky, Millett, Harp, Smith cited with templates not from me? I shall fix mine directly as soon as I see your confirmation. KIC 8462852 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)