User talk:Scotwriter

Hello, Scotwriter! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! –panda 14:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Duke Ellington[edit]

Thanks for your work on the Duke Ellington article! Please don't forget to provide an edit summary as this helps other wikipedians follow changes to the article. Also, please don't forgot to cite your sources. I prefer to use Wikipedia:Citation templates but feel free to use whatever method works best for you. Thanks again! –panda 14:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klimt[edit]

Ditto for your good work on Gustav Klimt, and the importance of citing sources. JNW 23:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vadalism[edit]

When you use a false reference, http://www.geocities.com/cactus_st/article/article145.html, that does not state anything about the material being cited, that Clark Gable is Irish, it becomes flat out Wikipedia:Vandalism:

"...change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

IP4240207xx 01:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining "Vadalism" claim and requesting reversion to my edit:

My source for his having some Irish background comes from Warren Harris' book p. 2, not the source you cite as bogus, which is not mine, therefore it is incorrect to call my additions "vandalism". All my information is from a reliable source. Please do the right thing and undo your reversal, and I will add the citation. Thank you. Scotwriter 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you put your addition immediately in front of the existing source, it means that you have reviewed that source and are both verifying it, and using it as the source for your addition:

"and Adeline Hershelman, both of German descent, with some Irish mixed in.<:ref>Clark Gable- vintage articlesFaith Scott, Source: Times-News Meadville Bureau<:/ref>"

It is also worded poorly: "with some Irish mixed in". Sounds like you are making soup, not talking about a human. It is not encyclopedic language. These are called "waffle" words. In an encyclopedia, it should be solid wording with a stable verbiage: "Gable is of German and Irish descent. His father's family was from XYZ, while his mothers family originally came from MNO" "Mixed in" is editorializing, original material, and POV, there is no place for that here.

Additionally:

If you use "cite book" (which I don't like, I would rather enter it manually), where it says: "Pages" it means the number of TOTAL pages in the work. You said that the book only has SEVEN total pages. Is that right? You left the location blank, it should be either "New York:" or "New York, New York:".

The book was also cited in the article FIVE times already, and incorrectly I must say.

Learning to format your references; add author if available, title, original source, date, publication, hosting site if applicable, etc.

Please read:

Wikipedia:Citing sources and also Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style

Quality in > quality out...

The first instance should be:

Harris, Warren G. Clark Gable: A Biography. New York, New York: Harmony Books. p.1. ISBN 0609604953

The second, and subsequent instances should be like this:

Harris, p.179.

I won't add it back, but will review it if you do. Additionally I would like to challenge you to find an additional source for family heritage.

IP4240207xx 05:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating with other Wikipedians[edit]

PS: Don't start a new heading when replying to a message, unless it is on an entirely new topic, it will only confuse the other Wikipedians.

Okay, some tips about communication with fellow Wikipedians.

SEE: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Talk page & Wikipedia:User page for the lowdown, scoop, skinny....

IP4240207xx 05:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation example[edit]

I noticed that there's been some discussion about how to cite works on your talk page. You might want to look at the Scat singing article for an example of Wikipedia:Harvard referencing. If you edit the Scat singing article, you can see how to use {{Harvnb}} (for in-line citations) with {{Citation}} (to format the complete source at the end of the article) + how to use {{Ref_label}} (for in-line notes) with {{Note_label}} (to format Notes at the end of the article). Plus, try clicking around on the references in the text, Notes, and References. (If you're using IE, you will miss out on some of the functionality, like the multiple columns and highlighting.) The method works really well if you're citing from a book multiple times, but from different pages. (I discovered this method recently and like it so much that I'll probably switch to it.)

Also, contrary to what IP4240207xx stated above, if you use {{cite book}}, pages "is for listing the pages relevant to the citation, not the total number of pages in the book." (from Template:Cite book).

Hope that helps!

–panda 07:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right you little black-and-white furry. IP4240207xx 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eakins[edit]

Nice work! Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just caught your passage on William Rush, which is excellent, but it was not a portrait, per se, and might fit better if it can be worked into the 'figures' section, where it has already been mentioned, albeit briefly. JNW (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John James Audubon[edit]

Excellent work. Thanks to you, this article, of which I was the major contributor until you came along, has reached its full development. JoJan (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Scotwriter: in recognition of your fine contributions to artists' biographies, most recently those of Mary Cassatt and Winslow Homer. Cheers, JNW (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond (film series)[edit]

Must say you did an excellent job here in just a day. But are you the one who added that Conery's films are considered best etc? If it's from your books, please provide their pages because your own opinions are not accepted on WP. Good luck. Ultra! 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Copland[edit]

Your changes to the Aaron Copland article are .. overwhelming. I appreciate good work, but wow... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Douglas[edit]

Thanks so much for your expansion on this article. I did only a small amount of editing. One point I wanted to make to you was to watch for spacing.

For example, this is a passage added: As an actor, he dove into every role, dissecting not only his own lines but all the parts in the script to measure the rightness of the role, and he was willing to fight with the director if he felt justified. <ref>Thomas, p. 21</ref>According to his wife, he often brought home that intensity, The ref should not be spaced from the punctuation of the sentence and there should be a space between the end of the ref and the next sentence. In addition, I changed the reference format, both for consistency and to combine a (very) few repeated refs. I used this format for each: Thomas, Tony. The Films of Kirk Douglas. Citadel Press, New York, 1991. ISBN 0-8065-1217-2. p. X.

In any case, thanks for your addition! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the William Penn article[edit]

I came by to leave a note about the great work at the William Penn article, and I noticed a number of people were telling you the same thing for other articles, so I figured you deserved another one of these:

		The Original Barnstar
		For the excellent job of expanding and adding references to the William Penn article, and for the other articles you have done similar work on, I hereby award you this barnstar. Keep up the great work! AlexiusHoratius 21:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edvard Munch[edit]

Thank you for the excellent and lengthy additions to this article. It's great to finally have a fairly complete biography for Munch. Jfire (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hopper[edit]

Hello,

Thank you for your contributions to the article - you did a wonderful job! It is so rare to see someone adding such amounts of great material to Wikipedia. I have raised a small, but possibly quite controversial, point at the talk page; it kind of pains me to talk about it - I love Hopper's work - but now that the article has a full-fledged biography section, I think this point needs to be addressed. --Jashiin (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Just came across your work on James Abbott McNeill Whistler. Amazing job; I hope you’re still with us under another name. If not, I just wanted to let you know you’ve got a fan. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]