If you look at my User page and click on View History, you will see a paragraph I wrote about myself but later decided to remove. I had gone through this article a few months ago and corrected errors in syntax, verb and noun forms, punctuation, etc. I also reviewed your edits carefully. I felt that generally they did not represent an improvement, but, as you have seen, I made several edits that you had made and with which I agreed. I'll be glad to discuss any others individually here, if you wish. CorinneSD (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading the article on Hematite, and I want to put in a link to the letter K that appears in the first line of the section Hematite#Magnetism. I saw that there were many different articles connected to "K", so I wanted to disambiguate K correctly so that it leads directly to the article on Kelvin. I just want to know if K is sufficient. CorinneSD (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to put in a link for the word "moment" that appears just below this. I see that there are quite a few possibilities for "moment". Which one is it? Is it "electric dipole moment" or "magnetic moment"? CorinneSD (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's "magnetic moment", judging from the next sentence. CorinneSD (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to put a link for the word "cation" (in the third sentence of the second paragraph in the section "Magnetism"). It is covered in the section Ion#Anions and cations in the article on Ions, but when I put the link cation, it didn't work.CorinneSD (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I fixed it and got the link to work. CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your first question looks like you just need to add [[Kelvin|K]] where you want that link. So, the answer to your question is yes. Please read up on piped links.
Regarding the moment, in the context of ferromagnetism I'm pretty sure it's a magnetic moment. That seems to be the only kind of moment discussed by the ferromagnetism article itself. Huon (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I put the two links. I have another question. Two or three lines below "magnetic moment" is the phrase "spin–orbit coupling" and it has a link. I just wondered if the en-dash between "spin" and "orbit" was correct, or whether it should be a hyphen. CorinneSD (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An endash is correct: It indicates the coupling of spin and orbit (not a specific type of coupling that is called "spin orbit"; that's nonsensical). See also WP:ENDASH. --JorisvS (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rothorpe: I've been editing the article on Bronze; have only gotten through the first few paragraphs. I think most of what I have done is an improvement, but I am on the fence about one edit in particular and I wondered if you would look at it. It is toward the end of the edits I made. I changed "As ironworking improved" to "As the art of working in iron improved". I know it's more words (so less concise) -- and you know that concision (is that a word?) is important to me -- but I thought "ironworking" brought in a new term that had not been mentioned (nor had "working" any metal been mentioned). Does that sentence sound all right to you now? I'm worried about the repetition of the word "iron": "As the art of working in iron improved, iron became cheaper..." Also, should it be "working iron" rather than "working in iron"? Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the sort of thing I agonise over. Possibly a pronoun solution, "As the art of working it improved, iron became cheaper..."? "Working in iron" is fine, shame about the repetition. Rothorpe (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: I have skimmed your User Page and I appreciate your extensive background in science. I have a background in teaching English and writing, so I mostly edit articles to improve sentence structure, word usage, verb tenses and forms, spelling, punctuation and capitalization. I have just a bit of knowledge of some areas of science, enough that I can work on some science articles. I make an effort to avoid changing meaning when I do not know the specific material being discussed. I am writing to ask you about your edit to Copper in which removed the word "instead" with an edit summary saying it set up a false contrast. I think I have some idea of what a false contrast is, but I would like to understand your reasoning in this particular context better than I do. If you will read my comments, and my response to Rothorpe's comment on his User talk:Rothorpe talk page, you will see my thinking on this. My intention is not to argue with you, but to understand and, possibly, persuade you, but if not, then just to learn. I have a different wording that does not use "instead" to propose if I cannot persuade you to my idea regarding "instead". CorinneSD (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you start by reading the rust article, at least the lede. You should then be able to answer the following questions:
1. Are there circumstances where iron will react with atmospheric oxygen?
Yes, particularly when the air is moist.
2. Will iron bulk corrode if submerged in de-oxygenated water?
Yes, and it produces a different kind of rust.
I would hope you can see the false contrast from that. If you can't, just take my word for it.
While we are on that article, "bulk corrosion" means that the entire mass of iron will eventually corrode if left exposed to those conditions. Changing that to "more extensive", as you did here, has not made it any clearer. SpinningSpark10:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: O.K. I don't mind being corrected. But I also think that the kind of explanation for the phrase "bulk corrosion" should be in the article (for the benefit of the average reader). Would you go along with that? CorinneSD (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet gone back and re-read the article on copper. I will do that next. But I have a few questions about the article on rust. I have copied two sentences from early and late in the lede:
1) "Surface rust is flaky and friable, and provides no protection to the underlying iron, unlike the formation of patina on copper surfaces."
Is this "patina" a passivation layer on the copper?
"As with other metals, like aluminium, a tightly adhering oxide coating, a passivation layer, protects the bulk iron from further oxidation. The conversion of the passivating ferrous oxide layer to rust results from the combined action of two agents, usually oxygen and water."
2) I do not see a definition of the phrase "bulk iron". Does it mean "all the iron below the "passivating ferrous oxide layer"? If it does mean that, I really think "bulk iron" ought to be explained (for the average reader), even if just by a parenthetical phrase between en-dashes.
3) How long might a "passivating ferrous oxide layer" last on the surface of a mass of iron, and in what kinds of environments?
I know these questions are mostly about iron and not about copper, but I'd really like to know the answers.
Does the word "instead" in the copper article set up a false contrast because (if I recall the copper article right) both copper and iron can react in atmospheric oxygen, not just copper? CorinneSD (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hafspajen: I saw your query on Joshua Jonathan's Talk page regarding the difference between these three terms, and I thought it was an interesting question. I decided to read the three articles and see if I could help you. I am not an expert in either psychology or religion. I just like to read and learn. As I was reading the three articles, here and there I saw some things that were included in more than one article, some small areas where the meaning of the terms overlapped, but I also saw differences. I am sure you read the articles yourself, too. I just wonder: were the articles easy or difficult for you to read? I'm just wondering how much of the articles I should copy here to show you where I got my general idea of the differences between the terms. I kind of felt you wanted the differences "in twenty-five words or less", as they say, so I'll do that here, and quote what I think are pertinent lines from the three articles:
It seems to me that "transpersonal" is used mainly in the field of modern psychology to mean "a state of awareness beyond the personal", an awareness of things outside, or beyond, the self.
From the 1st parag. of lede:
Transpersonal is a phenomenon or experience "in which the sense of identity or self extends beyond...the individual or personal to encompass wider aspects of humankind, life, psyche, or cosmos".
From the 3rd parag. of lede:
In integral theory, transpersonal refers to stages of human development through which a person's self-awareness extends beyond the personal.
From 1st parag. in section "Transpersonal states":
Transpersonal psychology considers the concept of transpersonal states of awareness. Stanislas Grof defines these as "The common denominator of this otherwise rich and ramified group of phenomena is the feeling of the individual that his consciousness is expanded beyond the usual ego boundaries and the limitations of time and space". These include mystical states and near-death experiences...
I would surmise that the people who coined the word "transpersonal" had probably read or studied Buddhist and/or Hindu religions.
The term "revelation" seems to be used more in the field of religion.
From the 1st parag. in the lede:
In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities.
From the 3rd parag. in the lede:
When a revelation is communicated by a supernatural entity that is reported as present during the communication, it is called a vision.
From the 4th parag. in the lede:
In Abrahamic religions, the term is used to refer to a process by which God reveals knowledge of himself, his will, and his divine providence to the world of human beings...In secondary usage, it refers to the resulting human knowledge about God, prophecy, and other divine things.
The term "enlightenment" seems to have more meanings than the other two terms. In the west, it is used (1) in the secular world and (2) in religion. It is also used (3) to translate concepts that come out of eastern religions.
From the 1st parag. in the lede:
Enlightenment refers to the "full comprehension of a situation". It is commonly used to denote the Age of Enlightenment [secular], but is also used in Western cultures in a religious context. [There is a discussion of an "enlightenment experience" and "religious experience" in the article.] It [the term "enlightenment"] translates several Buddhist terms and concepts...
From the 2nd parag. in the lede:
In Christianity, the word "enlightenment" is rarely used....Equivalent terms may be revelation, metanoia and conversion.
From the section "Buddhism":
The English term "enlightenment" has commonly been used to translate several Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese and Japanese terms and concepts, especially bodhi, prajna, kensho, satori and buddhahood.
Bodhi is a Theravada term. It literally means "awakening" and "understanding". Someone who is awakened has gained insight into the workings of the mind which keeps us imprisoned in craving, suffering and rebirth, and has also gained insight into the way that leads to nirvana, the liberation of oneself from this imprisonment.
Prajna is a Mahayana term. It refers to insight into our true nature, which according to Madhyamaka is empty of a personal essence in the stream of experience. But it also refers to the Tathagata-garbha or Buddhist nature of the essential basic-consciousness beyond the stream of experiences.
This last sentence seems pretty close to the definition of "transpersonal".
It seems to me that the term "transpersonal" has a more limited meaning than "enlightenment" (it is a bit difficult to understand from the article on transpersonal precisely what is meant by "transpersonal"), and that "revelation" has a somewhat limited meaning. "Revelation" seems to refer mainly to a brief experience, a direct revealing to humans of the divine, and, secondarily, to the knowledge of the divine that has been received in that experience. "Enlightenment" seems to have two meanings in the western context, one secular (referring to the Age of Enlightenment) and the other (less well known) to a kind of religious experience (William James, etc.), and several meanings coming from concepts in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Yeah, Stanislav Grof is my problem, you got that right. And the problem is that he did coined this expression, the word "transpersonal". Main problem = he uses drugs (LSD) to reach this "transpersonal" state. I am trying to figure out what the diffence is ( except for the drugs, of course). It makes me feel weird. He argues that there is no difference between this drug induced state and other religious experience, ... like Aldous Huxley. Thanks, Corinne, great work, really. I start to notice some fundamental differences. Hafspajen (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Surat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
@Dougweller: Yes, I look at your Talk page now and then. I saw that you had fixed one item. That's fine. I don't know if you did anything about the other item. I'll look now. Can you help me disambiguate a link I added in the article on Surat? (You'll see the notification just above this on my Talk page.) I had added it in response to someone who responded to my comment/query on the article's talk page, who said "Surti" is the demonym for Surat. You'll see the discussion on the Talk page of the article. I saw that there were two items at "Surti". I don't really know what I did wrong, so I don't know how to fix it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: I wonder if you could read the exchange between myself and User talk:Rothorpe regarding the article on Ancient History. (Please read all the way to the end.) In spite of Rothorpe's reassurances, I still feel bad that an editor would quit editing Wikipedia due to my having undone a series of edits. Is there anything that can be done to encourage him/her to continue participating in the collaborative effort that is Wikipedia? I am more than glad to go through each edit and explain my reasons. (And note that editor's response to an earlier compliment, just above.) CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Corinne, your sensitivity does you honour. I have not come across that editor before but see that not only had he been through the process to become an admin, but had volunteered to do formal dispute mediation, so he must have been reasonably thick-skinned. In recent days, he deleted two users' personal autobiography pages and might have got some nasty emails for that. He was apparently not active here for several months, popped back for a few days and then retired. It's not for us to know what got to him, or what else he was going through. Anyway, I think you can trust that he did not leave due to your own careful & courteous copyediting, especially given the complement above. Rest easy! – FayenaticLondon08:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you so much. I feel better now. I just wanted you to know that I do not often undo a large set of edits. More often, I post a comment on either the Talk page of the article about something that is not clear or on the editor's own Talk page, either expressing disagreement with a particular edit or suggesting one or more changes. Perhaps in the future when I feel a whole set of edits needs to be undone, I ought to leave a message on the editor's Talk page saying that I would be happy to explain my reasons. I am also quite willing to be a mentor to any editor regarding how to express ideas in the clearest way possible. I'm already helping to mentor User talk:Bladesmulti on writing in English, while two other mentors, User talk:Joshua Jonathan and "74" are mentoring him regarding how to edit and add sources (although I haven't posted anything on Bladesmulti's grammar page in about two weeks). CorinneSD (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One hint: if you use "undo", the other editor gets a notification. If there are no subsequent edits, I think you can avoid this by going to the page history and editing the previous revision. – FayenaticLondon00:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rothorpe: I've asked an admin, User talk:Dougweller for help on several articles (the questions were not about grammar, and I didn't want to bother you too much). If he deals with an issue at all, he usually deals with it directly at the article, but he has also indicated that he is quite busy. If you have time, could you read my posts to his talk page regarding Burma, Chocolate, and George Raft, all in the past few days. For these three, Dougweller has not replied nor done anything on the article, so either he is too busy or he thinks these are not the type of questions I should post on his talk page. Perhaps you could help. Please respond in the place you consider most appropriate. If you think it best, I will copy my queries and paste them here. CorinneSD (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Corinne, I have plenty of time, at your service, please use my talk page. Meanwhile, I'll follow the links above, can't be bothered to go to his page. Rothorpe (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! But how are you going to know my question if you don't go to his page? I'll copy and paste each one on your talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, apologies in advance for any side effects of the laptop I have to use while the big guy is being springcleaned. Rothorpe (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or gobble up this chicken on the giver's talk page with {{subst:MunchChicken}}!!
Thank you so much, Hafspajen! But why fried chicken? How did you know I like fried chicken? What prompted this award? Did you see I just left a note on 74's talk page? I just looked at your talk page and your user page for the first time. I was astonished at all the beautiful pictures, particularly on your talk page. Really, really beautiful (and interesting). I'm sorry, but I don't understand the options you mentioned in the last two lines of your message, above. Could you tell me how to put a picture from either Google images or Wikipedia on my user page or talk page? What happened to Bladesmulti and 74? They don't seem to be as active as they were just a few weeks ago. Do you mind if I ask you if your user name (Hafspajen) means anything? I've always thought it looks like "Half page"? Does it mean anything, or is it just a name? Thank you again for the fried chicken. CorinneSD (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, saw you leaving that message... Weird, I was also wondering where Bladesmulti and 74 were. If you put {{subst:MunchChicken on your talk page it will give you a surprize, It will look like as you were eaten your chicken. How to put a picture from either Google images or Wikipedia on my user page or talk page? What kind of images do you want? (Hafspajen might be Sea-pie in translation - from Swedish.) Hafspajen (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google images might need to be uploaded. Wikipedia commons has images you can use, or steal from any article. Take the file, and put it into the frame.
thumb|left (or right) | Click on the picture you like and you will se file name on top. Put some images om your page. Try to experiment with them. Images can be bigger if you change px - like 300px is bigger then 200px, and right will go to the right, left to left, center in the middle. Hafspajen (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for all the information and examples. I have found a photo from WP that I want to put on my User page. It is the bridge at Zhaozhou Bridge. I clicked on the picture and it became larger. I saw the file name at the top, but I didn't see any details in double square brackets like I see in Edit Mode for the photos you added below. I really don't know what to click on, or copy/paste, or what, to get that photo onto my User page. O.K., now I'm going to put
CorinneSD has eaten the fried chicken you gave them! The chicken made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more chicken, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
O.K. Now I see what the "Munch chicken" template does. (Although what is on the plate doesn't look like chicken to me.) I would probably not put that on anyone's Talk page because I will always cringe at the use of the third person plural pronouns "they" and "them" and possessive adjective "their" to refer to a single person. But thank you, anyway. CorinneSD (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at a lot of the User boxes. I'd like to know how easy it is to create one's own user box. For example, I saw one about tea: This user is interested in teaism, which doesn't make much sense to me. I would rather make one that said, This user likes all kinds of tea. and had a small picture of a cup of tea on it. How would I make that? CorinneSD (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I put that bridge on your page. Teaism is the Tea ceremony, and someone who is interested in teaism, like to drink tea according the Tea ceremony. I think there is away to make your own boxes, but I don't know how to add images. Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take this ->] - of and put the last bracket close to this series of mystical signs, following next only thumb size <- here and see what will do with that.
You have to do your brackets yourself. Or copy a ready made. Try now to add that missing bracket ] to the end of the serirs of mystical signs -> <- here Hafspajen (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the final bracket to the squirrel picture. (Do I have to put "only thumb size"?)
Then I added the final bracket to the Durer picture and put it after "Boxboxbottom". Is that what you meant when you said put it "close to this series of mystical signs"? I wasn't sure what you meant by "mystical signs", and I wasn't sure whether you meant before or after "Boxboxbottom". (I also made it smaller.) How can I make the squirrel picture smaller?
I see that you put the picture of the Zhaozhou Bridge on my User page. Thank you. I'll look at it in Edit Mode, too. How can I add a caption under it? And can I link it to the WP article? CorinneSD (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you. Should there be a space after ".jpg"? I see that you have put a space after "File:Albrecht Dürer - Bernard von Reesen - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister Dresden.jpg" but not after "File:Durer-ecureuil.jpg", or doesn't it matter? CorinneSD (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can link things in the caption. You see a picture now with and without caption, you just go on and put the text last in this frame. Hafspajen (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. There's one just above, after "Edit conflict". Also, how did you get those pictures to go to the far right? I don't see anything that says "right". CorinneSD (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have another question. Sometimes, I would like to put some text (perhaps a quote) into a box on my Talk page (or User page). How can I put text into a box? And can I choose the color of the outline of the box? CorinneSD (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I want to make a box, like a text box in Word, and put text into the box. Did you see my previous question, just above, where I start, "No..."? I put another picture on my User page, a featured photo from Wikipedia Commons. I wanted the picture a little bigger but couldn't get it any larger. How can I make it bigger? CorinneSD (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing that! I want to put some pictures from Wikimedia Commons on my User page. I was reading the information at "Reuse" on Wikimedia Commons and it said I have to attribute the photo, so I put what information I could find in the caption under the photos. Do I need to do that for each picture I take from Wikimedia Commons? CorinneSD (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to attribute the photo only if it is asked for. (if I understand this questions correctly). Like, the guy who took the picture of the butterfly, he wants to be mentioned, so he wrote: Feel free to use my photos, but please mention me as the author and if you want send me a message. Sometimes the author wants to be acknowledged. The other author said nothing about it, Pierre, so it is up to you if you want to mention him or not. There are some tricky pictures, though, as you remember the Muppets, that are not allowed to be used on talk pages. Hafspajen (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you want many pictures, you can use a gallery. In that case you put the files between the two <gallery></gallery> signs, and no need to use thumb|300px|left|. Just a line -> | between the file and tha caption if you want to add any. Hafspajen (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Matty007: Hello, Matty. Hafspagen says you are a technical genius. Hafspagen has been showing me how to add user boxes and photos to my User page. I have added a few. I have a few questions.
1) Is it possible to remove the border space around the photo? If I can do that, I will be able to squeeze more photos on the page. (I still want captions.)
2) Is it possible to overlap photos (slightly), the way I can on Microsoft Word?
3) If I remove the gallery template (before and after the picture files), which is the way I had it before (Hafspagen added the gallery), how can I put pictures next to each other, like maybe three across? CorinneSD (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the gallery. I got the pictures more or less to the size I want them, but I cannot seem to place them where I want them on the page. I want the birds picture right next to the bridge picture, and I want the tomb picture right next to the butterfly picture and the painting picture to the right of the tomb picture. How do I do that? CorinneSD (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: I'm involved in a disagreement with an editor over the use of the conjunction "while" in the article on Bangladesh. Would you mind reading the exchange at User talk:Rothorpe before looking at the edit history? I had asked Rothorpe for his opinion and this editor, JorisvS, chimed in. Earlier today, out of exasperation, I changed one of the two instances back to "while" and re-worded the other instance to avoid using either "while" or "although". Then JorisvS changed the first instance back to "whereas". I think that is a perfect place to use "while" and that "whereas" is too heavy-handed for that sentence. CorinneSD (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: On another fairly minor issue, what is the policy and/or best approach when an editor changes AD to CE or BC to BCE? An editor has changed BC to BCE at Vanuatu and added a link. (I know CE and BCE are politically correct, but I still prefer AD and BC.) CorinneSD (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rothorpe: You might find this long comment interesting. It's under the section heading "Preservation of Evidence" at User talk:Dougweller. Ryan Castle's -- The Captain's -- comment, while long, is well written and interesting, but if you don't want to read every word of his comment, at least read the last section in which he cleverly translates his comment into the language of pirates. CorinneSD (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Philg88: I saw your recent edits to Nutmeg, and most of them are excellent. I just wanted to ask you about two of them:
1) I wonder why you changed "that year" to "the same year". I think "that year" is fine, and, since it is only two words, is more concise than "the same year". Only one year is mentioned, so "that year" is not ambiguous, is it? If you don't like "that year", I think "that same year" is better than "the same year".
2) I wonder why you changed "Bandas'" to "Banda's". There is a Wikipedia article on the Banda Islands. It is a group of ten islands in the Banda Sea. I don't see it called "Banda" (singular) anywhere in that article. I don't even understand why the singular is used a little later in the article, before switching back to "the Banda islands". CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CorrineSD. My apologies for missing the notification for this, hence the delay in replying. As to your questions:
1) The reason I used "the same" rather than "that same" is that the former indicates the direct subject of the preceding sentence, while "that" refers to it indirectly. It's a tiny grammatical point and not that big an issue. "That same year" does the same thing (i.e makes it direct), but is not as concise.
2) From what I've read, the early history of the Banda Islands is somewhat obtuse. It seems that the British only knew about the island of Run, probably because they werent't very good at navigating in the early days and couldn't find the other islands in the group. Some time later, they found Bandalontor (or the Portuguese or Dutch did), that got shortened to Banda and later still the whole group became known by the name of Banda Islands. So "Banda's" refers to the specific island while "Bandas'" would refer to the whole group.
Thank you for your reply. Regarding your first point, that's something new for me. I had never heard that before. I'll have to think about it. Regarding your second point, I can understand that the history might be complicated, but in this section there is no explanation like the one you gave above. In the following sentence,
"n August 1511, Afonso de Albuquerque conquered Malacca, which at the time was the hub of Asian trade, on behalf of the king of Portugal. In November of the same year, after having secured Malacca and learning of Banda's location, Albuquerque sent an expedition of three ships led by his friend António de Abreu to find it."
you had changed "the Bandas' location" to "Banda's location". Presumably you had that one island with the shortened name in mind, but between the phrase "the Banda Islands" about six lines above this and this sentence there is no explanation to alert the readers that a switch has been made from the group of islands to a single island. I think that if the singular form is to be used here, some sort of explanation needs to be added. (I also think the same kind of explanation would be necessary to explain the use of the singular later in the article.) In the very next paragraph, the plural, "the Bandas", is used, immediately followed by the singular "Banda". The kind of explanation you gave me, above, is really needed to explain these two names.
I have another question for you: early in this section, Sinbad the Sailor is given as an example of Arab sailors who knew the Bandas as a source of nutmeg. However, isn't Sinbad the Sailor a fictional character? The way the sentence is worded, it sounds like Sinbad was a real Arab sailor. If he is, as I believe, a fictional character, it should be indicated that he is fictional. Also, a fictional character is not really the best type of example of Arab sailors who knew about the location of the source of nutmeg, is it?
@Philg88: I was editing one part while you were editing another. It was an Edit Conflict at one point. Your edits are a great improvement. I saw them when I went into the Revision History just now. However, somehow, when I made my edits, something happened to your edits. I didn't change anything regarding "Banda Islands" or "Banda", but it appears to have gone back. If you approve of my edits (and thus do not undo them), you might have to re-do your edits -- which are great. Sorry about that. CorinneSD (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle: I see that you have a background in psychology. Yesterday I noticed several edits to Milton H. Erickson, and I wonder if you would mind reviewing them. The last few edits are by User talk:Rothorpe and I don't see any problem with those. I am concerned about the ones before that by Afterwriting. You can see my question to Rothorpe on his user page, but I'll repeat the gist of it here. The editor added "citation needed" tags to this section. I wonder if the anecdotes were taken from one of the two sources mentioned just above them, more likely the first of the two. I tried to find the text of the sources but was unable to find it. If the anecdotes were taken from a source, I wonder whether the wording should have been changed as much as it was in these edits. Also, I think the word "last" in all caps conveys the spoken emphasis better than it does in quotation marks. Perhaps you have access to the sources and could check to see if these anecdotes were taken from either of the two books, and, if so, (a) add the source, and (b) judge whether the changes made by the editor are appropriate or not. CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few style points: 1. Capitals should not be used for emphasis in articles but italics (but not quotation marks) can be sometimes. 2. All quoted material must be referenced or else removed. Adding a citation needed tag to unreferenced quotations gives any interested editors an opportunity to promptly reference them. 3. Personal commentary is not allowed in articles so I removed several apparent obvious instances of this. If the comments were in a source we don't know this and must assume that they aren't. Afterwriting (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. I looked at your edits again and I realized that when I saw "last" (in Edit Mode) I thought that it was quotation marks. I forgot that that is what the mark-up for italics looks like in Edit Mode (and I missed the italics in the article). I agree with you that the commentary was unnecessary. I thought that the anecdotes perhaps came from the first reference given in that section, but I have no way of checking. I also thought there was a small chance that the anecdotes were direct quotes, but I have no way to check that, either. Perhaps I'm nitpicking. Thanks for your comment. CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no way of judging, but I wonder if someone who knows the subject of Hebrew and transliteration of Hebrew into English could review the latest edits to Merkabah mysticism in which an editor changed the spelling of "Merkabah" to "Merkavah". (See also my question about this at User talk:Kwamikagami and his informative reply.) It's not a big issue, but I thought, since the article is titled "Merkabah mysticism", perhaps the change should be reviewed. That's all. CorinneSD (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a link to this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. They have over 300 people, whom hopefully some, might be able to answer this question. Canvassing the {{help}} monitors might be less fruitful -- though not always! Let's see if they can help you out. Mkdwtalk19:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really a question of right and wrong, but of which transliteration style is used. The b-form is antiquated and should probably be avoided unless English-language sources prefer this transliteration in this context. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really do sincerely appreciate what you said back at Talk:Seahorse#Medicine?, but, the IP still insists on refusing to listening anyone else has said, beyond insulting and belittling me with inane strawmen, including a threat to fantasize about my sex life.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IP clearly is not open to discussing something in a way that proceeds toward consensus. It's up to you, but I think the best thing for you to do now is not respond any more to his/her comments. I will do some editing, changing some things back. If he/she proceeds to revert edits three times, I think that will result in his/her being blocked, at least temporarily. If he/she continues to make personal attacks, you can make a complaint. I think you already have asked Dougweller for support, and I'm sure he is watching how things go forward. CorinneSD (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ward20: Did you see the latest edit to Richard Proenneke? An editor removed "amateur" from "an amateur naturalist", so now it reads, "Richard Proenneke was a naturalist..." (See our discussion of March 12, 2014, on the best phrase to use.) What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Heidimo: and @Remark knights: You might be interested in a recently started but long-running controversial discussion regarding the use of the words "medicine" and "medicinal" at Talk: Seahorses#Medicine?. I have contributed two admittedly long-winded comments. I invited Epipelagic (a member of the Wikipedia Marine Biology project) to weigh in, and he/she has, but the other editors are far from reaching consensus. My comments seem to have affected the IP editor(s) not at all. I feel that if the IP editor has his/her way, the logical extension would be to remove the word "medicine" from the WP article on Traditional Chinese medicine! It looks like, so far, other editors have held the line. But you might like to read the long exchange and weigh in. CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to use the logic of the IP editor and its sockpuppet ally, we would have to remove the word "medicine" from not only Traditional Chinese medicine, but also quinine, and all articles about antibiotics that are no longer effective (and it has stated it does not care, even). As you've already seen, the IP editor and its sockpuppet ally have a terminal case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Good luck, you'll all need it.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rothorpe: I recently learned how to put photos on my User page and then discovered a lot of beautiful photos in Wikimedia Commons. (The only way I have figured out how to get to those photos is to type in "Wikimedia Commons" in the search box, then go down to a section where it mentions "Featured Photos" and "Quality Photos". I click on one of those, then browse the photos.) Have you seen the ones I have put on my User page? Note that you can click on any photo to enlarge it and see it more clearly. CorinneSD (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha-ha. But you saw that those are reconstructions of real animals that became extinct, based on fossil evidence. Enjoy your cup of tea. CorinneSD (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Apokryltaros: I have recently learned how to put pictures on my User page (see large section with many examples posted by Hafspajen on my Talk page). After the first row of pictures on my User page, I was hoping to squeeze three pictures per row. I reduced the size, and saved it. When I looked at it, there were three pictures in the second row, but I noticed that the pictures themselves are quite small and the gray border around each picture is quite large. Can you tell me how to reduce the size of the gray border and increase the size of the actual picture? I'd still like to have three pictures in a row, but I want the pictures to be larger. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hafspajen: Hafspajen, did you make changes to User:Apokryltaros's User page? It was not Apokryltaros who was asking you for help with pictures. It was me. I had asked Apokryltaros for his help, but then thought I'd ask you, too. Sorry for the confusion. CorinneSD (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I liked the small pictures on your User page better than the larger pictures because I could see all of them at a glance. CorinneSD (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. #2 I just looked at your User page and realized something. When I have the zoom size of the type set at 125% (so I can read the small text in articles more easily), there are only three pictures (of the extinct animals) per row on your User page, but when I set the zoom to 110%, there are four pictures per row. I didn't realize the number of pictures on a row changes like that. Now I'll have to look at my own User page and see what happens. CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Apokryltaros: I put one of your pictures on my User page. It's the one of Therizinosaurus cheloniformis. It was really hard to select only one of your pictures. (Please let me know when your book comes out.) I hope I attributed it correctly. If there is anything you want me to add, please let me know. (I'm going to add the link to the article in a minute.)
I found the article on Therizinosaurus cheloniformis and read it. I made some minor copy edits, including some "clarification needed" tags and notes to editors (which you might be able to resolve). I wanted to ask you to help me with one thing, or at least give me your advice. Normally, I like seeing English measurements (miles, feet, inches) in addition to metric measurements (and I know how to add conversion templates), but when it is just one meter/metre, as it is in the second paragraph under "Phylogeny" (I think), it comes out as 3.28 feet. I suppose most people know that a meter/metre is a little more than three feet, so perhaps the conversion template is not necessary, but I'd like to put the equivalent in feet. However, for people like me who grew up with feet and inches, 3.28 feet doesn't help to convey the length very much. I wonder, (a) would it be acceptable to provide an equivalent as 3 feet X inches? and (b) if so, could you help me figure out what 3.28 feet would be? I know it's roughly 3 feet 3 inches, but if I could get it even more specific than that, I'd like to. But I'm terrible at doing math. That's why I'm asking you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I need to know what 3.28 feet is. Is it 3 feet 3 and a quarter, a third, or a half inches? And how do I make the fraction small? CorinneSD (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to google's meters to inches calculator, one meter is approximately 39.37 inches, or 3 feet 3 and a third inches.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Apokryltaros. I thought about this and realized I was trying to be too exact, and I apologize for bothering you about something so trivial. I didn't know about the google calculator. I guess, if an equivalent is even needed at all for one meter, 3 feet 3 inches would be sufficiently accurate. I don't know what I was thinking. Do you mind if I ask you about your user name? I'm just curious, is "Apokryltaros" a real word, a real name, or something else? CorinneSD (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! What a great picture! It looks like a combination of several extinct animals, but I guess it's not. You've got a great imagination. By the way, did you see my note to Hafspajen at the end of the section just above this one here on my talk page? I apologize for my part in causing the confusion. I appealed to you for help with the pictures, but when I didn't get an answer right away, I thought I'd also ask Hafspajen, who had been helping me before (higher up on this talk page). I guess sometimes I am impatient. CorinneSD (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rothorpe: Didn't know if you knew about this. Kwamikagami gave me this information about a week ago. I wanted to save it so that I can find it when I need it. Put in "Google Ngram Viewer" in WP search box. Enter word in search box. WP article opens up. (Not sure if I need to go to another site to actually use Google Ngram Viewer; will look now. Do you know?) My follow-up question: O.K. Thank you. At Google Ngram Viewer, where do you actually "plug in" variants? Kwami's answer: In the search window at top. There should be an example there. No quotation marks, separate w unspaced commas. CorinneSD (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking anything. I just thought you might find this useful at some point. I transferred the basic information from Kwami's page to mine so I could find it when I need it. I still have to figure out how to use it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recently learned how to put pictures on my User page. Hafspajen showed me how to do it (see above on this Talk page). Over the last few days I've been adding more pictures. However, there is something I want to do regarding the formatting that I haven't been able to do, and Hafspajen seems to be busy. After the first row of pictures (which has only two photos because it's next to the Userboxes), I want three photos per row (except for the long picture of a forest in Germany at the bottom). I notice that the photos in the second row, the one of the birds and the next two photos, have a wide gray border around them. I want to make the gray border narrower and the photos bigger, but I don't know how to do that. I really want those three photos to be on one line, but I don't want them too small, either. So the gray border has to be narrower.
Also, can you tell me whether I need both "gallery" and "gallery widths= heights= perrow=" at the beginning of each new gallery, or only one of those? CorinneSD (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a typo in the "heights" parameter; thus the images had the default height, which is rather low compared to the width. I fixed that, but since the images are not square, there will still be some space around them. If you want to get rid of that completely, there are several methods that may be of use: The {{gallery}} template, the {{multiple image}} template (which isn't really meant for galleries, though) or the gallery's "mode" parameter explained here. At the beginning of a new gallery you will need the widths, heights and perrow parameters if you don't want to use the default values. However, a single gallery can have multiple lines of images. Furthermore, if you add a second <gallery> tag within another gallery (ie without closing the previous gallery with </gallery>), that second tag will be ignored, along with all its parameters. On your user page you can remove the <gallery widths="300px" heights="300px" perrow="3"> tag after the Therizinosaurus image, and it won't make any difference. Huon (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh Parris: I saw your work a few months ago on the article on Mining, so I thought I'd ask you to review the article on Bauxite. I made a few minor edits, but I have some questions about some sentences in the section on "Formation". I just left the questions on the Talk page of the article. While there, I saw some other comments left a while ago. One, under the heading "Tech Talk", complains that the article appears to be written for other minerologists, and I kind of agree with that. Another, under the heading "Sorting of the Production Trends Table", mentions a problem sorting entries in that table. I also noticed that there seems to be no logic to the order of countries in that table. Perhaps you could fix the table. CorinneSD (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: You might be interested in a discussion regarding the pronunciation of Aram Khachaturian's name taking place on the Talk page of the article. I put in two cents a while ago but after being told that it had nothing to do with the discussion, I bowed out, but have been following it. It's not even approaching a resolution. I think you might be needed here. CorinneSD (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently begun adding photos that I have found on Wikimedia Commons and in articles to my User page. I have tried to attribute each photo as best I can. The last photo that I added was of a Malaysian fern. (I found it toward the bottom of the article on Fern.) I tried to put the User name in a link but it has stayed red. Have I done something wrong? Can you help me with it?
That user simply does not have a user page on the English Wikipedia. There are user pages at the Commons and the Malay Wikipedia, though. You can link to them with this code: [[:commons:User:Tu7uh]] and [[:ms:Pengguna:Tu7uh]], respectively, which will give commons:User:Tu7uh and ms:Pengguna:Tu7uh. (You can find out what wikis a user is active on by checking his contributions and following the "SUL" link at the bottom of the page.) Huon (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hafspajen: Hello, Hafspajen! I just skimmed your Talk page and I just love, love, love all the beautiful pictures! It's a treat for the eyes. Where do you find them? Are they only from Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia articles, or are they from Google Images, or what? I also like the poems and the humor. You seem like a delightful person.
You seem to be interested in botany, and I wonder if you could take a look at the latest edit to Hyssopus officinalis. I believe it was I who placed a "clarification needed" tag there back in November, and someone has removed the tag and selected one of the two options. Since I don't see any source, I just want to be sure it is correct. (If it is, I'll ask further whether you think the phrase "the two components" can be deleted; I don't think it's necessary.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are lovely!!!!!!!!The colours, the shapes and texture of the crystals are really tranforming it an Ali-baba grotto. With tea. !!!!Hafspajen (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice anything about the height of the plant. I was referring to the latest edit, just made today, in which an editor removed the "clarification needed" tag and chose "leaves and flowers" (I had asked which it was, "leaves and stalks" or "leaves and flowers"?). I just wanted to be sure that was correct.
Also, you didn't answer my question about where you get your pictures from. I'm glad you like my pictures. Thanks for looking at them. CorinneSD (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good. Thanks for checking. Does the statement in the article require a source? Also did you see my note in the next comment, below? CorinneSD (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed you were a contributor on the Stevia page and was hoping you might have some feedback on some information I would like to include on the Stevia wiki page. I wanted to include some information regarding a fermentation technology that produces a range of steviol glycosides, using sustainable, low-cost carbohydrate feedstocks, which can be sourced from virtually anywhere on the planet. Do you think this information is appropriate and if so, would I be able to fit this under History/Use, which should probably have more subsections (History, Use, Chemistry). Also, under "commercialization", do you think it would be appropriate to add some names of companies who produce biosynthetic Stevia (the actual plant). Thank you so much for your time!
@Hafspajen: and @Sminthopsis84: Can you help answer Presto808's questions? Presto808, thank you for asking me, but I mainly edit articles to improve syntax (sentence structure), grammar, verb forms and tenses, word usage, punctuation, and spelling. I have pinged two experienced editors who have some background in botany and so would be better able to answer your questions. CorinneSD (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page has now been split into three pages, one for the plant genus, one for the plant species, and one for the product, which is what is usually done for plants that have an important commercial product like this one. I trust that makes it easier to decide how to add material to the Stevia page, which is about the product. (I'll ping Presto808 as well.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. I enjoyed looking at the pictures (and listening to the music). I think you meant "A good place" to find images, not "a God place", didn't you? -- although many of the pictures are heavenly.
I know the link you gave me was to a particular person's user page, but isn't there a way to get to Wikimedia Commons' photos directly from Wikipedia, without having to put the website address in my internet browser address bar? CorinneSD (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WEll, yes, but a particular person's user page with nice pictures. Woman, my English is not goood, if you want to converse me you have to be brave. Ok, go to the commons. One is you go through a category. Click on Flowers below and you are there.
WEll, this one. I will put it on your userpage. If the category appears there you got your reason. (you can remove it later if you are Not interested in philosophy-.) Hafspajen (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, now when you read on your userpage, you will see the category at the bottom of this page about Philosophy. It was not there before, I checked that, to be sure. Hafspajen (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured out how and when that Category got added to my Talk page (this page). You were showing me about all the userboxes that are available and how to add them, above, under the heading "User boxes can be found at WP:Userboxes", on 28 March 2014. One of them says, "This user is interested in Philosophy". That must be when the category got added, as you said, automatically. That's O.K. It's only my Talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WEll, yes, that is what happened. Some of these userboxes are made like that so you may find easilly people who share your intrerests. "User boxes can be found at WP:Userboxes", and if you klick on the blue link you might be able to find many more of them. There are hundreds of them, silly and serious, and they are quite fun, here-> WP:Userboxes/Gallery. Just keep on klicking on all those. It may take you to all kinds of preferences and interests, like this one. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Colour... I like green tea and Earl grey and latelly I discovered Indian tea, when ordering tea at an Indian restaurant. (I know you didn't ask me, but I am a big tea-drinker.) Hafspajen (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for all your help and suggestions. I will take a look again at the userboxes gallery. It's nice to know you like tea, too. CorinneSD (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Fayenatic london, User:74.192.84.101 was quite active until about a month ago, including actively mentoring User:Bladesmulti, then suddenly stopped participating (see last few entries on User talk:74.192.84.101). Bladesmulti also disappeared at about the same time but just returned, saying he had been traveling and had taken a break from WP. I don't know the customs of WP regarding this, but is there any way you could send an e-mail inquiring as to what happened to 74? CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Corinne, sorry, there's no way to send an email to an anonymous IP editor; by definition they have not registered, so can't have saved an email address or other preferences. All I could suggest is combing the user talk page, or the user's contributions on other talk pages, for any indication of being in contact with another editor off-wiki. Or waiting. – FayenaticLondon07:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I probably won't get involved in any discussions. I'm not a literalist but I think some of the liberals have gone too far. I was just curious to see what Wikipedia said about the subject.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·18:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it because "that" flows better than "which" which sounds old-fashioned and stuffy. In any case, I urge you to read Wikipedia:Vandalism wherein you will learn that my changing "which" to "that" is not, let me repeat that -- not -- an example of vandalism. I hope you were just having a bad day when you changed it and aren't this way with everyone who makes tiny changes your text. Wait, this isn't your text -- this is Wikipedia's text. Say, have you read the page on Wikipedia:Ownership of articles? Rissa, copy editor 02:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry you have taken this process and my edits so personally to the point that they have upset you. I would like to make the following points:
I do not ever recall characterizing any of your edits as vandalism;
sometimes, the choice of "which" or "that" is a stylistic choice, where either is correct (and I agree with you that sometimes "that" makes the sentence flow more smoothly). In that particular place, where I explained that the clause was a non-restrictive adjective clause, "which" is the only correct word;
I notice that you used "which" rather than "that" to form your non-restrictive adjective clause above – "which sounds old-fashioned and stuffy" – (which technically ought to be set off by a comma, but I understand leaving out the comma in informal writing);
I realize that the many edits I made after your long series of edits back in December (which I may not even have noticed when I started editing) may have felt like a criticism of your edits. I think your edits were an improvement over what was there, and that mine made further improvements. Note that I did not undo your edits; I just made a few changes. I guess we have different notions of what constitutes good writing style. Please don't take it personally. I'd be glad to discuss individual edits whenever you like. CorinneSD (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just learned from another editor how to insert characters for other languages (in the drop-down menu at "Insert" below the edit window) and I saw the option for Math and logic symbols. I had been looking for the little circle that is the symbol for "degree(s)" as in "32 degrees Fahrenheit" and was happy when I saw it. However, even though I click first at the place where I want to insert it, whenever I click on it, it is inserted right after the last letter in the Subject/headline I had typed, not in the body of my comment. I had earlier noticed the same thing happening when I tried to insert an en-dash or em-dash from the punctuation below the edit window. Why is this happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorinneSD (talk • contribs)
Hi Corinne. That sounds a little odd - I'm assuming you have the cursor in the correct place? The symbols should insert at the point where you last left the cursor (a simple way to ensure they're in the right place is to open the Symbols list, click in the text at the point where you want the symbol, and only then click on the symbol itself). You should find an alternative list of symbols under Special characters at the top of your edit window; it might be worth seeing whether that list of characters works for you. If you still can't get it to work, I'd suggest posting at the Village Pump's technical board, which is where all the coding and scripting geniuses tend to hang out. Yunshui雲水09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hafspajen: Thank you so much for these beautiful photos! Where did you find them? I didn't see them when I was search in Wikimedia Commons photos. I guess if I put them on my User page I have to attribute them (as I did the others), to the photographer. CorinneSD (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the Karoo article still has the banner Relies largely or entirely upon a single source....Please help improve this article..., when in fact it has 37 references, and a large number of links to other Wiki articles, and has undergone major revision, and hopefully makes more sense than it did before. It now makes clear that there is a geographic area that is known by the general public, tourists and cartographers as "the Karoo"; then there is the enormously large geological structure that is called the "Karoo Supergroup" which no one confuses with the geographic area called the Karoo (other than that the geological structure has derived its name from the Karoo, without intending to define what is the Karoo); and then there are the two botanical, or ecological "biomes" that bear the name "Karoo", which are easier to to confuse with the geographic Karoo, as is apparent from the discussion on the Talk page.
Would you mind having a look at the single source banner and judge whether it is still appropriate, and have it removed if you agree that it is indeed misplaced. Oggmus (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
– Fayenatic London 07:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
-Stilbite-Ca-118469.jpg)
-Stilbite-Ca-70709.jpg)
