User talk:Leecorp1

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Leecorp1! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scipio Africanus

Hello, and thank you for editing this article. I wanted to let you know that the "Notes" sections in Wikipedia articles are meant to show footnotes from within the article but they're not the place to explain any edits you made to the page. Usually it is sufficient to give a brief summary in the line below the editor screen. But if you need to explain some of your edits in detail, please use the article's talk page.

If you have question, please feel free to ask on my user talk page. De728631 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you wrote your comments into the article page while remarks about possibly wrong sources etc. should always be discussed at the talk page of the article. Also, the general reader won't know who and what is meant by "my editing" as our articles can be edited by anyone. All in all, these edits to the article were not very helpful even if you meant no harm while explaining your motivations. But as I said, personal remarks should either go to the talk page to be discussed with other editors or you could create a number of explanatory footnotes in the article that do not refer to you as one single editor but instead make some general statements to comment on the article's content. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my remark. You're very welcome to explain anything related to the article's content in your footnotes, but remarks about the quality of sources and personal comments like "1) First, prior to my editing the section failed... I kept... I also removed the erroneous history" etc. always belong to the talk page. Whether something is obvious or erroneous may not be clear to other editors or the general reader, so it should be discussed outside of the article proper. That's what article talk pages are meant for. I'd also like to mention that you wrote these editorial comment from your own point of view which is another reason to keep them out of the article per our editing standards. De728631 (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you should never present your personal analysis and experience as part of an article as you did by writing comments in the style of "I edited this and did that, and it is obvious that source X is erroneous". You wrote all these comments from your personal point of view which is actually the totally wrong approach when editing an article page. We have tens of thousands of registered and anonymous editors, so it is totally unclear for the general reader who wrote any such comments about "my changes". Whether your comments were factually correct did not matter when I reverted them because all these comments simply did not belong into the front page of the article. You're most welcome to edit any article text by adding new content or correcting errors while referring to reliable sources. But please don't use any first-person perspective on the main article pages. You can do that when you publish a personal essay somewhere outside Wikipedia, but as this a cooperative project with a multitude of editors, we simply don't use personal editorial comments inside the articles. What you may of course do, is to add footnote with explanatory comments about specific sections in the article, but these should never reflect your edits and changes but should refer to the subject of the article as it is being presented in the main body of text.

As to your user page vs user talk page, the user pages can be used to display some of your personal background and Wikipedia-related stuff like editing habits, preferences, your membership in any WikiProject, technical equipment and so on. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let this bother you, we all make mistakes, and Wikipedia may be a bit complicated in the beginning. And yes, your communication via talk pages is just about right. But you might want to indent your responses to an existing talk page thread by adding an increasing number of colons : before your text each time you leave a new reply. This offset makes it easier to read the individual parts of the thread. You'll notice the difference between my comments here and what you wrote on my talk page. E.g. for the third sequential reply in a thread you can use :::Your new text... De728631 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we add one additional colon per post, so 1 colon for the first response, 2 colons for the second one, and so on. However, in very long discussions this may result in the text being squeezed too much against the right edge of the page. So at some arbitrary point you can use the {{outdent}} template and start at the left edge again (click the blue "outdent" link to read the manual). And the ellipses I wrote above don't mean anything. I just used them to indicate some longer text. De728631 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Indenting / outdenting of an existing post does not require a new signature and timestamp. De728631 (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only just noticed your last questions about Wikipedia "editors". Wikipedia has no official board of editors that is responsible for the project but all contributors, whether they use a registered account or edit anonymously, are considered to be part of our community of editors (or users if you prefer the term). De728631 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Battle of Mutina

If you want to add inline references after a certain statement, you can use the series of {{cite}} templates where you type a string of code and fill in certain parameters after the = sign, e.g.

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.example.com |work=Name of the website goes here |date=when was the source text published (optional) |accessdate=date of your visit to this reference website |author=(optional) }}</ref>.

Or if you have a book source:

<ref>{{cite book |title=Name of the book |chapter=(optional) |first=first name of the author |last=surname of the author |page= for a single page number |pages= for more pages like 5–7 (optional) |year=when was this published |publisher= name of the publisher |isbn= ISBN number }}</ref>.

It is good editing style to place these <ref>...</ref> strings after any punctuation signs like commas and full stops in the main text. Using <ref>...</ref> in the main body of text also requires the string {{Reflist}} in a separate "References" section at the end of the article. That is where a list of inline references will automatically show up.

If you happen to have a very brief article with no inline citations but a list of general sources, you can just list them with bullet points like

John Doe, This is a random book title, Typewriter Publishing (2010), p. 88 ISBN 1234567890..
Annie One, Another source book, Publisher No. 2, etc.

For more detailed information, please check [[Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]]. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may have answered my questions but you are forgetting I am a total novice. So as Denzel Washington said in the 1993 film, 'Philadelphia', talk to me like I am a two year old. Here are my 4 questions: (1) Where do I find "[[Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style"? Also, the type cites I want to know about and use are 'footnotes citations'. In the article it will show a superscript number that will have a counterpart with the sources information. Of course you know what I mean (I could have left the last explanatory test out but its in now). (2) So now my question no. 2 is what type citations are you describing when you say in-line or bulleted. I did not know and have never seen in-line cites in Wikipedia, (like I routinely do in my legal papers). (3) I see below where it asks me to cite my sources, 'ref/ref', (I can't use all the symbols in the 'ref ref' code because if I so Wikipedia will foot note it), so as soon as I send this to you I am going to check that out so I will not ask what ref-ref means. (4) Another question, I am inserting this response to your answer to my question on my Talk page. If it is on MY talk page, how do you know I have responded with questions that I want you to answer? Leecorp1 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]