User talk:SquisherDa
Watchlist check SquisherDa (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)SquisherDa (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome!
Welcome!
Hello, SquisherDa, and
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizardif you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
{{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 16:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Structural Homology
I've linked to the discussion from
Manchester United is a football club, and you can cite another one and say Manchester City is a football club
Nah, that's not a problem. You just can't combine sources to make a new argument, look at
- Cheers for your comment, WP:SYN actually says seems to prohibit bringing the two sourced statements together in this way. And what's said elsewhere(as follows; my emphases) distinguishes what's likely to be disputed versus what could be disputed - but requires both to be supportable by citation, and so seems to reinforce this potentially-obstructive application:
- 66
- It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.
- 99
- WP:CALC's phrasing gives the impression that it's limited to interpreting / citing a single source, which of course is another big difference: but I think there may be no real intention to limit it in that way.)
- It's tempting to suggest extending WP:SYNexplores a simple example about the UN's effectiveness. An even simpler one, which in its logical structure is as elementary as Manchester, is as follows.
- Where one good source says (a) the conventional English view of history holds the Germans responsible for the Second World War, and another says (b) ditto ditto First World War, an extended WP:CALCwould allow a contributor to write that (c) the conventional English view holds the Germans responsible for both World Wars. It may be true that (c) is the conventional English view. (For the period to, say, 1990, I'd say it was; and it must still be widespread.) And it may not - which of course is the point. (As time brings perspective the English have become more reflective - and more aware of the differences between those wars and their causes . . I'd imagine a lot of people now regard it as intrinsically unlikely that a nation would choose that road twice.)
- I describe WP:CALC-style baby-steps of logic to what is / is not a "new position".
- (So what's a "new" position? Perhaps "new" means that some readers might regard the result as raising doubt about / putting significant extra pressure on the starting-points. So, in the Manchester case, a reader might feel a sense of surprise that Manchester has two major football clubs, and wonder about the implication that Manchester must be a fairly big place (or that maybe there are two places called Manchester??): but provided the sources are of the quality you'd expect for uncomplicated factual/reference material the reader should accept them as bearing the extra weight without question. Whereas in the Germany case, most careful readers would doubt, or ask to be told, whether the cited authors of the sources even had any opinion at all about what the English public think when (if) they consider the two Wars together.)
- SquisherDa (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that saying both are clubs is a problem, although saying Manchester has 2 football clubs probably would be as there could be 3, etc. I'd hate to see talk) 15:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)]
- I don't think that saying both are clubs is a problem, although saying Manchester has 2 football clubs probably would be as there could be 3, etc. I'd hate to see
Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)
The Signpost: 6 September 2016
- Special report: Olympics readership depended on language
- WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia
- Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between
- Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit
- Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them
Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk page message: policy shortcut
Thanks for your message. The {{
Disambiguation link notification for June 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
mostly
- Cheers, @Andrewgprout. Yep, we were talking about different things. I was looking at the contributor’s intent (and the expectations and understanding of future contributors). Thus I was on about what to assume, about that. U were looking at the contributed content - and its value, which was - uh - limited. :-)
- - SquisherDa (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
CANIC
Thanks for referencing the redlink policy. I just wanted to point out the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System was similarly created from a red link, but now it is a poor duplicate of the grounding/return to service developments. Shencypeter (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Right-wing politics: Please self revert
SD, the material you restored does not have consensus for inclusion. Since this is new material consensus must be gained before inclusion, even if a RfC is in process. Springee (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Just so you know
Just so you know, edits like this[1] are a waste of effort. On some browsers / screen settings / font settings the text fit on one line before and after your change. On other browsers / screen settings / font settings the text takes up two lines line before and after your change. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, cheers Guy Macon :-) Mostly it was the duff sentence-structure I was trying to fix - concision getting the layout neater was just a nice extra if achievable. – SquisherDa (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invitation! But I don't at all feel able yet to present myself to a young newcomer as 'know[ing] the community and "how things work"'. (Not too sure how well I'd do at the 36hr thing either!) – SquisherDa (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
A453
The a453 is near the crashsite. If you look at the photos on the article page and on the internet, you will see what I mean.61.88.9.50 (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well yes, but is it helpful to mention this? - SquisherDa (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Unconditional surrender
Your edit seems like the best approach. Adding a source that does the questioning, unless that is the article somewhere already, could also be helpful. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Donner60. Yes, what the article says (now: at the end of the lede) is this:
-
- The historicity of this incident has been questioned by Islamic scholars[14][15][16] of the Revisionist School of Islamic Studies[17] and by some western specialists.[18][19]
- U'll see there are several references. Views seem to differ on whether it's legitimate for a brief remark in one article, drawing on another, can rely on that other article's references - but copying half-a-dozen seemed a bit disproportionate in this case!
- Do U think we should split off the sentence (in Unconditional surrender § Banu Qurayza during Muhammad's era) to a new final paragraph and add a final cross-reference in brackets? -
-
- The historicity of the incident has been questioned. (For references see main article.)
- -- SquisherDa (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would suggest citing one (maybe two since they come from different schools of thought) of the references and then add your parenthetical expression as "For other references see..." I think this should reduce concern about referring to the other article for all the citations. I think your idea of splitting off the sentence into a new paragraph would add some clarity. I usually favor that approach but as far as I know, that is just a matter of my preference based on that further material being a separate thought. Donner60 (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- To choose among references I'd need access to them, which I don't have. (I'd be uneasy anyway about giving a selective picture? of a (hopefully!) consensus elsewhere?) I'm with U on separate paras for separate matters. But I've found myself directed to owt in the MoS against single-sentence paragraphs, when I've done this concisely! The phrasing I've suggested is intended to avoid that objection! -- SquisherDa (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would suggest citing one (maybe two since they come from different schools of thought) of the references and then add your parenthetical expression as "For other references see..." I think this should reduce concern about referring to the other article for all the citations. I think your idea of splitting off the sentence into a new paragraph would add some clarity. I usually favor that approach but as far as I know, that is just a matter of my preference based on that further material being a separate thought. Donner60 (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Battle of the Big Cross
Have responded in part to your comments on this article's talk pageAineireland (talk)