User talk:Steven1991

Hello, Steven1991! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can 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 by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 10:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

You have uploaded two photographs you have taken onto the St Andrews Cathedral page of Wikipedia. Both feature the Tower of St Rule's along with what you call St Rule's "western turrets". This is not correct. What you call "western turrets" is, in fact, the (remains of) the eastern wall of the (later) sanctuary. The parallax caused by the angle of your photos may have misled you. My source? Cruden, Stuart (1950), St Andrews Cathedral - Official Guide, Edinburgh: Her Majesty's Statioery Office, ISBN 0-11-490696-3. I guess any more recent guidebook with a decent map of the site would do, but Cruden's two maps and photo no. 4 seem definitive. I don't know whether you can correct your errors (if not you, who can?) but if they aren't corrected soon I shall raise the matter on the Talk page of 'St Andrews Cathedral'. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind correcting them for me then? Steven1991 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the captions as you request. Unfortunately, the actual file title to one of them mentions the supposed "St Rule's Western turrets" and its image shows the deceptive parallax which might lead the viewer to accept the notion that the "turrets" (of the Eastern wall of the later Cathedral are actually in line with the axis of St Rule's Church, when your other picture shows plainly that they are not. I know of no way that the file's title (as opposed to its description or caption) can be altered/edited. If you know of a way, it should be corrected to avoid any further confusion. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. Steven1991 (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven. I recently modified some edits you made, and wanted to make sure I explained my reasoning and, if needed, opened up a dialogue. In the Zio article, I noticed some terms (antisemitism, ethnic slur) were linked multiple times, and often times the links were back-to-back. MOS:OVERLINK describes how we usually only want to link a term once per major section. Similarly, WP:SEAOFBLUE describes how we try to avoid hyperlinked terms back-to-back, as in a printed format, it'd be impossible for a reader to tell whether they're searching one big term or many small ones.

Wikipedia has a TON of formatting rules like this in the WP:MOS, and I'm still learning plenty of them. I just wanted to give more than a hyperlinked edit summary to explain and introduce you to the many, many standards of formatting you'll encounter here. For what it's worth, I don't think many bother to read the MOS all the way through; my approach is usually to just edit normally, and if someone cites a guideline while they correct something, then commit it to memory and move on. I just wanted to say that so you didn't think I was telling you to read that dry volume before editing further; that'd be a nightmare! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed you add a lot of block quotes. Per MOS:QUOTE, if we can paraphrase, we should, in order to reduce the risk of copyright violation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I've noticed you doing the important work of adding a bunch of sources, and adding wikilinks in compliance with the MOS; you're improving the encyclopedia, and seem to be learning the arcane rules of the MOS quite quickly. Quicker than I did! Well done, and thank you for your help in improving Wikipedia! EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Antisemitic trope

added links pointing to South Korean, Motifs, Holy cross, Wiley, Native Americans and Devils

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen1991, when you were blocked for deceptive edit summaries, you promised not to use such in the future. But I see from your edits after the block that you're avoiding edit summaries simply by using no edit summaries. (The automatic edit summaries, like "reply", or the name of the section you're writing in, don't count, as they are very little use to other editors.) That's not good either. Edit summaries are supposed to be explanatory, and they're useful for people trying to make sense of page histories. Please make an effort to always use edit summaries. Bishonen | tålk 10:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]