User talk:StringRay

The talk page of the Wikipedia gnome, StringRay, is known for its rare activity and low importance. All contributions are preserved and new posts are met with great excitement.

Baidu
Hello StringRay.

I corrected your last modification on Baidu because your source was old, 2008 not 2010. Added new source. My problem is in the reference it doesn't show my added link and I don't know why. Can you help? Thanks- --KurtR (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I fixed it. --KurtR (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
This is for this edit: this edit A lot of people don't notice those little things, but improvements like that are necessary if we are ever to be regarded as the world's best encyclopedia. Good job! HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

external stoppage?
If you are "aware of the British practice of external stoppage" I'd be grateful to see any generalized evidence. I've always favoured internal, and I'm not sure why anyone would take a contrary view, or in what circumstances. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I derive this generalization from Lynn Truss's "Eats, Shoots & Leaves." Typographically, it wasn't initially possible to print internal punctuation so common usage was external punctuation. Later technological, nineteenth-century?, developments afforded closer proximity of characters and thus made internal punctuation possible. Americans tended to use the internal in all instances while the British kept external and used internal where logically appropriate. For instance, short quotations within larger sentences would have an external period whereas a much longer quotation set off by a colon would not.

I'm remembering this vaguely as I don't have the book on hand and Google Books is no help here. There's some debate among copyeditors on both sides of the Atlantic: always favor internal or allow external and apply logic. Associated Press Style mandates the former, and I know more than a few copyeditors who reserve particular scorn for external punctuation. I've no ire on this, but most of the edits I make are putting commas inside quotation marks. Nevertheless, I'm hesitant to put "full stops" inside quotation marks on entries covering British topics because it's not strictly necessary. Hence, why I felt it necessary to qualify this minor edit.

Maybe more information than you bargained for, but that's what I'm operating on. --StringRay (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If I'd known I'd get such a bargain, I might have put in a much lower opening bid, haha. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=580905736 your edit] to Federated Malay States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (1888); the FMS were officially turned into a nominally independent protectorate of Great Britain not to be confused with the British possessions like the [[Straits Settlements|territories of the

Your draft article, User:StringRay/sandbox


Hello, StringRay. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lotteries in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamestown. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

East River
Please note that no part of MOS is mandatory, including MOS:COMMA, and that what you are doing is edit warring, which is a breach of policy, which is mandatory. To avoid being blocked for edit warring over MOS -- an action with the Arbitration COmmittee has consistently ruled as being disruptive, please follow WP:BRD and discuss your concerns on Talk:East River. Please do not revert again. BMK (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The commas are wrong. I hope, in time, you'll come to see that. StringRay (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Taft
Thank you for fixing the colors. I hoped someone would. I tried to do it by eye, and gave up.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure! I still don't understand why RGB values 0-255 have to be converted to numbers between 0 and 1, but I'm glad it turned out all right. --StringRay (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

October 2018
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Robert Hunter, from its old location at User:StringRay/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Hunter (trader) has been accepted
 Robert Hunter (trader), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Robert_Hunter_(trader) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Misreading
What an astonishing misreading of an image! It obviously is a pope - the papal tiara is unmistakable. The image file gives full details, and a link to the BnF. "pape Clement" can easily be seen in the text below the miniature! Please spare us your future OR art-historical insights. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

My confusions arises from the fact that there are three different images all linked to/circling the original Wikimedia Commons image, each depicting a monk before a crowned figure:

1. the original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HaytonRemittingHisReportToThePope.JPG 2. the link to the BnF https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8452199j/f11.item (what I've cropped from and what's described by them as "Hayton, Fleur des estoires de la terre d'Orient ; Provinciale Romanae") 3. another image on that page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BNF_Fr2810_f226_Frontispice_Livre_du_fr%C3%A8re_Hayton.jpeg

Is 1. correct and the other two to be ignored?

Thanks for your help! --StringRay (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 and 2 show the same moment. I don't see what 3 has to do with it - as the image file says this is a presentation miniature showing Jean Sans Peur being given the book he has commissioned. No female monarchs anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That 1 and 2 depict the same scene is a relief. That was baffling me. Thanks for the clarification! StringRay (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)