User talk:Victoria h
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Victoria h and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump. Happy editing! --NymphadoraTonks 20:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
P.S. You can also stop by my talk page if you want to ask me any questions directly or just want to say hi! :-D
[edit] Reporting vandalism
Hello, Victoria. Thanks for reporting 168.9.42.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), he has been blocked for 24 hours now. However, I saw that you left a {{test5}} tag on his page; technically, blocking can only be done by administrators like myself, so in the future, it would be better if you just left a {{test4}} notice and report it at WP:AIV, like you did. That page is pretty much on every administrator's watchlist, so you'll get a very quick turnaround. By the way, when you use the test templates, it is recommended that you substitute them by using {{subst:test}} instead of just {{test}}. Thanks again, and welcome to Wikipedia! Titoxd(?!?) 06:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Reporting Vandalism
So I guess we just keep putting test4. Sorry, I'm new here. It was the 5th warning so that's why I used test5 instead of test4 cause it had already been used. Thanks for your help with the vandal! --Victoria h 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Re: vandal warnings
Wow, sorry about that, your question got lost amid all the messages I got! :( As for giving a warning to a vandal, yes, you can skip a few levels if the vandalism is truly egregious (in which case you can also use {{bv}}, if there are several vandalisms done before (but then, you have to see that they have been in a recent timeframe, e.g., just counting those that happened during the same week) or if there have been blocks applied to the user's account (which you can usually see in his talk page). Also, if a vandal blanks your warning, and it has been replaced by other warnings, don't revert, as that erases the new content. Hope that helps, and feel free to ask me again! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My apologies
You had sent me a message asking "please do not delete user's comments from the talk page of articles." (This was sent to an IP because it was before I had created a user login.) I just wanted to apologize and explain my actions. I had noticed your comments on the talk page in question and it appeared to me that they had all been addressed in subsequent revisions of the article. Being a newbie to wikipedia, I thought it made sense to remove the comments since they no longer seemed relevant. It was not my intention to offend you in any way, and I apologize.
You won't hurt my feelings if you decide to remove this from your talk page.
God Bless. --JesusFreak Jn3:16 01:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I'm not going to delete your comments. That's what I was trying to get across, that you shouldn't just go around deleting people's comments you don't like. It would be nice if you would put my comments back though.
--Victoria h 04:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear - it had nothing to do with 'like' or 'dislike'. It was due to a lack of knowledge in how Wikipedia worked and the fact that other editors had taken your comments to heart and acted upon them. There was nothing personal. I'm not quite sure how to best get them back without messing anything up but I won't mind (and doubt anyone else would) if you replaced them. God Bless! JesusFreak Jn3:16 00:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad I have your permission to put back my own comments that you wrongly deleted. --Victoria h 03:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
I just spotted your comments on the R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Talk page. I didn't have time to read them all, but I certainly will later...I created the article, and I'm personally hostile to Mohler's general camp, but I started the article in part as an exercise in writing neutrally, so I am especially interested in implementing your suggestions...but it will be a few hours until I get time. I agreed with everything I read that you said. Previously I worked hard to get a NPOV label removed, but it was, and I felt good about it. Now I am committed to going even further to improve the article, in the specific ways you mentioned, so personal thanks for taking the time. I would be interested in continued comments once I have a time to "study on it." Alan Canon 04:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Semi-automated template substitution
- This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 11:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] United States seminaries
I am not sure what you are talking about. s-e-m-i-n-a-r-i-e-s is how you spell it. What article are you talking about? MPS 03:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You spelled united wrong as in "unites". It reads "Unites States Seminaries". I noticed you've been linking articles to it and I thought I should tell you before it takes any longer to fix. --Victoria h 04:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- woops! I am working on it. Thanks for the heads up. ... PS sign your posts with four tildes like this ~~~~ MPS 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
actually it's two dashes - - and then 4 tildes --Victoria h 03:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Appositive/Apposition
The American Heritage Dictionary defines Appositive as
1. a word or phrase in apposition.
and Apposition as
3. Grammar. a syntactic relation between expressions, usually consecutive, that have the same function and the same relation to other elements in the sentence, the second expression identifying or supplementing the first. In Washington, our first president, the phrase our first president is in apposition with Washington.
The two articles should be kept separate, for they pertain to different subjects: the first to the element of apposition, the second to apposition itself; however, they should be linked to each other.
As to the question of usage, in formal writing, I advise against using a noun phrase which makes the sentence disjointed, as in John and Bob, both friends of mine; though this is generally instinctively avoided on account of its awkwardness. Parenthetical and subjunctive clauses often perform the same role, but are more elegant.
The grammatical device is useful when it clarifies one noun phrase, as in the Washington example above. It also seems to be used in rhethoric for emphasis, such as in "the defendent, that vile, abominable man...".
It seems to be common in informal speech when the nominative noun phrase is very long — for instance, "the method by which this is performed - it is very wrong." In this case it is clearly awkward.
I should note these comments are opinions, and not fully formed ones. I do not have any references to strengthen my case. If you find out more that is useful about this subject, I would appreciate a post on my talk page. Rintrah 09:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I will get another opinion. Rintrah 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- After reading through a few wikipedia articles, I realised it is fine as long as it does not form an unnecessary break in the sentence. Its acceptance in good English depends on how it is used. Rintrah 15:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Victoria.
The article I referred to was Apposition, whereof you left a comment on the talk page. I investigated the subject because I am not thoroughly tutored in grammar, hence the length of discussion on grammar questions on my talk page. The wikipedia article of it makes it sound clumsy, with some of the worst examples of it. However, I realised it is valid grammatical device after investigating it, one which most people commonly use. Still, it can also be misused, like other devices, but only bad writers succumb to it.
Thanks for the encouragement. I feel as if everyone who openly appreciates grammar belongs to a secret club.
In many cases I don't think of the editing task as ironing, but as bulldosing. Canadian Literature is probably the best example of this. Rintrah 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
