Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belatedwelcome to Wikipedia, HombreDHojalata. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, 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.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Hi HombreDHojalata, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)
First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.
Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:HombreDHojalata/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.
For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).
Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.
Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.
One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How references work
Simple references
These require two parts;
a)
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>
He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>
b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";
== References ==
{{reflist}}
(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)
Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009.
</ref>
Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>
Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.
Citation templates
You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;
Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
| last = Smith
| first = John
| title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
| publication-date = 2001
| publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
| page = 125
| isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>
Here's a little bit of magic which can save you an awful lot of time and effort!
You might want to consider using this tool - (tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py) - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well all by itself. For those it can't do by itself, it gives you a pull-down (or up) menu of templates to choose from, which you can then fill in manually. Often the problem is "No title found" - sometimes the title is obvious (especially if it's a pdf), bit, if not, just open the page yourself and choose something appropriate if there's not already a clear title there. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aid (rapper), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hello. I found this edit [1] rather unhelpful and not indicative of WP:FAITH. Claiming there is an "edit war" for one single move is downright ridiculous, as is protecting an article after one move. As for the actual topic, Jakobstad is the official name of the city in Finland as the name of the majority population in the city. If you want to argue that the name should be something else than in Galician that its official name, then the onus is on you. Please try to be more serious with your edits in the future, and kindly learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antón Losada Diéguez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page USC. 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.
You another time? And what for do you want to erase the article? It´s so good referenced in accordance to wikipedia! .... Please Hombre deHojalata, leave me in peace and lives in peace. Play Pull more and lives happy. Greatings to Garavito.
Hello, HombreDHojalata. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Hello, HombreDHojalata. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hello, HombreDHojalata. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
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.
THere is a problem with the substitution that you made today on the page for Alfonso VI, where you replaced File:Diego Gelmírez and Alfonso VI of León, Calixtinus Codex 1160.jpg with its renamed version, File:Tumbo de Toxos Outos 04 (24), Fernando II e Alfonso IX.jpg.
I don't know enough about this image to know whom it portrays, but I have to question the new identification. The Codex is dated to 1145, while Alfonso IX wasn't even born until the 1170s. (Another copy of the image calls the king Alfonso VIII - File:Fernando II (esquerda) e Afonso VIII (dereita) ambo-los dous Reis de Galiza e León.jpg, but agail, Alfonso VIII wasn't born yet in 1145.) If it is actually Fernando II and Alfonso IX, then it shouldn't be on the page of Alfonso VI at all, let alone be there retaining the description of it as portraying Alfonso VI and Diego. Do you know that this is actually Alfonso IX and Fernando II? Agricolae (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to be somewhat familiar with Spanish royal illustrations, perhaps you you can address another one that may be a misidentification. The attached illustration is identified here as Abd al Rahman I, yet the file description identifies the subject as Abd al Rahman III. A broader internet search shows it identified as both Abd al Rahman I and Abd al Rahman III, but many calling it Abd al Rahman I are unreliable sources, perhaps derived from Wikipedia. On the other hand, I can find versions of it at reliable image sites, Getty Images [2] and Alamy [3] that identify the subject as Abd al Rahman III. I also find blogs from 2008 [4] and 2010 [5] (before it was uploaded to Wikipedia as Abd al Rahman I) identifying it as Abd al Rahman III. Are you familiar with this illustration? Do you know who is being depicted? (Feel free to respond en Español.) Agricolae (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Llamo a consultas al compañero Rowanwindwhistler, que, sin duda, está más capacitado que yo para aclarar esta cuestión.
Me temo que no puedo ayudar, no sé de dónde proviene el supuesto retrato. Lo que dudo mucho es que no sea pura invención... Me extrañaría que se basase en algún retrato contemporáneo de cualquiera de los dos Abderramanes. Siento no poder ser de ayuda.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
