User talk:Miramaribelle

--Miramaribelle (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Miramaribelle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ferrie (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gloria Stuart 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

was about to take the bench, was hit by a car and died of his injuries.<ref>Stuart (1999), p. 11)</ref> Hard-pressed to support two small children, Alice soon accepted the proposal of Fred J.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, BracketBot! Most appreciated!

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gloria Stuart may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

"Gloria Stuart: From Silver Screen to Canvas." Thesis proposal, CUNY Graduate Center, 2013.</ref>]
“They are known everywhere, madame. They are true primitive American art. They are masterpieces!”]{{sfn|Stuart|1999|page=184}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gloria Stuart 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

in Halifax, Nova Scotia, over about three weeks in early summer. {{sfn|Stuart|1999|page=268}}] But the immensely complex movie, events connected with it and the consequences of Stuart’s newly

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your messages at A930913's talk page

Hello Miramaribelle, in reply to the messages you left at A930913's talk page: BracketBot is an automated program set up to find mismatched brackets and notify users (thus its name; "bot" is short for "robot"). It was built and is operated by A930913, and messages left in reply to the bot's messages will end up on A930913's talk page. I'm User:Huon, the person actually replying to those messages in order to relieve A930913 so they can focus on development. Since the messages you left weren't about brackets, they're probably not of interest to A930913; I'll move the conversation here. You can reply by editing this section if you want; I'll keep an eye on your talk page.

I do not think there's a shortcut for the {{sfn}} template. It's not technically a named reference; that would be one created by code like this: <ref name="Some name">Footnote text</ref> Such named references can be re-used very easily - but {{sfn}} allows easy references to different pages of the book, not just a repetition of references to the same page (or just to the book as a whole). In order to use it, you need to list the book it points to in a "bibliography" section or something similar (here the "Sources" section) in a specific format, using a citation template such as {{cite book}} with a special parameter "ref=harv". Then the footnote created by {{sfn}} will contain a link to the corresponding bibliography entry. The disadvantage is, of course, that it's more difficult to use than "regular" references. I too have copy-pasted it. You could try the new Visual Editor that's supposed to simplify editing, but in this particular case I don't really think it will get any easier than copy-pasting.

Regarding Arthur Sheekman, what we'd need are reliable published sources, sources our readers can use to verify the content for themselves. I rather doubt a death certificate will suffice in that regard - how could I, for example, check what that death certificate says? And I agree, that article is indeed problematic, citing mostly primary sources, not the secondary sources (such as articles written by newspapers and magazines, or possibly books on film history) that are preferred, and precious few of even them. In the absence of such reliable sources, our readers cannot tell whether the content is correct. You know, of course - but I'm sure you'll agree that we shouldn't accept information merely on the say-so of pseudonymous editors. That's how the errors were added, after all.

Images are somewhat tricky due to copyright issues. Who owns the copyright for the images you want to add? If it's you (say, because you took them yourself, or because you're the heir of the photographer) and if you're willing to release them under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modify them for any reason, including commercial reasons, you can upload them to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. If you don't own the copyright (and that's not the same as owning the physical photo you'd scan and upload), or if you're unwilling to release the image under a free license, things get a lot more complicated. Wikipedia tries to offer freely redistributable content and thus has very strict rules on non-free content. Since a new free image of Sheekman obviously cannot be produced (unlike for people who are still alive), using a non-free image might be acceptable - but we'd be limited to as few images as possible (ie one), of low resolution, uploaded to Wikipedia itself, not the Commons, which means it cannot be easily re-used on foreign-language versions of the article, and requiring a specific rationale for every single article it's to be used on that explains why "fair use" applies in that particular instance. Yours, Huon (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon, Thank you for all your help. My Arthur Sheekman article indeed has no quotes because nobody's really written about him--at least so far as I can tell. However, all the books about Groucho Marx cite Sheekman as one of his closest friends. But the stories in the books are about Groucho, not Sheekman. Wiki's policy of drawing only on secondary sources rather than primary sources is valid except when there are few to none. And then if you have a primary source, why not use it? No, you can't verify the death certificate in the file cabinet in my study. But what do I do when someone writes he died of Alzheimer's? He did not!!! And there's still red on the cause of death for Gloria Stuart. Who can say what it is better than me, consulting the death certificate. Want me to take a picture of it and post it? Ugh. My word is not valid until some journalist quotes me--and then it's valid. Catch 22. I will be publishing my book, d.v. and then there will be a secondary source. But are you going to put back the old article for Sheekman with all its errors? Thanks, Sylvia

When there are few or no secondary sources, the Wikipedia article should focus on what those sources report and omit aspects of the topic that have not been covered by the available sources. If there's unsourced incorrect content, it can simply be removed. If the content is based on a source that should be reliable but apparently got it wrong, we may have to use our editorial discretion to omit that claim if we have reason to believe the source is mistaken. I've seen relatives' comments here on Wikipedia used as sufficient grounds for such removal. What we should not do, however, is add something else without a source, not even as a relative. The burden of evidence is with the editor who adds content. A short, well-sourced article is preferable to a long one with dubious sources or with unsourced content.

Also, the requirement for secondary sources is unrelated to the requirement for published sources. For example, if a journalist interviews you for an article about your father, the journalist will have made sure that you are indeed the daughter of Sheekman, and everybody can confirm what that article says. If you edit the Wikipedia article without a published source, we're basically left with "User:Miramaribelle says so", which wouldn't be any more convincing than "User:Huon says something else" - how are our readers to tell that you're right and the editor who claimed Alzheimer's as the cause of death was wrong?

Your book, once published, still wouldn't be a secondary source, but others could look it up, the authorship would be unambiguous, and we could use it for uncontroversial details (if you were to write "Arthur Sheekman was the greatest screenwriter in history!", well, then we'd probably require secondary sources backing up that claim).

So my advice would be: Remove incorrect unsourced content on sight. Probably remove incorrect content that comes with a source, too, but in such cases you should leave a note on the article's talk page (you can find it via the "Talk" tab at the top of the page, right next to "Read") explaining your rationale. Do not, however, add content others cannot independently verify. "Verifiability, not truth" has long been a slogan here on Wikipedia, though of course we try to get things right, too. Huon (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 28 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Arthur Sheekman page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 30 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Gloria Stuart page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Thanks for your effort – and your pleasant thoughts. FWIW, I got involved in your effort by happenstance. I don't edit wide swathes of Wikipedia, but what I edit I do with some intensity. I favor postholing. Anyway, happy holidays to you. If I can help in hte futuer, feel free. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Postholing?"

New to me. I found "'Postholing' means an in-depth study of a particular historical event or period. The postholing approach is often contrasted with a more traditional teaching approach that attempts to offer students a broad overview of historical knowledge." [studentsfriend.com] Yes? I love the way language moves and shifts, opens up. I will be back to haunt you ladies and gentlemen at some point. In the meantime, warmest best and thanks again. (And I made my annual contribution to the cause this morning.) Miramaribelle (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although while I posthole on an article, I try to put it into the broadest historical and cultural context. E.g, a few articles I worked on that I thought important: Three hares, Frank Murphy (alas, since I last edited it the other editors dumbed it down, and I've not gotten much involved since as it irritated me greatly), Oliver Hazard Perry, Outhouse (I worked on it anonymously slavishly, and then in my current identity), Barber pole, Spectacle Reef Light, Stannard Rock Light, White Shoal Light and Sturgeon Point Light (I was doing lighthouses (mainly on the Great Lakes, until I became frustrated at the officious intermeddling of some administrators. I also did a few dog articles, including Leonberger and Bernese Mountain Dog. Another article which I had wanted to be a DYK was Turtling, but I would not knuckle under to policies that should not be stupidly applied. I did one section of Blind spot (vehicle) that I considered to be critical to all drivers (and particulatly new ones who might look to Wikipedia). I had intended to do all the Michigan lighthouses, but I gave up that project when they tore up the tracks I had carefully laid down), and The moon is made of green cheese. I was proud of Trial film, which is essentially a list. Likewise Mountain dog and List of magic museums, not to mention American Museum of Magic and other articles mentioned in the list. I did those because I though they covered subjects and brought together articles in a way that at least some of our readers would deem useful. I spent an extraordinary amount of effort on Yule marble. So too with Northern Michigan. I did two sections of Anatomy of a Murder (if you read the article, even without looking at the edit history, you may be able to pick up my edits. Yank Levy was another good one. And Milorganite.

I would also say that over the years my ability to use citation templates has grown vastly, and I haven't gone back to many of those articles to correct what I had done. Half-assed as some of them were, they are better than the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia. Just click on "Random article" at the top left of this page to see what I mean.

When I work on an article (or a piece of an article) I try to give the readers lots of citations and links in the hope that this would be a good beginning point for their own research. I can only improve a few articles, but I want them to be all they can be. don't mean to bore you: I've been doing this work for years and almost nobody notices. But I've avoided the spotlight. We're all volunteers here, and they can't make me work on an article unless I want to. And when faced with stupidity, I may not edit war or argue incessantly over stupid things, but I may not edit either. Pearls before swine has some application. So you may sometimes feel frustrated with editing, but its a gigantic encyclopedia. There is always someplace else to go, and then you can interact with a whole new cast of players, leaving behind any bete noirs. It felt good to say this to somebody.

Given the beyond vast choices available, some day some psychologist will have a field day trying to figure out why editors choose to edit the articles they do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just messed up royally

I was trying simply to correct a date in "Arthur Sheekman" and then add my signature but I seem to have deleted the photograph and made a total shambles of the opening. I can't remember how to fix it. I hope someone can get the photograph back and put the article to rights. Miramaribelle (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)miramaribelle[reply]

Brilliant! and...

7&6-thirteen, (if I get the green, the whole graf is in green, don't know how to turn it off) you are beyond brilliant. I just looked at Three hares--had no idea until that moment what the subject meant. I should tell you that I've traveled considerably, read and observed and listened for seventy-nine years (well, take away sixteen, maybe)...and never knew about the hares. Just skimming down the entry, magnificent! I look forward to printing it up and reading it at leisure. Did you write it or edit it--or both? As for the ruling Wikigeeks, I must agree with you that I have a sense of Overloaditis...how painful to have done such meticulous caring work and not have it valued as it ought. But that's the way of the world,yes? Too, bear in mind (this is your elder speaking) that each of us has a context and when something unfamiliar bounces in, we may or may not be prepared to receive it, appraise it properly. I hate to bring it around to myself, but I have gnashed my teeth with the GS work. I now appreciate that the judgment of value is a matter of not just where one comes from intellectually and culturally, but where one's head is at the time of reading. I look forward to seeing all your articles...what subjects! And thank you for trusting me with your broadside. Miramaribelle (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gosh—thanks. If you look at the history, you will find that Three hares marginally existed before I got involved with it. I fleshed it out. Big time. I liked it because it is a meme, which is a connection I made in that article. This lead to my finding on German wikipedia (now in ours) Rabbits and hares in art. I thought the article was so good it needed to be brought here. One of the beauties of editing wikipedia is that it is (if you open your eyes and look around you) a lot like the television show Connections. One thing leads to another. I have had the privilege of working with some sterling editors here. When they are involved, and if they ask me to be involved, then I am there. Together we can create some wonderful product. See User: Doug Coldwell as an example. He is one of a number of master editors, who bring hard work and intelligence to what they do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to an article, you can click on "View history" and find out who is contributing. You also have access to earlier iterations. You can compare versions of the articles. You can do searches by editor, and also do 'wiki blame' to find out who put a particular piece in. If you are editing articles, you need to read the talk page, including the archived sections. If you are going to undo ('revert') another editor's work, you should at first consider who the editor is (look at their User and talk pages, and their contributions), as you want to know how and where to pick your fights. On a particular aricle, be sure to read the "talk page" including the archive if there is one, as it helps to know what you are getting into. Editing articles is not just about the edits, but also about the editors and the context. You can inadvertently walk into the middle of a gun fight. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not maligning all the powers-that-be in Wikipedia. But they (and just some bullying editors) do exist, and it is one of the realities of editing. And there is a need to fit into the purpose of the encyclopedia and to fit within context. We need to abide by the rules (but the rules ought to be informed by an understanding of their purpose). Our purpose is to build the best encyclopedia ever known. And plainly the administrators have a tough and necessary role, lest the anarchists and vandals take over.

As to context, I go out of my way to wikilink to and from other articles. It is not just enough to create articles. They must be seen to have been created. Which reminds me of Bill Smith (fell runner) and Micah True. But I digress. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about yellow highlights

In the Gloria Stuart article, "100th" has been used twice close to one another (in the subhead and the body copy) and both are highlighted in yellow. I see someone recently added one of the "100th.". What's the deal? Thanks and all best.Miramaribelle (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see any yellow highlighting. I have never heard of such an effect and don't know what might cause it - possibly some gadget or script I don't use, or maybe even a browser plugin. Huon (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you!

I couldn't sleep last night, I felt so frustrated! I was so unhappy! Thank you--is it Huon still?--for rescuing me. Warmest best, Sylvia Miramaribelle (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raul Roulien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page It's Great to Be Alive. 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) 09:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi, and thank you for your note. As you can imagine, I have no idea what you're talking about, re: RR and disambiguation. I just thought it would be nice to add the credit. Kindly repair. I appreciate getting these notices. If you'd like to explain--probably you don't have time-- I'd be pleased to learn. All best! Miramaribelle (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Miramaribelle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. Place any further information here. I thought I'd add my father's name, Arthur Sheekman, to Ruth Goetz's entry upon the mention of their play, Franklin Street. He was the Goetzes' collaborator, and although it flopped, the information should be entered. I got the above message on all three browsers. What in the heck is going on? What can I do to be let back in? Thanks and Happy Holidays.Miramaribelle (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The issue likely is unrelated to the page you looked at or the edits you made. Rather, your IP address seems to be blocked because it's an open or anonymizing proxy; due to the capacity for abuse such proxy servers are blocked on sight on Wikipedia. To investigate the specific block you ran into we would need to know the IP address in question. You can either provide it here or, if you do not wish to publish it, make use of WP:UTRS. Huon (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Miramaribelle (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: 104.156.228.77 If it's still not acceptable to you, how do I change it? This is ridiculous! and upsetting. Miramaribelle (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that IP address belongs to privateinternetaccess.com, a virtual private network that has been abused to spam Wikipedia. Thus we cannot unblock this IP address. I'm sorry for the inconvenience the behaviour of other people using the same VPN may cause you, but you will need to find another way to connect to the internet if you want to edit Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Huon! nice to be in touch with you again. I very recently subscribed to PIA--it was recommended somewhere as a means of not leaving tracks on the net, so I wouldn't get ads from places I've just visited. I just cancelled the account. More important to me to be part of Wikipedia. Bummer that others spam Wiki. Bad on them. I guess I'll get another IP address, eh? We shall see. Hugs! Happy Holidays! Miramaribelle (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki Friends, I have been using, contributing to (both editorially and financially), and cherishing Wikipedia almost from the beginning. Now suddenly I went to add Arthur Sheekman's name (I edited his entry) to Ruth Goetz's entry because he collaborated with her on their play, Franklin Street. Whoa, I got this red printed notice on all three browsers that my IP address was verboten. What have I done wrong? Kindly explain--and, if you choose, please lift the block. I am a serious researcher, have added useful small details throughout your pages. I did check the list of active blocks and my name is not on it. Happy Holidays, Miramaribelle... Miramaribelle (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Miramaribelle (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin arrives to look at this, perhaps they might consider revdel of your personal information and personal email addresses, Miramaribelle. For account security and personal data security, it is advisable not to broadcast too much information. Keri (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! that was a close one. I canceled my account with Private Internet Access, told them the reason. Happy to be back in your good graces, children. Hugs! Miramaribelle (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing "Sylvia Vaughn Thompson"

Dear Friends, I understand completely your goal to keep out self-promoters...I appreciate it. I love Wiki, use it constantly, donate annually. But. In my work as a writer, after 66 years of keeping a low profile (I loathe careerists), I have finally decided to try to attract readers. I've written a short comic novel, Mazie Raz want to get it published. Thus I've launched a blog--sylviathompsonsblog.com--and its attendant Facebook page. I'm slowly being discovered. Should new readers look me up in Wiki now, it would be a big negative. Disappointing. I can't imagine who wrote my entry. It makes me sound dead ("was" is the attendant verb). No mention of my marriage twelve years ago. And it's filled with vapidity and errors: absurd to note I attended the Eunice Knight Saunders School in the third, fourth, and fifth grade. Who cares? I am NOT M.F.K. Fisher's god-daughter...she promoted that, I was merely her good friend. Speaking of Mrs Fisher, I read her entry. It is interesting, any number of interesting details--very good reading--and not all footnoted. Yes I'm not as well-known, but I am also a good writer (I'm told), and if I don't take up a great deal of space, couldn't I write about my life with more verve? I can better tell about my first marriage: For example: Early years[edit] The only child of actress/artist Gloria Stuart and screenwriter Arthur Sheekman, Sylvia grew up in a nurturing milieu of writers, actors, directors, producers, artists. She attended the University of California, Berkeley, and in her sophomore year, the Sorbonne's Cours de Civilisation française. Returned to Berkeley, she fell in love with an English doctoral candidate, thirty-one year-old writer Gene Thompson. The last day of her junior year she took a final in the morning, married him that afternoon. Thompson was handsome and brilliant...he'd been a wunderkind in Hollywood, at sixteen writing radio shows for Eddie Cantor, Duffy's Tavern, Groucho Marx. The Thompsons moved to New York where both became copywriters, Sylvia on the prestigious advertising staff at Lord & Taylor. (I'll not take time now to put the box below in form, if you don't mind. Apologies...but I will work hard to give as many footnotes as you'd like--from my memoir.)Miramaribelle (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]