User talk:Susanzwitter

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Susanzwitter. 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 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.

Again, welcome! Sounder Bruce 21:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 99[edit]

Hello Susanzwitter! I see that you are working on some content related to old U.S. Route 99 in the Bellingham area in your sandbox. I'd be happy to lend any assistance I can, as I have been responsible for a lot of the state's highway articles on Wikipedia. I would recommend looking at some of our peer-reviewed highway articles, like U.S. Route 16 in Michigan (a historic highway) and Washington State Route 520 (a Washington highway). You can also check out the New user orientation for the U.S. Roads Project. Your research would be helpful in writing a similar article on U.S. Route 99 across the entire state. Sounder Bruce 21:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your enthusiasm is something that Wikipedia needs! If you and your collaborator are ready to start writing up the article, I can help with formatting and other Wikipedia policy work. Don't worry about posting messages on another talk page, you can answer me here and use {{ping|SounderBruce}} to send me a notification. If you do want to send messages to another user, you should use the "New section" button at the top (right next to the Edit and History links) so that things remain tidy. Sounder Bruce 23:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{ping|SounderBruce} Hi, Bruce, let's see if this works. We are nowhere near ready--we haven't even sized up the job yet--but when we are, and if we have any questions along the way, I'll reach out to you. BTW thanks a lot for pointers to other comparable routes. That will really help. Susan Susanzwitter (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Position of quotation marks[edit]

Hi Susan, thanks very much for your work so far at Joni Mitchell. However, I've had to undo your changes to the positioning of quotation marks, because Wikipedia uses [[MOS:LQ|logical quotation], where quotation marks can either come before or after punctuation marks depending on whether the punctuation is part of the original quote. Graham87 04:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{ping|Graham87}

Hi, Graham, thanks for the correction. Darn, though. I did some research through Wikipedia style and did not find that passage. So I looked through Chicago MOS to get their clarification, which is somewhat different. Sorry for all the extra work you had to do. Some of my changes were not on the quotation marks . . . I hope they are still up for consideration. I'm new on this, as you can probably tell; thanks for your patience, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia. It *is* kind of addicting..SusanZWitter Susanzwitter (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Kind of addicting" is an understatement :-) ... no worries; I've kept all your other changes. I only just got this message because Joni Mitchell came up on my watchlist again; if you'd surrounded the ping code by two curly braces instead of one, it would've gotten through. Also, replies to discussions are usually indented with colons; see Wikipedia:Indentation. Graham87 12:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Melling[edit]

New Information

In the Harry Melling entry, I added info about a glowing review of him by Anthony Lane of the New Yorker. Titled differently in the print edition, which is where I first read it. Hence the addition to the citation. Susanzwitter (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Someone posted a useless fact on the Harry Melling page--that his middle name is the name of a king and some other stars. No citation. After agonizing about what to do about it, I removed it. I documented all of this on the Talk page for Harry Melling. Please let me know whether I handled this correctly. Thanks. Susanzwitter (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have acted correctly in terms of procedure. In the future, you don't need to ask an administrator in particular something like this; you could use the general Help Me (to draw any interested user) or post to the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Gu Shui[edit]

Found additional info, added it and did some editing, and found 4 more sources. Included all. There is one sentence that contains facts I can't confirm: "The liniment, created by a Chinese master herbalist over 500 years ago, was used to treat fractures, broken bones and injuries suffered in combat." ** I *did not* remove the flags for additional citations needed and needs notability. That feels a little beyond me yet. Susanzwitter (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CasteSusanzwitter (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[edit]

This sentence, near the end of "In South Asia/India," gives me pause: This often leads to better husbandry as his actions are not protected by social expectations.

The sense of the paragraph seems to be talking about the intersection of marriage and caste, especially related to gender: that women are the "bearers" of the egalitarian principle, since women can float up or down in caste depending on whom they marry. But the use of the word "husbandry" feels wrong. Any definition I can come up with for husbandry does not include what I'd have to make up a word for--"husbandship"--or, perhaps, the behavior of husbands, which is what I believe the sentence above is getting at. It could just be an American English vs. Indian English discrepancy.