Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
[[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]]
P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
First, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks:
When punctuating quoted passages include the mark of punctuation inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the mark of punctuation is part of the quotation. This is the style used in Australia, New Zealand, and Britain, for example. (A fuller treatment of the recommendations given here can be found in Fowler's Modern English Usage and other style guides for these countries, some of which vary in fine details.) "Stop!", for example, has the punctuation inside the quotation marks because the word "stop" is said with emphasis. When using "scare quotes", however, the comma goes outside.
I will, of course, be returning the article to Wikipedia house style momentarily.
Secondly, you made several references to the CSM. What is the CSM? Did you mean the CMS, the Chicago Manual of Style?
Sincerely — DLJessup 23:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
First, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks:\
The Wikipedia style manual, like all of Wikipedia, can change constantly. As the page in question states, "[t]he following rules do not claim to be the last word." I could go in and change this rule, just as I could go in and change a description of the United States and say it has only forty states. That would not make it correct.
The Chicago Manual of Style -- and, yes, it's often called the CSM amongst editors because it was once called The Chicago Style Manual -- is a "higher authority" on these matters, in my opinion.
Having once been a professional editor, it is my experience that most people put commas and periods outside of quotation marks in the United States out of ignorance. Hence, any system which exacerbates such ignorance is subject to serious question and a remedy should be explored, in my opinion.
The real issue I see here, however, is in your conduct...
I will, of course, be returning the article to Wikipedia house style momentarily
In the future, your actions might not be so open to question -- and I note I'm not the only one to go there -- if you were somewhat less officious and more civil in your comments. Instead of saying, "corrected punctuation error by individual claiming to correct a punctuation error," you simply could have commented "changed punctuation to house style -- please see Wiki house style manual." In order for a community like Wiki to thrive, civility must of necessity rule out over officiousness and a personal need to feel superior. Objectivity must rule over subjectivity, both in content and in behavior.
The usage in question is in error in the United States. Therefore, your remarks, which could be considered snide by some, were out of place and rude, in my opinion. With regards, David Hoag 03:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon the following, in the Wikipedia Resolving disputes section, which you might find of interest:
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
Considering your interest in preserving the standard of the Wikipedia Manual of Style -- which is only a "guideline" -- I'm sure you'll be as interested in preserving the Resolving Disputes standard, which is a more stringent and binding "official policy." With best regards David Hoag 04:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm back to Wikipedia after a much-needed three-day break. And I think that I need to respond to your messages. So let me start now:
- The most important point is that you are absolutely right as far as my behavior goes. I behaved abominably. I don't know what else to do, except write "I'm sorry," and state that I'll try not to do the same in the future. I don't know that I'll succeed, but I will try. (This might be an appropriate place for Yoda's "Do or do not. There is no try.")
- Since I have been so rude, I doubt that you'll listen to the rest I have to write, but I'll give it a go, nonetheless.
- I checked my spam filter earlier, and I noticed that I had received an e-mail from you which I did not respond to; you later wrote to me on my user page. I have never had anyone attempt to e-mail me from Wikipedia before, so I didn't realize that would have problems if someone did try to contact me by that method. I'm not sure what I'm going to do about the problem that my spam filter is working against Wikipedia e-mails, but I wanted to let you know that that, at least, wasn't part of my rudeness.
- While the Wikipedia Manual of Style can change constantly, there's a fair number of people out there monitoring it, so that it doesn't change capriciously. In particular, the rule about quotes has been on that page in some form since September 9, 2002, as can be readily checked by viewing the history.
- As far as "the usage in question is in error in the United States" goes, Wikipedia is an international medium; I'm not even sure that the servers are housed in the United States. This is actually, in my opinion, the strongest part of your argument. In some other areas of style, such as dates, the rule is that you follow the style of the country to which the article is most strongly associated. I don't know why that rule doesn't obtain here, but it doesn't.
- Similarly, the CSM can't be used as an authority on Wikipedia. If nothing else, the Oxonians would get rather upset. It would be highly useful in discussions about changing the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but there's nothing forcing Wikipedians to have a copy of the CSM, and, if you did, Wikipedia would quickly be forked for those people who disagree with the CSM as a source of authority.
- Apologetically yours, DLJessup 15:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your gracious note. I posted a reply in your user talk. David Hoag 21:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I figure there's no point carrying on this discussion on VFD. In every case you mentioned, I'd say delete the list, or merge it into another article with more content than just the list. It's lists, in general, that I see as having no value as encyclopedia entry, since I don't see a distinction between a "laundry list" and any other sort of list. In the context of a discussion or description of something, a list of examples is a wonderful thing. Likewise, at the end of an article, the "external links", "see also", and "references" lists are great things - but again, they have context. Problem I see with entries like a List of Romantic Comedies, or List of Twilight Zone Episodes, or List of Shortstops, or List of Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives, is that they're all examples without a context. It's a case of data without information, and I see that as a big problem. The Literate Engineer 06:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi I noticed you voted to keep Scottish-Americans I would appreciate your help to retain Category:Irish British people, as I feel is perfectly valid to point out Irish people or people of near Irish descent who have contributed to life in Great Britain (England Scotland and Wales). Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people Thanks!! Arniep 01:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for your support on this it seems to be a bit of a losing battle unfortunately. I proposed renaming the category to Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain as that doesn't indicate citizenship which Irish British might do. Arniep 10:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Please don't make allegations of racism unless you can substantiate them. Contrary to what you might think 99.9% of Britons do not 'look down our noses' at the Irish. GordyB 15:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You wrote: Another Wiki addict, eh? Nonsense. I can quit editing any time I want to. Jacobw 11:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't help but mention that I had a good laugh when reading your user page and the sentence about staying away from controversial areas on the wiki and Hollywood producers ;-) Schutz 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you provide indication that press release are inherently un-copyrighted? You mentioned something about US courts deciding the issue. LegCircus 16:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you David for your helpful message. The court cases would be very helpful, because, well, you know how some wiki people are . . . LegCircus 00:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Yep, sounds good. I just thought things like that were supposed to go through WP:DRV but I guess that's not the case. Not a big deal to me either way. :) — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
[[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]]
P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
First, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks:
When punctuating quoted passages include the mark of punctuation inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the mark of punctuation is part of the quotation. This is the style used in Australia, New Zealand, and Britain, for example. (A fuller treatment of the recommendations given here can be found in Fowler's Modern English Usage and other style guides for these countries, some of which vary in fine details.) "Stop!", for example, has the punctuation inside the quotation marks because the word "stop" is said with emphasis. When using "scare quotes", however, the comma goes outside.
I will, of course, be returning the article to Wikipedia house style momentarily.
Secondly, you made several references to the CSM. What is the CSM? Did you mean the CMS, the Chicago Manual of Style?
Sincerely — DLJessup 23:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
First, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks:\
The Wikipedia style manual, like all of Wikipedia, can change constantly. As the page in question states, "[t]he following rules do not claim to be the last word." I could go in and change this rule, just as I could go in and change a description of the United States and say it has only forty states. That would not make it correct.
The Chicago Manual of Style -- and, yes, it's often called the CSM amongst editors because it was once called The Chicago Style Manual -- is a "higher authority" on these matters, in my opinion.
Having once been a professional editor, it is my experience that most people put commas and periods outside of quotation marks in the United States out of ignorance. Hence, any system which exacerbates such ignorance is subject to serious question and a remedy should be explored, in my opinion.
The real issue I see here, however, is in your conduct...
I will, of course, be returning the article to Wikipedia house style momentarily
In the future, your actions might not be so open to question -- and I note I'm not the only one to go there -- if you were somewhat less officious and more civil in your comments. Instead of saying, "corrected punctuation error by individual claiming to correct a punctuation error," you simply could have commented "changed punctuation to house style -- please see Wiki house style manual." In order for a community like Wiki to thrive, civility must of necessity rule out over officiousness and a personal need to feel superior. Objectivity must rule over subjectivity, both in content and in behavior.
The usage in question is in error in the United States. Therefore, your remarks, which could be considered snide by some, were out of place and rude, in my opinion. With regards, David Hoag 03:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon the following, in the Wikipedia Resolving disputes section, which you might find of interest:
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
Considering your interest in preserving the standard of the Wikipedia Manual of Style -- which is only a "guideline" -- I'm sure you'll be as interested in preserving the Resolving Disputes standard, which is a more stringent and binding "official policy." With best regards David Hoag 04:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm back to Wikipedia after a much-needed three-day break. And I think that I need to respond to your messages. So let me start now:
- The most important point is that you are absolutely right as far as my behavior goes. I behaved abominably. I don't know what else to do, except write "I'm sorry," and state that I'll try not to do the same in the future. I don't know that I'll succeed, but I will try. (This might be an appropriate place for Yoda's "Do or do not. There is no try.")
- Since I have been so rude, I doubt that you'll listen to the rest I have to write, but I'll give it a go, nonetheless.
- I checked my spam filter earlier, and I noticed that I had received an e-mail from you which I did not respond to; you later wrote to me on my user page. I have never had anyone attempt to e-mail me from Wikipedia before, so I didn't realize that would have problems if someone did try to contact me by that method. I'm not sure what I'm going to do about the problem that my spam filter is working against Wikipedia e-mails, but I wanted to let you know that that, at least, wasn't part of my rudeness.
- While the Wikipedia Manual of Style can change constantly, there's a fair number of people out there monitoring it, so that it doesn't change capriciously. In particular, the rule about quotes has been on that page in some form since September 9, 2002, as can be readily checked by viewing the history.
- As far as "the usage in question is in error in the United States" goes, Wikipedia is an international medium; I'm not even sure that the servers are housed in the United States. This is actually, in my opinion, the strongest part of your argument. In some other areas of style, such as dates, the rule is that you follow the style of the country to which the article is most strongly associated. I don't know why that rule doesn't obtain here, but it doesn't.
- Similarly, the CSM can't be used as an authority on Wikipedia. If nothing else, the Oxonians would get rather upset. It would be highly useful in discussions about changing the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but there's nothing forcing Wikipedians to have a copy of the CSM, and, if you did, Wikipedia would quickly be forked for those people who disagree with the CSM as a source of authority.
- Apologetically yours, DLJessup 15:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your gracious note. I posted a reply in your user talk. David Hoag 21:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I figure there's no point carrying on this discussion on VFD. In every case you mentioned, I'd say delete the list, or merge it into another article with more content than just the list. It's lists, in general, that I see as having no value as encyclopedia entry, since I don't see a distinction between a "laundry list" and any other sort of list. In the context of a discussion or description of something, a list of examples is a wonderful thing. Likewise, at the end of an article, the "external links", "see also", and "references" lists are great things - but again, they have context. Problem I see with entries like a List of Romantic Comedies, or List of Twilight Zone Episodes, or List of Shortstops, or List of Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives, is that they're all examples without a context. It's a case of data without information, and I see that as a big problem. The Literate Engineer 06:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi I noticed you voted to keep Scottish-Americans I would appreciate your help to retain Category:Irish British people, as I feel is perfectly valid to point out Irish people or people of near Irish descent who have contributed to life in Great Britain (England Scotland and Wales). Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people Thanks!! Arniep 01:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for your support on this it seems to be a bit of a losing battle unfortunately. I proposed renaming the category to Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain as that doesn't indicate citizenship which Irish British might do. Arniep 10:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Please don't make allegations of racism unless you can substantiate them. Contrary to what you might think 99.9% of Britons do not 'look down our noses' at the Irish. GordyB 15:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You wrote: Another Wiki addict, eh? Nonsense. I can quit editing any time I want to. Jacobw 11:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't help but mention that I had a good laugh when reading your user page and the sentence about staying away from controversial areas on the wiki and Hollywood producers ;-) Schutz 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you provide indication that press release are inherently un-copyrighted? You mentioned something about US courts deciding the issue. LegCircus 16:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you David for your helpful message. The court cases would be very helpful, because, well, you know how some wiki people are . . . LegCircus 00:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Yep, sounds good. I just thought things like that were supposed to go through WP:DRV but I guess that's not the case. Not a big deal to me either way. :) — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)