Good job at the recent copy editing!
Hey BreakfastJr, I stumbled across one of your recent copy edits, and took a look at the rest of your contributions, and I would like to say: Excellent Job! We always need more editors to make careful and conscientious small changes to the project. Were you aware we have a community supporting such small changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. WikiProjects are how we coordinate various activities across Wikipedia, and the Guild of Copy Editors is quite active in improving the language across Wikipedia! I hope you get a chance to participate with them, and happy editing! Sadads (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the gratitude and also for the advice. I've joined the Guild, and hope to help gradually polish this information behemoth. BreakfastJr (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Minor barnstar|
|For all the small copyedits you have done as a new user! Keep it up! Sadads (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)|
Dear BreakfastJr, I am puzzled that you altered the genuine quotes (‘ ’, “ ”) in Ethisphere Institute to computer-style quotes (' ', " ")(under the description “cosmetic changes”). Are you following some guidelines here, or is this your personal preference? I certainly prefer genuine quotes, which look a lot better to me, especially in the serif fonts I prefer. PJTraill (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi PJTraill
- Firstly, thank you for asking instead of reverting.
- Yes, I was following MOS:QUOTEMARKS in the Manual of Style. It recommends straight quotes be used rather than curly quotes in all cases, for several reasons. In addition, the fact that it's recommended in all cases means that use of it is then even more advisable since it increases consistency within and between articles. For example, the first version of the Ethisphere Institute article itself (thank you for making that, by the way) had one instance of a straight rather than curly apostrophe, for "McDonald's".
- So I generally change all curly quotes to straight quotes whenever I come across them, to increase consistency across Wikipedia.
- Thanks for making that article and for asking rather than reverting my nit-picky change :D
- BreakfastJr (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
hi BreakfastJr, re your Second Life revision of 01:56, 3 October 2014: "Mainly italicised the game's title (which was previously italicised in some places but not others), in accordance with the MoS (I know SL's status as a game is disputed, but it seems to me that "game" is the best-fitting label that the MoS has))".
I agree that there should be consistency in the use of italics. However the status of SL has already been much discussed and the concensus is that it is not a game. From Section 10 of the Second Life Talk page, 'Why is this even listed as a game?': 'This has been discussed pretty thoroughly. See the sections above. Second Life is a meta-game or "game container".', and 'While one can indeed play games in Second Life, you can also play games on the Internet or Facebook.', and also my own comment, 'It is a virtual reality within which many real life activities take place, including education courses, ecommerce, social networking, musical concerts and art exhibitions.'
The Second Life wp page lists eight countries which have official embassies in SL. It has been used by thousands of NGOs, campaigning groups and voluntary organisations to dispense information about their activities and provide a meeting place for their members. It hosts lectures by some of the world's best known scientists, academics, politicians and authors. It has a virtual currency tied to the US dollar which is traded on international currency exchanges. For many who use it, including myself, it is no more a game than Youtube, Skype, Facebook, MySpace, Usenet, Netflix, Amazon, Deviant Art, Google+, eBay, The Teaching Company, Yahoo Groups, Reddit or indeed Wikipedia itself. -- Oniscoid 22:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
you will have to use RfD. If a prod is removed, it cannot be restored. But if it's justthat you want to move the title in there over the redirect, I can do that. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
In your edit to Shechem, you say that the MoS requires double quotes for glosses. Could you point me to the relevant section of the MoS? I believe that single quotes are the usual convention. The Chicago Manual of Style documents three usages: parentheses (x), square brackets [x], and single quotes 'x': "In linguistic and phonetic studies a definition is often enclosed in single quotation marks with no intervening punctuation; any following punctuation is placed after the closing quotation mark." --Macrakis (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'd think that was an exception, but I don't see it codified in MoS. Maybe I'll ask around and see if others think it would be a good idea, in which case I'd propose to change the MoS. --Macrakis (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that sounds like a fair idea. I wouldn't be opposed to a change if there's consensus on it; I'm just a stickler for consistency :) BreakfastJr (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Shad Al-Sherif Pasha article
The article Shad Al-Sherif Pasha, which you have contributed to, is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Some reasons that make the article unsuitable are on its Talk page. See, and if desired contribute to, deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shad Al-Sherif Pasha. Pol098 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, BreakfastJr. I realize that WP:Blockquote states that a blockquote should be applied when a quote is a certain length. But, if you do not already, will you consider whether putting some quotes into blockquote format is best for whatever article in question? Blockquotes are usually not needed for small quotes; I think that it is better to break the quotes up with "He said" and "He added" type of wordings. And having too many blockquotes can affect the look/readability of an article, making the article seem sloppy or sloppier. They can also be a matter of WP:Undue weight. That's why, after you made this edit, I undid the blockquotes you applied. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Nice work! Do you plan on expanding the early history/"Bulletin School" section? I added some stuff, not knowing a whole lot about the subject, so it's pleasing to see someone much more knowledgeable take a jab at it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, HappyWaldo. I'm pleased that I did my work well enough to fool you, but the truth is that I'm not actually knowledgeable on the subject at all. Or, rather, I wasn't at all knowledgeable on the subject when I first stumbled upon this Wikipedia article, saw the terrible state that it was in (with quite a bit of plagiarised and/or repeated material, and unsourced, dubious claims), and decided to set about fixing it. So I don't really have a deep knowledge of The Bulletin, as all my research was targeted towards either confirming and sourcing or disconfirming and amending/removing the info which was already in the article.
- So, in answer to your actual question, since I don't have a deep knowledge of or particular interest in The Bulletin beyond its Wikipedia article, I don't have any plans to expand it. I expect I'll pop back in every few months or so to see if anything needs fixing up again, but I'll leave the expansions for other people. BreakfastJr (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)