User talk:Ionize Me

Hello, Ionize Me, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Punctuation and quotes

Hi there! I appreciate you copy-editing these various articles. I just wanted to point out Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines regarding punctuation inside or outside quotemarks. The full explanation can be found at WP:LQ. The short version is that (1) if terminal punctuation was present in the original material, include it inside the quotemarks and (2) if it wasn't, then don't include it inside the quotemarks. This is done regardless of the variety of English used. So if the material being quoted ends in a period, include that before the closing quotation mark. If not, in the case of sentence fragments usually, then put it outside the closing quotemark. Feel free to {{ping}} me if you have further questions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Men's rights movement. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my original edit for the wrong reason -- I was not questioning the legitimacy of the source just because it was behind the pay wall. I stated "pay wall" because someone else might have access where I don't. Then someone decided that my original edit deserved to be discussed in the Talk Page, and people who had access to the source cited their information to verify what I was asking (a productive discussion). I made a new edit--to clarify my reason and correct your misinterpretation that I wasn't questioning the source's legitimacy due to it being behind a pay wall (just that I thought it needed to be verified with the source cited, and that I don't want to pay $31.50 if I don't have to do so)--because I couldn't undo your reverting of my original edit for some reason (admin privilege?). But doing so was considered by you to be "unconstructive" and "disruptive". I guess if someone else reverts my editing in the future for the wrong reason/due to misinterpretation I should just ignore it because apparently not doing so is "unconstructive" and "disruptive" even though my original editing prompted a productive discussion in the Talk Page. Ionize Me (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Men's rights movement sanctions

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't know it was on article probation. Thanks for notifying me. Ionize Me (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LQ

Periods come before or after the quote, depending. See 23 May post above explaining this, then you can have another pass at thhe Orlando article. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If the quotation is a full sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside."Ionize Me (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. If that's what you were doing, fine. I was going by your edit summary, "According to the Wikipedia manual of style, periods come after the quote, not before.", which is incorrect. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right--it is incorrect if it is taken literally without context. It was referring to the corresponding edit, not just stating rule itself. Should've clarified that in the edit summary. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Ionize Me (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad then. BTW, if you want to save a bunch of keystrokes, you can just link to MOS:LQ in your editsum. Most editors will know what that means, and those who don't can click on the link. Good work, carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ionize Me (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American English

Hi there! Quick comment regarding one of your edit summaries on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Wikipedia uses all varieties of English, they just have to be used consistently in an article. The shooting article uses American English (mostly because of WP:STRONGNAT). But British English is okay too. Check out WP:ENGVAR. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semicolon

Thanks for the link. I'm aware that semicolons can be used in text. The problem is that, on my 14-inch laptop with 1366x768 resolution, I can't tell the difference between semi and comma, unless I stare right at it and squint my eyes. The dot is one pixel.

If I'm seeing semicolons as commas, it makes a big difference in how the sentence reads, obviously.

It's not about me. Since I'm using the default skin and font, I believe this will apply to all registered users who use the default skin and font, and all unregistered readers (the vast majority of our readership), if they have screen characteristics similar to mine. Most of us can increase our default font size, but should that be necessary just so we can see semicolons?

I've yet to run across a case that really needed a semicolon, where there was no other acceptable solution. I was hoping you would find one. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that I had already increased my font size in Firefox, to 18-point Calibri. I think it was 16-point before. So I'm actually larger than the default font for Firefox users. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not editing based on on font size and readability. One can always zoom in to make the fonts bigger based on what hardware and software you're using, as well as on the size of your laptop or cellphone or monitor. I'll still try to keep what you said in mind in my future edits, though--just not of primary importance, as I think the writing and wording matter more. Thanks for letting me know. Never looked at it that way. Ionize Me (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly heads up

Hi there! I know you mean well and are editing in good faith, but please be cautious of WP:3RR on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. I think you've gone past it a few times (I think we all did when the article was developing), but now that things have slowed down it's something to keep an eye on. I write this only FYI and without any ill-intent. Just don't want to see you get an AN3 report due to carelessness when you're doing quite a bit to improve the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see why users might have contacted me on my talk page instead of reverting my edits and explaining their reasons. Thanks for the heads up. I really appreciate it. Ionize Me (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK

I know that you're trying to help at 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, but I think you may not be aware of (or may be misunderstanding) WP:OVERLINK, which is the guideline that causes people to continue to remove the link from "American" in that entry. The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions is listed as one of the times to not wikilink a term. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American has a misleading first sentence in this context, then, as well as the descriptor on top that says, "This article is about the people of the United States of America. " The guideline sounds very technical. I'm guessing the link falls under "the names of major...nationalities"? Ionize Me (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand the charge of it being misleading and I think that the overlinking guideline is in pretty plain language (maybe subject to some interpretation though). After I left you this message, I noticed that there was a pretty long discussion on the article's talk page about whether to link Americans or American citizens in that spot. While I think that the answer is obvious (link neither, because any English-speaking person knows what an American is), I also think that we sometimes spend far too much time arguing about minor points when there are bigger issues to work on. In that spirit, I'm not going to worry about the link issue in this article at this point. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was misleading to me personally. I didn't see that discussion in the talk page either. Maybe I should read WP:OVERLINK more closely. But, like what you just said, I'm also not going to worry about it right now. Ionize Me (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that discussion in the talk page either. Don't take this as a criticism, but more of an invitation. I've noticed you do a lot more editing than talking. Watch what's happening on the talk page, read some of it, and join us in discussions. I invite you to collaborate instead of lone-wolf editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angus King quote

Probably not worth adding clutter to article talk. But to my ear "it appears that x is true" is not the same as "x may be true" - or even "x seems to be true". It's just short of an outright statement of fact, "x is true". ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not a resolute assertion of truth, no matter how close it comes to it. So I'd rather qualify it with "seems" or "appears" than with nothing. Ionize Me (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems" is better than "may be", so I'll compromise for that. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "seems" is better. Thanks as well. Ionize Me (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

Fair cop. :-) Omphaloscope talk 15:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Last first" in citations

Re: [1], I disagree with "last first" in citations, as I consider it more useful (certainly easier to code, for those who don't use scripts for refs) to show the names in the order that most of our sources show it. I also disagree with widepsread changes of this kind that are based on personal preference, not guidelines (the template examples show "last first", but that's arbitrary, little more than a flip of a coin, and they must apply to all types of sources, not only primarily news sources). I have not widely implemented my personal preference, only using it in citations that I created, and a smattering that I modified for other reasons. Article-wide consistency on something like this is a relatively minor consideration. I'm voicing an objection to your edit, but not making a larger issue of it at this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean personal preferences like the ones in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_news? That would be the biggest coincidence I've ever had, if true. Also, I didn't edit the entire sub-section because it was taking too long and I had to go do something else. Ionize Me (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone's citation template formats are the same throughout the article based on cite news, or whatever consistent style you want (I just decided to choose the "most common" because it is the one Wikipedia chose to present as examples and is supposedly the most common --the citations I've personally added were of different formats, too, just like others'; I care mostly about consistency, not the style), wouldn't the article source be easier to view and read for everyone? Formatting changes are considered minor edits anyway (unless in this context I'm mistaken), so why not? The downside is that it is tedious and time-consuming to edit everybody's citation styles to be consistent with each other. Ionize Me (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that point, but we're in a small minority. We would have to get local consensus on the preferred format, and the predominant view would be, "Why are you wasting our time with such trivia?" Most editors see such as things as requiring them to change what they do, rather than simply giving a green light to one or two local gnomes—even if you clearly explain that in the proposition. And there is somewhat widespread knee-jerk resistance to "rules" of any kind. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They may think that, but they don't have to change anything--they can cite however they want. I might change them for consistency, I might not, depending on when and what and all that--I won't be doing this forever even if somehow I get to keep doing it indefinitely with zero objections. I think it's probably a good idea to write in edit summary that people are free to cite however they want. No real objections, yet, so I'll decide what to do if and when they appear. I might learn something new no matter what happens.. Ionize Me (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't take that approach, per my comment, I also disagree with widepsread changes of this kind that are based on personal preference, not guidelines, but I won't stand in your way. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had no objections from anyone. Fixed some mistakes along the way, too. :) Ionize Me (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please see WP:OVERLINK just because you can link something doesn't mean it needs to be. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, and that's why I linked them. "What generally should not be linked: The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions". Since when did Kuwait, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates become MAJOR geographic locations? They're really small countries. Ionize Me (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc: I disagree with your OVERLINK rationale as well. But a DE warning? Are you serious? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Since joining Wikipedia you've overcome hurdles, learned the subculture, and continued to be a constructive and productive contributor. Many folks don't make it past the bumps in the road or lose interest due to frustration or boredom. But you've persevered. Your edits on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting are greatly appreciated and I hope you continue to stay with the project of Wikipedia. In recognition of your work, here's a (small and silly, but meaningful) token of appreciation. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it. Ionize Me (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ionize Me. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]