User talk:Bettymnz4/Feb - 3/7/10

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! BTW, including the four tildes in edit summaries is not necessary. BusterD (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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
 * Thanks again for your positive contributions to the encyclopedia. I'd encourage you to read Help:Edit summary to better understand the proper use of edit summaries when making beneficial copyedit changes like your contributions. BusterD (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Appomattox Court House
I have reverted your edit to the Appomattox article. "Union" and "Confederate" should be capitalized and always are in published works about the war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Savannah, Georgia
There's no reason to add the abbreviation "U.S." in parentheses after "United States" in the article. This abbreviation is universally understood, and tacking it on right after the full term is contrary to rules of English usage (American or British, in Wikipedia or in any other published matter).Mason.Jones (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

proofreading
Betty, many of the changes you are making are good, but many also do not follow WP:MOS, which differs from a newspaper MOS. I have reluctantly just reverted several of your edits because you have made too many changes that are problems. You are overusing abbreviations and not being consistent with numerals & symbols (Ex: "55%" is per WP:MOS "55 percent" is not)--JimWae (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

While I have not yet found anything specific in WP:MOS, http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/capital.html indicates that capitalization is proper for Senate, Congress, House, Court (when referring to Supreme Court already previously capitalized) and Constitution (when referring to the US Constitution already previously capitalized). Not capitalizing "house" can even be confusing. I also note you have been inconsistent in changing capitalizing for "Northern" when referring to one side in the Civil War. --JimWae (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

While I do not consider the following a true run-on sentence, I do see there might be a slight problem with:
 * Popular due to the Union victory in the war, Grant was elected President of the United States as a Republican in 1868 and re-elected in 1872, the first President to serve two full terms since Andrew Jackson 40 years before.

Your replacement:
 * Popular due to the Union victory in the war, Grant was elected president of the United States as a Republican in 1868. He was re-elected in 1872, the first president to serve two full terms since Andrew Jackson 40 years before.

actually changes the meaning. Better would have been:
 * Popular due to the Union victory in the war, Grant was elected President of the United States as a Republican in 1868 and re-elected in 1872. He was the first President to serve two full terms since Andrew Jackson 40 years before.

--JimWae (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also this supports capitalizing "Senators McCarthy and Kennedy" and the same principle would seem to apply to "Forts X and Y" --JimWae (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to echo some of the suggestions Jim has been making here. While I'm satisfied that you're making honest good faith changes, I would hope that as a good proofreader, you look carefully at the accepted WP:MOS and the commonly used style sheet by User:Hlj before you make too many more edits. Please don't be discouraged by this bold feedback. If we didn't care, we'd have kept silent. BusterD (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also echoing the sentiments, in particular in regards to your edit to Battle of Shiloh. As you check the MOS, I might also recommend trying smaller edits instead of doing everything at once - this might allow the things you do right to be kept easier, while the problematic edits (natural to any new editor) can be more easily corrected. Best, umrguy  42  00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits at Ku Klux Klan
Welcome and thanks for your contributions. Unfortunately, some of your style changes are either unnecessary or inappropriate based on the MOS we use here. I can see from the posts above that you have been previously made aware of some of these. Please take heed to these notices; applying some other style to these articles may be seen as disruptive. The unnecessary changes I noticed in the Ku Klux Klan article are replacing ten with 10 and using U.S. in place of United States. MOS:NUM tells us that numbers over nine may be rendered in numerals or spelled out if they require only one or two words. U.S. (or US) is a common abbreviation and may be used where it isn't too informal, but United States is acceptable unless it is too formal. Since either form is valid, I won't change it back, but you shouldn't have changed it in the first place. The changes which seem inappropriate are substituting 'Dem. Sen.' for 'Democratic Senator' and changing the punctuation on each other's. This section of the MOS warns against "abbreviations when they might confuse the reader, interrupt the flow, or appear informal...." In the case of each other's vs. each others', the telling point is that there is no plural form of each other. I've reverted those two changes. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with our MOS before making more changes like these. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you are continuing to make unnecessary or inappropriate changes to Wikipedia articles, apparently applying some other MOS. Others have explained this problem to you last month and I clearly pointed out the problem a few days ago, yet you continue to make these changes without responce. If you do not indicate an understanding of the problem and some commitment to modify your activities, I will have to take this to the admins. Regards, Celestra (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I have copied your reply here so that I can answer in context, indented from your text:

What am I still doing wrong?


 * I've answered the detailed issues below, but I think the key problem is that you need to assume good faith. If you will assume that the advice is well intentioned and comes from experienced editors and ask questions if you think the other person is mistaken, then everything would go more smoothly.

Before I started editing I did read the MoS, and the various Wikipedia pages on editing. I come from a background of newspaper editing, using the 'AP Stylebook'. This is a learning experience. Each time I receive a comment I go back to that section of the MoS to better imprint that section in my mind.

I didn't realize I needed to respond to the messages; I thought by trying to incorporate the changes would show that I had read them.


 * It would if you incorporated the changes. If you choose to disagree with you fellow editors, a response to that effect starts a helpful dialog.

1. As far as abbreviations go, in the MoS I don't see any guidelines. I've looked in the special section for abbreviations also. I do see the long table of preferred abbreviations, which I understood to mean they SHOULD be used. Also I used the comment from BusterD to use the style sheet 'User:hlj'. That style sheet seemed to indicate the use of abbreviations.


 * This is copied from the beginning of MOS:ABBREV: "Always consider whether an abbreviation may be better simply written out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with it - we do not have the same space constraints as paper." The clear meaning is that abbreviations are NOT required.

Since your first comments, I've made a huge effort not to abbreviate. I'm trying to remember that not all readers are from the U.S. and that some abbreviations (Dem. for example) wouldn't make sense to them.


 * Thanks for the effort.

2. As far as numbers go, yes I had read the MOS:NUM and noted the sentence about the possibility of spelling out numbers that are written in one or two words. I didn't understand that one method was preferable to the other.


 * Neither is prefered, they are both acceptable. This is the start of the third paragraph at MOS:NUM: "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee decided that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one to the other without substantial reason." That meaning is clear. That is why I made the point in my first post that I would not change those back, but that you should not have changes them.

In my comments section, I've been mentioning the reason for changed the spelled number for the numeral (taken from the MoS).


 * I think you may be misinterpreting this, from MOS:NUM: "Do not use spelled-out numbers before symbols for units of measurement: write five minutes, 5 minutes, or 5 min, but not five min." They are talking about symbols for units of measure, not units of measure themselves. Notice the first example.

3. Other's vs others'. From the text I understood the plural was appropriate, so I changed it.


 * Do you see my point that there is no plural for of 'each other'? Google the phrase, you will find many discussions.

4. Also, I read somewhere (on Wikipedia, I think) that US seems sloppier than U.S. I agree, that's why I change US to U.S.


 * I mentioned above that both were acceptable. They are also both displayed in that table at MOS:ABBREV. US is more common worldwide and U.S. is more common in American English. Especially with American English vs. British English, which is a hot button subject for some, you should not change it.

Now to comment on the previous-to-you comments:

A. Umrguy42 - Actually that occurred to me a couple of hours before you wrote this. In addition to the editing, I was writing an article - that is a REAL learning experience. Anyway, I finally "saw" the section edits.


 * His advice, to do smaller changes as you are learning, seems like good advice to me too.

B. BusterD - As I mentioned above, I do refer to the MoS and related pages frequently.


 * Good. His other advice, to not get discouraged and to remember that we are only doing this because we care, is important too. No one is saying you should already know this, or that you should go away; we are all just trying to help you avoid conflict and be productive.

C. JimWae - Thank you for showing me the support for capitalizing a title used once with more than one name. This usage makes more sense to me than the AP Stylebook usage. I believe I've been using this hint since I read it.

D. JimWae - Yes, I see that I was careless in where I put the semi-colon. I believe I've been more accurate. The reason I use semi-colons is to help make the sentence more readable (if the use of semi-colon is appropriate). Sometimes I make two sentences. Long, multiple-commaed articles are difficult to read.

E. JimWae - I believe I've capitalized (or leaft capitalized) words such as Senate, etc. since your comments. This also makes more sense to me than the AP Stylebook guidelines.


 * I can't speak for JimWae, but I'm glad you found the advice useful.

Also, you commented on me being inconsistant in some of my edits; was that particular article too long and I just did random portions? Earlier I had tried to do an entire long article and the "timer" must have run out. I spent well over an hour on two different articles and the changes were lost. So, until it dawned on me that I could edit a section, I was just doing random edits.


 * You'd have to ask him what it was that he saw as inconsistant. With regards to the login expiring, I find it useful to click 'Show preview' to preserve the changes in case I accidentally navigate away.

F. JimWae - Actually, the MoS prefers 'percent' rather than '%'. I also prefer '%', so I've been using that.


 * I think the MoS just prefers precent if the number is spelled out, but I'm glad you are using '%'.

G. Mason-Jones - I've been trying to incorporate this comment in my edits, especially since the comments from Celestra.

H. Tom(North Shoreman) - I had been taught that only COMPLETE names are capitalized and that portions of names are not. Again, your comments make more sense to me than the AP Stylebook guidelines. I've been incorporating them.

Again, please let me know what I'm doing wrong.


 * Thanks for this opportunity to try and clear these small issues up. Celestra (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

your note
You're welcome! It probably was a fast look. Let me know when/if you near the end and I'll do a thorough job on it. LilHelpa (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Good job so far!  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a little note about the captions, shouldn't be very hard to fix.  fetch  comms  ☛ 03:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Since you're new around here, here's a note that I replied to your messages on my talk page. Awickert (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. You might accidentally have some preference selected that marks all of your edits as minor. Awickert (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I reset my reference from automatic minor editing; perhaps it will be easier for me to remember to click "minor edit" than it is for me to remember to disengage it.


 * B, a couple of suggestions:
 * There are a variety of citation formats, and parantheticals can be used instead of footnotes. Take a look at Citing sources.  Folks can get territorial about the format they have chosen, so get consensus on an article's talk page before changing the format.
 * The four tildes ~ go after your comments-- it's easier to keep track of things that way.
 * I added some comments to the PR on Rove.
 * Good luck with your edits, and thanks for your new contributions! Kablammo (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about the blizzard article, in the discussion page one of the frustrations was that it was not footnoted. That's why I'm working on that. If I should desist, let me know.
 * I've found myself forgetting to sign my posts, so I was signing before hand. I'll stop that; usually I remember afterward so I go in to edit those comments.
 * I'll go read your PR comments on Rove (I may have done that already). How does the time signature work? It doesn't seem to be Greenwich time.
 * Thank you for your encouragement!!Bettymnz4 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the time is not showing as UTC, it may have something to do with your preferences. Look at the "Date and time" tab under "my preferences".
 * On the blizzard article, it appears that is has inline citations, but in parantheses. While most folks don't use that method, some do, and I suggest getting approval for the change on the talk page.  But it would be a chore switching them over. Kablammo (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The times were showing as UTC, but they're hours off my time. I did reset preferences; we'll see how that change goes.
 * I will go to that talk page about the citations. I have posted there, but maybe haven't mentioned that. I know it will be a chore; I tried Googling the sources given and didn't quickly find anything. I printed the little bits of information I found and am incorporating those into the article as they fit.Bettymnz4 (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Betty-- your article on Saganagan Orogeny did not make it into peer review; at least, it does not show there. I suggest you not place it there yet until you have had an opportunity to work some more on it, given the comments you've already received on Rove.  Best regards,  Kablammo (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree! Thanks. Bettymnz4 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I've addressed the issues with the Saganagan Orogeny article and did submit it for peer review today. It is probably too short and won't get anywhere, but I want the feedback. Thank you for your continued interest. Bettymnz4 (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ARCHIVED 3/20/2010