User talk:Blinkfan

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

"I live in the Northwest"
Hi Blinkfan. The Northwest of what? Wikipedians come from all over the globe. Regards from the South! Blurryman (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi again Blinkfan. Thanks for the reply that you posted on my User Talk page. However, you do mention that you are relatively new to Wikipedia and, in case you are not aware, it is customary to add replies on the same page as the original message, which makes it easier to follow the conversation. Best wishes from Ye Olde Countrie! Blurryman (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! See? That's why I put that in there- it's like a Wikipedia "student driver" sticker haha Seattle is a neat place. As a diehard coffee fan who enjoys Nirvana, admittedly, it's my Mecca. Yeah, back East the preservation is a bit better, that's true. I just hardly ever see it living out West. Boston should have been interesting for an Englishman! I've only passed through, but as I vaguely remember, there's a lot of patriotic pride which I recall could conceivably be seen as gloating to a Brit. Don't get me wrong, we're understandably proud of our revolution and past (as any country should be IMO), but the prevailing narrative surrounding revolutionary America is that we were deeply oppressed and fought back to throw-off the shackles of the tyrant King George. It's not untrue, per se, but when one considers that the largest gripe was a series of modest taxes (which were unfairly-levied, but intended to offset the debt accrued by defending US in the French-Indian War), I would imagine Boston's patriotic fervor could annoy a Brit. But, as I said, I know little about the "vibe" of Boston and even less about Great Britain's feelings on the subject, so I could be way off base. Blinkfan (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hussein of Jordan
Hello, Blinkfan – I was looking at your recent  to Hussein of Jordan, and I have to say that I disagree with most of them. I considered reverting all of them at once, but I thought instead I'd discuss them with you and give you the opportunity to undo some of them if you were so minded. If you look at the banners at the top of the talk page, you'll see that I copy-edited the entire article only two weeks ago in response to a request from Makeandtoss at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Of course, there have been some edits made to the article since then, but I don't believe any related to your edits. I'll make a few points here:

1) You added several commas after preposition + date. Except for after the year in month-day-year dates, which this article does not use, a comma is not needed after a day-month-year date, and a comma is optional after preposition + date as long as it is consistent within the article. If you look at the dates throughout this article, you will see that there are no commas. That is the style I like and chose for this article. I think the comma is not needed either for clarity or as a guide to pronunciation, and the third bulleted item at MOS:COMMA adds that fewer commas are used in modern writing. The only time a comma is needed after preposition + date is if it is followed by a parenthetical phrase enclosed in a pair of commas. So, I would appreciate it if you would remove those commas that you added.

2) In this sentence:


 * Curfews imposed by the Arab Legion did little to alleviate the situation, and tensions persisted throughout 1955.

you removed the comma after "situation". Normally, a comma is used after the first clause in a compound sentence. The only reasons not to use one would be as a literary device to speed up the flow of the sentence, which I don't think is necessary here, or if both parts of the sentence are quite short. Otherwise, I would use the comma. So, I recommend putting the comma back in.

3) In the following sentence:


 * On 13April, rioting broke in the Zarqa army barracks, and Hussein (age 21) and the 21 year-old Hussein went to end the violence between royalist and Arab nationalist army units after the latter group spread rumors that the King had been killed.

besides adding the comma after the date that I wish you would remove, you changed "Hussein (age 21) to "the 21 year-old Hussein". I think the latter change was a good one. The only thing that needs to be done is to add another hyphen between "21" and "year", so it reads:


 * the 21-year-old Hussein.

4) In , besides adding commas after dates that, as I mentioned, ought to be removed, you linked Egypt. If you read the second bulleted item in MOS:OVERLINK, and the examples, you'll see that major countries are normally not linked. There is a little discretion, and since Egypt is mentioned often in this article, perhaps you were right to link it. Perhaps Makeandtoss has an opinion on this.

5) In this sentence:


 * He proceeded to Harrow School in England, where he befriended his second cousin, Faisal II of Iraq, who was also studying there.

I think your addition of a comma before the name Faisal II of Iraq was all right here since it is the first time the name is being used in the article, so the name is identifying his second cousin. However, a little later is the following sentence:


 * He was enthroned on 2May 1953; his cousin, Faisal II, assumed his constitutional powers as king in Iraq on the same day.

You added commas around "Faisal II". In this case, I do not think the commas are necessary since it is referring to someone already identified, so I would remove these commas.

6) In this sentence:


 * The country was poor in natural resources, and had a large Palestinian refugee population resulting from the war – the annexation of the West Bank had made Palestinians two-thirds of the population, outnumbering Jordanians.

you removed the comma after "natural resources". While a comma is not necessary before a second verb phrase for the same subject, it is sometimes used (more on WP than elsewhere, and, I believe, more by speakers of British English than American English) to make a sentence more comprehensible or break up a long sentence. I think that here, the comma serves to break up a long sentence. Another possibility – and perhaps the best wording – is to add "it" before "had a large Palestinian refugee population", so that everything after "and" becomes a complete clause. If that is done, then the comma after "natural resources" would definitely be needed:


 * The country was poor in natural resources, and it had a large Palestinian refugee population...

7) In this sentence:


 * The incident led to protests, and in 1954 Hussein dismissed Mulki amid the unrest and appointed staunch royalist Tawfik Abu Al-Huda.

You removed the first comma after "protests" and added one after "in 1954". I would ask you please to change this back to the way it was. This is two complete clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction ("and"); normally, a comma follows the first complete clause, and, as mentioned above, no comma is needed after the preposition + year.

I know these are stylistic considerations, but, as I said, I copy-edited the entire article just two weeks ago, and the punctuation was consistent throughout the article. – Corinne (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I've copy-edited several military history articles. – Corinne (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, Thanks for letting me know. I just reverted it. I understand the need for things to be consistent and I'm just looking to pitch-in across the board. If you have an interest in the article and have a preference regarding punctuation and grammar styles, I applaud you for your diligence and insist that we keep it consistent and preserve the hard work you've put into it. :) Blinkfan (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Blinkfan. I want to assure you that I don't feel a sense of ownership of the article (per WP:OWN), but after I complete a copy-edit of an article, I usually keep an eye on it for a while to see what develops (such as peer reviews, GAN reviews, or FAC reviews). Anyone can edit any article. It's just that I had put so much time into that article just recently, with ensuring consistency as part of that, that I had to discuss it with you. – Corinne (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, that's exactly what I meant. I know nobody "owns" an article, but one can't help but take pride in significant work done on an article and I certainly understand that. Thanks for your help. Blinkfan (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tailhook scandal into Paula Coughlin. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa thank you for your info! I apologize for the faux pas. I will be sure to do so in the future. Thanks again. Blinkfan (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Paula Coughlin
On Wikipedia we take particular care over articles about living people, such as Paula Coughlin. New information, even if referenced, should be added only if noteworthy, relevant and documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. If challenged, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to justify its retention. Zazpot (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

BLPs again
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to James O&. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  11:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)