User talk:Mikevpol

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Mikevpol, 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 my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 01:11, 14 December 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

Wounded at Sandy Hook
I'm a newbie at Talk pages. I'm curious about why you reverted by insertion of a reference to the two wounded victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the opening paragraph. Since the title includes the word "shooting" but not "murders" I felt the wounded were being ignored. I could not find a relevant discussion at the Talk page. Could you point me to it or explain your thinking? Mikevpol (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I certainly don't recall doing that.  Are you sure it was me?  Perhaps you have me confused with another editor?  Let me know.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article used to say "Two adults were treated for injuries", followed by a reference (footnote). On December 18, 2012, at 20:03 time, a user by the name of Truthanado removed that sentence.  You can look up the history log of edits to see more details.  So, if indeed that if the sentence that you are referring to, it was not removed by me, but by Truthanado.  I am not sure why you think that I deleted your edit.  Please let me know.  Thanks!  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I was looking at 17:54 on 20 December. I thought i had added in a phrase. It looks like you came after me and I thought you rolled it back. I thought you commented: (Talk Page ... and try answering the question posed, NOT just revert), but that made no sense. This was my first day editing a hot topic, so I may have been confused trying to reconcile differences. Mikevpol (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. Now I see what happened.  The edit was actually at 13:54, not 17:54.  In that edit, you made two changes.  One was that you added about the two injured people.  But the second was that you changed the word "is" to "was" (at two separate places) in the following sentence:


 * The massacre is the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It also is the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the Bath School bombings of 1927.


 * In the above sentence, you changed both of the "is" words to "was". (And you had also put in the fact of the two injuries.)  I had specifically brought this issue to the Talk Page.  See here: Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  When I had originally changed the "was" to "is" ... I asked the question in my edit summary, that asked something like this:  "Why are you changing the is to was"?.  Then, someone (I don't know if it was you or some other editor), changed it back, without answering my question about the is/was change.  So, I reverted it back to "is".  And, in my edit summary box, I stated: "Talk Page ... and try answering the question posed, NOT just revert".  Which, in long hand, meant ... "This issue is at the Talk Page, please answer my question posed in my previous edit summary, do not simply revert it without answering the question I posed".


 * So, what I was concerned only about was the is/was distinction in your edit. And that is why I made the revert.  Because, at the Talk Page, we all decided that it should stay "is" and not change to "was".  During all of this, I never even noticed the second part of your edit, where you mentioned the injured victims.  So, I hope this explanation makes sense.  Let me know.  And, yes, when there is a "hot topic" or current event, a lot of edits are all flying around at the same time.  So, that is basically how your "injury edit" fell through the cracks.  When there is a hot topic / current event, you should always check the Talk Page, especially when you make a big or major or controversial change.  Chances are, that "issue" is usually already resolved at the Talk Page.  Thanks!   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your careful research and your gracious reply. I will follow your advice. Typically, I only make changes on sleepier pages.Mikevpol (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That article seems to be calming down now.  And it looks like your mention of the two wounded has made it into the article.  Happy editing!  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Early mention of wounded
This article is about the shootings, not the killings - then why no mention of the two wounded in the opening sentence? Could we insert "and wounded two others" after "six adult staff members"? I have tried and I am shown an edit conflict. Perhaps I am too much of a newbie to understand, but I am an autoconfirmed user (or so I think!) Mikevpol (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)