User talk:Erianna/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Erianna, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Glastonbury Abbey. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Rod ^talk 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Electronic signature. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Your recent edit to the pages Hollandaise sauce and Béarnaise sauce appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Specifically, the title of the book is Joy of Cooking - no 'The' in front of it. Dmforcier (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Especially when moving footnotes outside punctuation (thanks!), or other "small" edits that are nearly invisible when diff'd. It also highlights good practices (like proper ref placement) that other editors might not know about. Dmforcier (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Owen

Hi, thanks for contributing your pic to the article, there have been so many that were copyright violations. I have tweaked it and I hope you think its better. Mark_Owen - Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't contribute the pic. It might've been this edit: 21:49, 22 June 2010 Brommyefc Erianna (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excuse me, I see it now. Thaks for letting me know. Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

pierogi

Hi, Erianna. The MOS page you yourself quoted refers to itself as a "guideline" (i.e., not a policy) subject to exceptions. Given that it is a supposed American "holiday", and not a date in world history, it should follow local usage. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think exceptions are meant for cases such as ordinal suffixes in dates within a quotation. I don't think local usage qualifies as such a case. Please refer to the following closed discussion advocating ordinal suffixes in dates as local usage in the UK: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_114#Please_allow_ordinal_dates. A search of the archives of the discussion page for WP:MOSNUM also supports the rule that ordinal suffixes are not to be used in dates. Erianna (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Erianna. I don't, as a policy, like having discussions about articles on my talk page. So I have removed your comments, and am placing them here in small print: In your edit summary you said "a guidline subject to exception - here the "holiday" is geographically situated and local usage is proper". Could you please show me where in the Wikipedia Manual of Style it says that there is such an exception? I'd like to know for future reference. Erianna (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Erianna. The MOS page you yourself quoted refers to itself as a "guideline" (i.e., not a policy) subject to exceptions. Given that it is a supposed American "holiday", and not a date in world history, it should follow local usage. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think exceptions are meant for cases such as ordinal suffixes in dates within a quotation. I don't think local usage qualifies as such a case. Please refer to the following closed discussion advocating ordinal suffixes in dates as local usage in the UK: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_114#Please_allow_ordinal_dates. A search of the archives of the discussion page for WP:MOSNUM also supports the rule that ordinal suffixes are not to be used in dates. Erianna (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to continue the discussion here, that is fine, I will watch this page. You may also wish to continue it on the article page, that would be fine, you can cust and paste this discussion to that location if you wish.

(1) Closed discussions are just that - closed discussions. If they were policy then the particular policy page would have been edited to follow. There is no policy. (2) I am leery of edits to change dates, spellings, measurements, etc., to fit some "better" format. Formats are matters of convention, superiority is in the eye of the perceiver. Wikipedia is improved by substantive edits, not continual edits between competing forms. (3) Had the original been 2 February, and were someone to have edited it to February 2nd, I would have reverted that edit as well. Both sorts of edits are wastes of time and should be discouraged. (4) According to the MOS, consistency is one consideration. Local usage is another. Here the context has been explicitly defined as American and there is no list of holidays within which it would be better to maintain consistency. (5) This is not a "date". A date identifies a unique point in human history. John F Kennedy was murdered on the same date that Dr Who premiered. This gives the day of the year on which a supposed holiday falls, not an historical date. (6) The day of the holiday is, according to the Mrs T's website, October 8th, which commerates the day on which Mrs' T's Ted Twarzik first did something or other. (I prefer Hanka Brand if you have to buy store bought). See http://www.pierogies.com/Wholesale/event.asp?showimg=0&articleid=154.

That last point is determinative. The article should be edited to reflect pierogies.com as the source of the claim and the edit should follow the source. μηδείς (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, μηδείς. Here are my answers to your points above. If you feel this requires further discussion, perhaps it should be moved to the article's talk page as this discussion is getting rather long.

(1) The reason why I referenced that closed discussion is because it gives a similar argument against the current policy (of not using ordinal suffixes in dates) to the one you gave. As for the statement "If they were policy then the particular policy page would have been edited to follow", the particular policy page would only need editing if the discussion was successful in changing the current policy - which it wasn't.

(2) Please refer to first sentence in WP:MOSNUM: "This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of numbers, dates, times, measurements, currencies and coordinates in English Wikipedia articles. Consistent standards make articles easier to read, write, and edit." The change in format I made was to maintain consistent standards in formatting. It was not a change between competing forms as the use of ordinal suffixes in dates is against policy and so October 8th is not a competing form. An example of useless continual edits between competing forms would be switching the date back and forth betweeen October 8 and 8 October as both forms are allowed according to the MOS.

(3) Small formatting edits are not wastes of time to be discouraged. That is why minor edits exist.

(4) As stated in (1) and (2), the closed discussion I referenced indicated that local usage is not an argument for using ordinal suffixes in dates and so the current policy of not using ordinal suffixes in dates stands. I don't understand what you mean here: "there is no list of holidays within which it would be better to maintain consistency".

(5) If you continue reading the section on dates in the MOS, you will see through the examples used that the MOS considers a date to be a reference to a particular day represented within a calendar system, not a unique point in human history.

(6) Formatting of the article does not have to reflect the source unless the source is directly quoted. Erianna (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I should have clarified (6). Formatting of the article does not have to reflect the source unless the source is directly quoted and the date is included within that quotation. Erianna (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Erianna.

Again, I have to note that the guidline you cite it is not a policy like wp:or. It is a guideline subject to exception.

If this "holiday" is added to a list of dated holidays, you will have my support in making it conform to the style of the other days in that list. Here it is normal American usage in a section withe the word America in it.

Minor edits exist for things like spelling errors and links. This is neither. Small formatting edits to combat between preferred stylistic/regional varieties are indeed to be discouraged. The edit does not follow the source. It does not read naturally to an American. It is not confusing to a speaker of any other variety - it Just sounds American, perhaps. If the "policy" were that the only exception to the general format convention were quotes (as you suggest in an early comment) then the policy would say that quoted dates are the only exception. Not only does this "policy" not say that. This "policy" is not a policy.

μηδείς (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said policy I meant guideline. I only used it to match your use of the word policy in (1). In any case, I guess I will move this to the article's talk page since this discussion is quite lengthy now. Erianna (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your extraordinary productivity, I present to you this barnstar. Keep up the good work! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar! =) Erianna (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Itallics

Hi Erianna,

So *that's* what you were doing. Yes, titles of magazines should be italicized, but here's a better way to do it: Business Review Weekly's. (Look at the source by going into "edit".) Your way had the possessive on the outside of the link; my correction is way picky but a personal WP pet peeve of mine. I also went through the article and made sure all BRWs were italicized, so thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Christine,

I edited it the way I did so that the possessive wouldn't be italicized since technically only the title should be italicized. If the possessive should stay in the link, maybe the following format is better? Business Review Weekly's. I wonder if there is a guideline for this. XD Erianna (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, that's being picky! ;) If it's not in the MOS, it should be. When you look at the format, it looks right, anyway. I'll let you take the time and find it in the MOS, if it's there. I'm sure there's some grammar source that prescribes the use of italics in or out of a possessive title. I would think that my way would be correct, since punctuation tends to include words. I dunno if I'm saying that correctly; I am a native speaker. I'll let you research that, too. ;) Christine (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I did read the source. A spokesman for the company makes the unreferenced claim. You need to find a federal government source if you want to claim that this is national perogie day. Until then, I warn you not to violate wp 3rr. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I only reverted once. How does that justify an edit war warning? According to WP:3RR, "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." One revert is not a series. If I had reverted twice this warning would have been more justified.

WP:3RR also states, "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive." If you feel the edit war warning was justified, please follow its advice and use the article's talk page to discuss this. Feel free to also post a request for help at a noticeboard or ask for dispute resolution. Erianna (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A warning is just that - a warning. Each of your last three edits has reverted the text to some prior version.

In any case, I doubt you contest that the sources all depend upon statements by Mrs T's representatives regarding an event intimately connected to their business. That's hardly NPOV, and at best would be an obvious violation of undue weight. Now I am hungry!  :) μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The first of my last three edits was an edit to align the article's text with a decision made on the article's talk page and as such should not count as part of an edit war. I'll edit my recent comment on the article's talk page to address your points about NPOV and undue weight. Erianna (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dates in Chinese articles

Please do not switch BCE to BC or AD to CE in any further edits to mainland-related articles you make. Unless the articles is discussing European concessions or churches, there is little reason to use AD/BC. Thanks much --HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In each article that I switched BCE to BC or AD to CE it was to make the article uniform so that it was only using the BCE/CE or BC/AD format. Each change that I made was because there was one BCE/CE date in an otherwise BC/AD article or vice versa. Erianna (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

then there is little (no) issue if BC/AD is switched entirely to BCE/CE? --HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:ERA, no preference is given to either the BCE/CE or BC/AD style. It also says "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." If you have such a reason, feel free to make the switch. I only made my edits for the sake of uniformity. Erianna (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1