User talk:Onesius

Welcome!

Hello, Onesius, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• 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! -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent spelling 'corrections' to the article spontaneous human combustion have been reverted. Please see wp:engvar. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide a source to justify your inclusion of periods and commas, used to separate sentences or clauses containing quoted text, inside the quotation marks. Thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onesius! Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I should have been more specific and asked for a Wikipedia source. You hit the nail on the head when you said that there are different styles in American and British use. Wikipedia's policy towards the diverstity of style in written English is described here. In general it seeks consistency within the article, so using US punctuation in general within an article concerned with a predominantly US subject is right and proper. However, there is a caveat in the opening paragraph of that policy guideline concerning punctuation, which refers you here. This policy guideline contains a section (known as WP:LQ) which deals specifically with quotation marks and defines the standard for all wikipedia articles, regardless of subject, as: "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." That's the basis for my reversion of the changes you made to articles which are on my watchlist. Obviously this is a subject that interests you and perhaps you'd like to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation:_Quotation_marks:_Inside_or_outside. Best regards -- Timberframe (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their associated article doesn't exist, and is a red link, like this one. Once the person has an article, feel free to add. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't give a hyperlink, i just gave an axample of a red link that doesn't link to anything. Second, just because another article has something, it doesn't mean it's correct. In fact, I will clean up the list at that high school as well. Person-by-person: "Jerome Weiss" — A google search points that Weiss may not even exist, let alone be an insurance executive. "Ricky Palmer" — A video assistant. Not a head coach, not the video coach, but the assistant. "Dontez White" — A division III college football player, never played at a higher level. "Jason Johnson" — A combat veteran, just like any other one of the 1,473,900 active personnel.

However, you do have a point. WP:AOAL, point 7, states that "Lists can include items that are not linked (see e.g. List of compositions by Franz Schubert); or items for which there are yet no articles (red links)", but one must take into consideration point 5 in the disadvantage section, which states that lists "can become bogged down with entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia." I am in error on some of the people on the SHHS list, and will reconsider each one, but on the Glenville list, I believe I am correct.

Third, I did not attend high school in Ohio. I have many high schools on my watchlist because they seem to attract vandalism more than other articles. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at SHHS, I am restoring: Kathy Mulcahy, Katrina Firlik, Laura Jacqmin, but not William Kahrl (can't find sources that he went to the school), Linda Rogoff (very weak notablility, sourcing issues) and Dr. theodore L. Einstein (more sourcing issues). Thanks, Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the 3 people I listed exist, but I can't prove that they went to SHHS. If you find a link to show that, add the person in again. On high school pages, silly vandalism like "XXX teacher is gay", or "XXX HS has a garbage football team" or "XXX invented crayons there" is quite common. Yes. talk pages are the best way to communicate. Thanks, Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't have access to the yearbooks, not the print obituary. If it's online, I can get it, but otherwise, I cannot. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's ok. If you can confirm this, add it in yourself. Don't afraid to be bold! Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I noticed you've been updating articles by changing the placement of quotation marks. Wikipedia's current policy for all articles is to place punctuation within quotation marks only if the punctuation is part of the quotation. Wikipedia does not use external style guides (eg - MLA, AP, Chicago, Oxford etc.) as policy for formatting it's articles - it uses it's own Manual of Style. The quotation marks policy is being debated yet again, so in the meantime, could you refrain from making such changes. Please wait until the discussion resolves. Mindmatrix 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment "I do not know if you are a native English speaker. However, The word it's is only a contraction for the words it is..." - did you consider that sometimes people make typing mistakes, "typos" if you will? I'm well aware of the difference between the terms. (BTW: not being a native speaker of a language does not imply lack of fluency in that language - such assumptions are logical fallacies.)

"The Catholic Church (and its forcing Galileo to recant) did not make Galileo wrong." - comparing yourself to Galileo is ludicrous. Using it as a tangential comparison is just as ludicrous.

"If you are in need of some good English grammar books I can refer you to them. I used to teach college English in Boston; what about you?" - I am familiar with many style guides - why do you assume I need such references? Also, where or what you taught is irrelevant to me. Here, we discuss the concepts, not the people behind them. If your only arguments to defend your position are external guidelines and having taught English, then you have a poor argument.

"The fact that some computer code-writers at Wikipedia reject the English language..." - nobody has rejected the language; the fact that you don't like the policies designed by the community does not imply they are incorrect. That is your opinion, not a fact.

"As for the so-called debate on the placement of quotation marks (relative to commas and periods) in American English, there is none" - there is a clear Wikipedia policy at WP:LQ, currently under debate for possible revision. External guidelines are irrelevant to current Wikipedia policy, though they may be used to craft those policies.

"As you acknowledge, certain people reject all of the style sheets of the English language." - I said no such thing; inferring this from my earlier comments is incorrect. My point was that these style guides are not the ones used for Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is distinct from those style guides, but derives many elements from them.

Once again, Wikipedia has its own style guide, which is designed by the consensus of the Wikipedia community. If you'd like to provide input into forming those policies, please do so at the relevant discussions to which several editors have already provided links. If not, then please abide by the eventual consensus formed. Mindmatrix 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for advise from administrators regarding some of your recent edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Onesius and punctuation-related edits. Please comment there if you wish. Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to amend Wyatt Riot's request -- please do comment there as your edits are to say the least controversial and you appear (and this may not be the case) to think that Wikipedia guidelines on punctuation should be ignored in favor of other guidelines. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Wyatt Riot and Dougweller: Per your requests, I responded last night (actually, early this morning) at the administrators' noticeboard. I would also be pleased to have a substantive discussion with anyone on the underlying issues if that is desired. Thank you for your consideration. --Onesius (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for speaking up at the ANI board. I started the topic there because other editors had approached you previously and it didn't seem like you were heeding their advice. (It's not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case they were mostly trying to steer you towards Wikipedia's style guides, which tell us how we should work with differing styles of punctuation, spelling, and so on.) I do believe that your edits were done in good faith (i.e., not as vandalism), so I felt the best thing to do would be request advise from experienced administrators and also give you a chance to explain yourself. If you would like to discuss Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially as they pertain to punctuation and spelling, I'd be happy to do so. I studied English in college myself and I'd like to think that I have a better-than-average understanding of the language, plus I've been editing here at Wikipedia for quite a while now. Of course, that's just my $0.02. Let me know. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you again to read WP:LQ and stop unnecessary punctuation-related edits. We have a Manual of Style that tells us how to properly format articles, and this includes the logical quotation format. While I don't necessarily agree with all of our policies and guidelines, there are avenues for changing them, and disregard is not one of those avenues. Wyatt Riot (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. However, unless I am mistaken, since the subject was last raised, I have confined myself (when editing with regard to commas and quotation marks) to making the punctuation consistent. In other words, in some places, an article may end a sentence with ." and in another place that same article may contain a sentence that ends with ". As both cannot be correct, I simply tried to conform instances of the latter to be the same as the former. Ralph Waldo Emerson aside, I don't think there is anything wrong with at least being consistent. You know, the Soviets outlawed dissent with Lysenko in 1948, and then what happened? Just my two cents. Thanks. --Onesius (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with consistency, and that's one of the reasons the Manual of Style exists in the first place. However, we're supposed to follow WP:LQ, which directs us to use the logical quotation format. It's no different from seeing mixed American and British English spellings on a primarily British-based page and, contrary to the directions of WP:ENGVAR, changing all of the spellings to American English. I hope you understand what I'm getting at here. Since you feel so strongly about punctuation, I'd suggest adding to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, where acceptance of the logical quotation format has been challenged. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your follow up. However, what am I to make of the fact that, In the Wikipedia:Five pillars it says: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles." Also, In the Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset it says: "12. Ignore all rules - rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both." (Emerson strikes again, or maybe it's George Orwell?) This is why I asked someone else, at one point, about the interrelationship between the guidelines, MOS, and the "rules." One could ask if it's OK to "ignore all rules," unless they are not rules but disputed guidelines? When there is a "right" & a "wrong," and the wrong dominates (MOS punctuation), what is the purpose of a discussion? (Hence my reference to Lysenko.) Thanks for listening. --Onesius (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further note to Wyatt Riot: For example, in the article on Marilyn vos Savant, the punctuation is inconsistent. How would you edit ("correct") it? --Onesius (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently saying that you have unilaterally decided that our MOS is wrong and instead of trying to get it changed you intend to ignore it, citing IAR. I don't see how making such a unilateral act improved Wikipedia. IAR doesn't give anyone carte blanche to ignore guidelines, especially when an editor is asked to stop. IAR is an acknowledgement that at times there should be exceptions from guidelines, and that's not what you are arguing here, you are arguing that the guideline is wrong and thus you have the right to ignore it. What you should be doing is discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style as Wyatt Riot suggests. Until then, if you find inconsistency you feel you must fix, then you should fix it according to our MOS. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, Onesius: I'd follow WP:LQ and put all punctuation outside the quotation marks unless the punctuation is a part of the quoted section. For example, the first two instances I see ("Highest IQ" and "savant") are correct whereas the third ("Ask Marilyn.") is not. The quoted section "her contribution to changing stereotypes about women." looks correct at first, but it's from the middle of a sentence (hence no period) according to the source, and so it's wrong. It all comes down to accurate quoting and documenting, which is of supreme importance for an encyclopedia based on "verifiability, not truth". Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Dougweller: (I had written a long reply to you but lost it when I tried to save it; the following is only some of the highlights.) I think you mistake my point (and BTW, I have not "unilaterally decided" that the MOS is wrong). I was pointing out inconsistencies in Wikipedia. As for for my adding to the existing postings, I previously indicated that what I had to say was already there. If citations to authorities are unavailing, then why bother? And how does one effectuate "change"? Stated another way, if I create a totally new system of something that is at odds with existing systems, and pronounce mine "correct," does doing so make mine "right" and the others "wrong"? And if someone challenges my new system, are they "wrong," when all they have done is what I did before by creating my new system? All these rhetorical questions without any edits! Thanks. --Onesius (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You effectuate change by gaining a consensus on the talk page of the relevant guidelines. Your opinions on punctuation don't override our guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on my talk page, but I haven't been on wiki for a long time and don't know what it's refering to...CheesyBiscuit (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CheesyBiscuit, In May you left me a note about having reverted some spelling corrections (although I think they were actually punctuation corrections) & I believe that you (or someone else) asked me for supporting references to outside grammar sources, which I provided. Just a senior citizen/former college English professor who can't help himself from correcting spelling and grammar. Not a biggie! Regards, --Onesius (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you changed the era on Battle of Leuctra. I would agree that the proportion of BCE articles to BC is out of step with what we see in current publishing. However, it is usually a good idea to propose potentially controversial changes on the talk page. Also when making the change you broke several wiki links. Finally changing the era on several pages at the same time is definitely a bad idea.Dejvid (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hy there, I have noticed that you changed the dating system of several articles from BC/AD towards BCE/CE. The majority of these changes were unilateral and therefore contrary to the "ceasefire agreement" and Wikipedia's manual of style. I'm hereby asking you to stop with these actions. If you don't follow this warning I will follow correct procedure. Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Onesius. 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]

Hello, Onesius. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]