BreakfastJr

Good job at the recent copy editing!

Hey BreakfastJr, I stumbled across one of your recent copy edits, and took a look at the rest of your contributions, and I would like to say: Excellent Job! We always need more editors to make careful and conscientious small changes to the project. Were you aware we have a community supporting such small changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. WikiProjects are how we coordinate various activities across Wikipedia, and the Guild of Copy Editors is quite active in improving the language across Wikipedia! I hope you get a chance to participate with them, and happy editing! Sadads (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the gratitude and also for the advice. I've joined the Guild, and hope to help gradually polish this information behemoth. BreakfastJr (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	For all the small copyedits you have done as a new user! Keep it up! Sadads (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Real quotes

Dear BreakfastJr, I am puzzled that you altered the genuine quotes (‘ ’, “ ”) in Ethisphere Institute to computer-style quotes (' ', " ")(under the description “cosmetic changes”). Are you following some guidelines here, or is this your personal preference? I certainly prefer genuine quotes, which look a lot better to me, especially in the serif fonts I prefer. PJTraill (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi PJTraill

Firstly, thank you for asking instead of reverting.

Yes, I was following MOS:QUOTEMARKS in the Manual of Style. It recommends straight quotes be used rather than curly quotes in all cases, for several reasons. In addition, the fact that it's recommended in all cases means that use of it is then even more advisable since it increases consistency within and between articles. For example, the first version of the Ethisphere Institute article itself (thank you for making that, by the way) had one instance of a straight rather than curly apostrophe, for "McDonald's".

So I generally change all curly quotes to straight quotes whenever I come across them, to increase consistency across Wikipedia.

Thanks for making that article and for asking rather than reverting my nit-picky change :D

BreakfastJr (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to adapt " " from “ ” on my computer! Eruditer (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Second Life

hi BreakfastJr, re your Second Life revision of 01:56, 3 October 2014: "Mainly italicised the game's title (which was previously italicised in some places but not others), in accordance with the MoS (I know SL's status as a game is disputed, but it seems to me that "game" is the best-fitting label that the MoS has))".

I agree that there should be consistency in the use of italics. However the status of SL has already been much discussed and the concensus is that it is not a game. From Section 10 of the Second Life Talk page, 'Why is this even listed as a game?': 'This has been discussed pretty thoroughly. See the sections above. Second Life is a meta-game or "game container".', and 'While one can indeed play games in Second Life, you can also play games on the Internet or Facebook.', and also my own comment, 'It is a virtual reality within which many real life activities take place, including education courses, ecommerce, social networking, musical concerts and art exhibitions.'

The Second Life wp page lists eight countries which have official embassies in SL. It has been used by thousands of NGOs, campaigning groups and voluntary organisations to dispense information about their activities and provide a meeting place for their members. It hosts lectures by some of the world's best known scientists, academics, politicians and authors. It has a virtual currency tied to the US dollar which is traded on international currency exchanges. For many who use it, including myself, it is no more a game than Youtube, Skype, Facebook, MySpace, Usenet, Netflix, Amazon, Deviant Art, Google , eBay, The Teaching Company, Yahoo Groups, Reddit or indeed Wikipedia itself. -- Oniscoid 22:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

redirect

you will have to use RfD. If a prod is removed, it cannot be restored. But if it's justthat you want to move the title in there over the redirect, I can do that. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Glosses

In your edit to Shechem, you say that the MoS requires double quotes for glosses. Could you point me to the relevant section of the MoS? I believe that single quotes are the usual convention. The Chicago Manual of Style documents three usages: parentheses (x), square brackets [x], and single quotes 'x': "In linguistic and phonetic studies a definition is often enclosed in single quotation marks with no intervening punctuation; any following punctuation is placed after the closing quotation mark." --Macrakis (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd think that was an exception, but I don't see it codified in MoS. Maybe I'll ask around and see if others think it would be a good idea, in which case I'd propose to change the MoS. --Macrakis (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a fair idea. I wouldn't be opposed to a change if there's consensus on it; I'm just a stickler for consistency :) BreakfastJr (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at my Talk page for FP's comments. FP is a very experienced editor.

As for consistency, there are already many articles using single-quotes for glosses. --Macrakis (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shad Al-Sherif Pasha article

The article Shad Al-Sherif Pasha, which you have contributed to, is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Some reasons that make the article unsuitable are on its Talk page. See, and if desired contribute to, deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shad Al-Sherif Pasha. Pol098 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Blockquotes

Hello, BreakfastJr. I realize that WP:Blockquote states that a blockquote should be applied when a quote is a certain length. But, if you do not already, will you consider whether putting some quotes into blockquote format is best for whatever article in question? Blockquotes are usually not needed for small quotes; I think that it is better to break the quotes up with "He said" and "He added" type of wordings. And having too many blockquotes can affect the look/readability of an article, making the article seem sloppy or sloppier. They can also be a matter of WP:Undue weight. That's why, after you made this edit, I undid the blockquotes you applied. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Noting here that BreakfastJr replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bulletin

Nice work! Do you plan on expanding the early history/"Bulletin School" section? I added some stuff, not knowing a whole lot about the subject, so it's pleasing to see someone much more knowledgeable take a jab at it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, HappyWaldo. I'm pleased that I did my work well enough to fool you, but the truth is that I'm not actually knowledgeable on the subject at all. Or, rather, I wasn't at all knowledgeable on the subject when I first stumbled upon this Wikipedia article, saw the terrible state that it was in (with quite a bit of plagiarised and/or repeated material, and unsourced, dubious claims), and decided to set about fixing it. So I don't really have a deep knowledge of The Bulletin, as all my research was targeted towards either confirming and sourcing or disconfirming and amending/removing the info which was already in the article.

So, in answer to your actual question, since I don't have a deep knowledge of or particular interest in The Bulletin beyond its Wikipedia article, I don't have any plans to expand it. I expect I'll pop back in every few months or so to see if anything needs fixing up again, but I'll leave the expansions for other people. BreakfastJr (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm doubly impressed! It was in an even worse state when I found it, so the prospect of cleaning it up seemed overwhelming. I suppose it's a matter of taking a breath and addressing one piece of bad writing/misinformation at a time. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"Minor" edits on microaggression page

Thanks for your work on the microaggression page. Please do not flag edits as "minor" unless they fit the wikipedia definition of minor. See WP:MINOR. Also, it is easier if you make edits in different sections of articles separately so they can be more easily discussed and digested by other editors. -Pengortm (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Mirabella

You removed the "life after politics" section, so that the main text of the article stops at her parliamentary defeat, which is unhelpful. I did notice it was also in the lede - but if it's to be removed from either of those places, the lede would make more sense (as her lobbying activities are not intrinsically relevant to her notability). The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Morcheeba

Thanks for the fixes to the article. It has been two years since I last checked the sources. I will go over them in the next few days. Karst (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Non-minor "minor" edit, including removal of content

Your edit to Society for Scientific Exploration was marked as a minor edit. It clearly was not. If there is ANY change to meaning in the article, the edit is NOT minor.

I see that you have been told about this previously. If you do not understand, please ask for clarification.

In addition to not being minor, removing a cited quote would require some kind of explanation. Calling it a "copy edit" clearly does not accomplish this. I have restored the material - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstr for you

		The Recent Changes Barnstar
		For your salutary (and sound!) change to Uncertainty Principle: This is an article habitually and aggressively targeted by misguided IP nuts, and its protectors often miss subversive insertions in the fog of defensive operations. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice

Really nice copyedit work on so many articles! Thank you for the tireless contributions. Would you be interested in becoming a New Pages Reviewer? Alex Shih^Talk 01:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alex, thanks for that! I nowadays mainly just edit Wikipedia in the process of hopping about articles to learn or double check things, rather than spending time purely on editing for Wikipedia's sake, so I don't expect I'd really do any reviewing of new pages. I'd like to think that maybe someday I'll have the time for it, but realistically I already have too long a list of bookmarked articles I wanted to do more reading and tweaking of that I'm not getting back to, and it just keeps growing, so I don't think my approach to Wikipedia would fit the new page reviewing role. But thanks anyway :) BreakfastJr (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BreakfastJr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BreakfastJr. 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)

Thanks for speaking out against Facilitated Communication

I saw your edits in that regard a couple years ago, and I didn't think much of it until recently. Three articles promoting FC were deleted, and I did a write-up of the deletion https://corticalchauvinism.com/2019/06/26/a-triple-victory-three-wikipedia-articles-promoting-facilitated-communication-are-deleted/ Ylevental (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Sylk Magazine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sylk Magazine, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylk Magazine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)