User talk:Al Begamut

Hi :)

American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

The article on American logistics in the Normandy campaign has a sequel, American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany. You are invited to drop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany and comment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 101955 Bennu

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 101955 Bennu, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buttermilk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments!

Comment moved from Talk:Halley's Comet:[1] Renerpho (talk)

I have been monitoring from a distance the efforts you've spearheaded in connection with this article, as detailed elsewhere on this talk page. I've only got about a thousand edits to my name, the vast majority of which are minor grammatical fixes and copyedits; as suggested by the fact that I asked here, rather than undertake any change unilaterally, I remain unfamiliar with many of the less simple mechanics of editing here. I may start foraying into the resources available for learning how to become more involved; but today I just wanted to praise the work, care, and attention you and fellow editors invest as exemplified here. I am grateful to you (and to those who similarly endeavor) for developing and maintaining this valuable living edifice (and I welcome any advice for someone with similar interest lacking a bit of direction). Al Begamut (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!

The "minor" (gnomic) edits you describe are valuable, and are a good way to get started. If you want to move to other kinds of work, that's great, too. Since you're asking for advice, here's what I think:

The best way is to consider what interests you and what you think are your strengths. Writing good articles from scratch is an ability I envy in some editors, but it's not something everyone can do (I certainly can't). Follow the discussions about topics you're interested in, as you're already doing. If you've got an idea for an improvement, just get started! Be bold, but not too much: There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that need work. Featured and good articles aren't the best place to do experiments, but if you're not confident about the edit you've got in mind, don't hesitate to bring up problems on the talk page, even if you have no idea how to fix them. And if you do something silly, don't worry about it. Someone will revert you and let you know, and that's how it's supposed to be. If you have no idea how to technically implement your idea, make an edit request.

The comment you've made on Talk:Halley's Comet#ref label b? in April was fantastic. This was not easy to find. It wouldn't have been the oldest surviving vandalism ever found in a Featured Article if it were, and sometimes it's perfectly fine to just "spark" a discussion without participating in it very much. Nobody would be working on that article now if you hadn't highlighted that it's in something of a bad shape. That you didn't know why it was in bad shape doesn't matter. Maybe the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (CVU) is for you? Anyone can (and should) revert vandalism whenever they encounter it, but the CVU have an "Academy" where they train new users how to patrol the site with more advanced tools.

If astronomy is your thing, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy for what's currently happening, and where you may be able to help. Consider joining the Wikipedia:Discord. Renerpho (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this very much; I marvel sometimes at the communal nature of the more involved editors here. I would behave the same way, yet still, I am surprised when I encounter it.

That being said, I recognize that the value of what I'm typing here is largely for my own figuring-out; I don't want to imply that you, specifically, ought to respond in any way. :)

I have seen some tools pinned to some editors' user pages and I'm beginning to explore how these can help me find ways to leverage the "gnomic" work I do (I felt validated to see that page you linked on the topic) so as to affect more articles; presently I only do it with articles I find myself reading, the majority of which come from the main page. But my "eagle eye" for discrepancies in spelling, grammar, and style consistency (and my predilection for poking around to make sure that what's under the hood matches the sticker) is what enabled me to catch that "ref label b" issue.

While I enjoy writing, and I write well (linguistically, if not always in ideal formats for general audiences), I too am not exactly suited to building an article from scratch. A lot of that has also to do with my lack of energy with respect to researching citations -- while (as a paralegal) within the legal field I excel at, and can enjoy, performing that task within the confines of the much more systematized resources that exist in law (I have written "from scratch" several print-published articles on judicial and legislative actions), it's not the same at all using Google. Maybe I'll try to find existing Wikipedia articles that are about legal matters and work to improve those.

Anyway, this is just me chatting now, but it helps me to work it out in my own head so that I can get closer to taking action. Thanks for that. Cheers! Al Begamut (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]