User talk:Teacher1850
Welcome!
[edit]
Hello, Teacher1850, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the welcome! I have occasionally made minor copy edits "anonymously" in the past (just from whatever IP address I was on) but it felt like it was time to create an account and try to help more. Teacher1850 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]
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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Spacing
[edit]Ref your edit to Common era, fyi "the system" takes care of redundant spaces and doesn't display howlers like double space after full stop. As you will see if you look at the source of this reply. So you don't need to spend time editing them out. Though of course no harm to do so if you happen to notice one in passing. Welcome again to Wikipedia. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, interesting. Thank you for telling me that. Teacher1850 (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC) @JMF:
Please clarify reasons for apparent style-only changes
[edit]I notice that some of your edits appear to be unnecessary changes to stylings that are valid per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. There may be justifications for these edits but, if so, please make this clear in your edit summaries as otherwise they may appear to be based on personal style preference, which is not sufficient reason. Internal consistency and MOS:TIES may be reasons but, if so, please state this. Example edits are a change to a valid compass point styling] (see MOS:COMPASS), this change to a valid spelling and several removals of Oxford commas, one at least of which potentially clarified a potential ambiguity in the sentence. In my experience of edits regarding the latter in Wikipedia, it seems more common for Americans to insert unnecessary Oxford commas, apparently unaware that their absence is a valid styling but yours may be the converse, believing their presence to be invalid for British styling. Again, if there is a good reason, please make it clear in your edit summary. I hope that is helpful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Mutt Lunker: Thanks for your comments. In case it helps to give reassurance about my edits, in each case I've had a particular reason that I believed to be consistent with the style manual. For example, every time I've modified Oxford commas (and my changes have gone in both directions - probably the bulk have actually been in favour of Oxford commas), it's been for intra-article consistency, which is my understanding of what the Wikipedia style manual requires. I have sometimes left that explanation as a specific edit summary (e.g., 1, 2), but it seems very hard to explain all of the many changes in a single revision, and it adds a lot of time to my work. My edit summaries perhaps went too far in the other direction, just saying "copy edit" or what not, because that seemed more efficient. That may be the source of your concern about my edits, and I can try to write better summaries. If you have any advice about how to strike the balance, particularly in more extensive copy edits, that may be helpful to hear; the last thing I want to do is waste other people's time or cause concern that my edits are not productive.
- The edit to compass-styling was a mistake that I corrected myself within minutes in two other articles, but I appear to have neglected it on Surrey; my apologies for that oversight, and thanks for catching it! In case it helps to explain, it did not arise because of a preference for American styling; originally it was, as I explained in a different edit summary, for intra-article consistency in one article, and then I realized I had pushed the changes in the wrong direction given that BrE was to govern those articles. Teacher1850 (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, wait: my edit to Surrey was not a mistake but was for consistency within the intro. A few paragraphs after my edits, the hyphenated forms appear. I will make the edit again with a better summary. Teacher1850 (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)