User talk:BekkerNumbering
Welcome!
[edit]Hi BekkerNumbering! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
A lengthy welcome
[edit]Hi BekkerNumbering. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.
If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
James Russell Lowell
[edit]Hello, fellow editor! I'm curious why you made such drastic changes to the organization of the featured article on James Russell Lowell. The previous organization was fairly chronological; the new "Personal life" section makes things quite disjointed and seems to focus only on his first marriage, effectively removing her story from the main story of his life. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The article had personal life details intermixed with career details. Those should comprise two different sections, as they do now. I did not remove or add any content, but separated those two sections, which should be intermingled. BekkerNumbering (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying. How can a life be compartmentalized in such a way? It seems unusual for a biography to separate out a section on "Personal life"; biographies are inherently personal. I don't see this as a standard organizational option and, considering the article has passed featured article status and even made it to the main page intact, I'm not sure this is an improvement. Would you mind terribly if it was set back to the way it was? Generally speaking as far as organization, I mean, as I know you made some additional improvements along the way. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nearly every biography on here is structured that way. The benefit of breaking them out into these separate sections is that it allows readers to identify those sections of interest. Most have at least three separate sections: Early life and education, Career, and Personal life. For the same reason that Personal life is separated from Career, Early life and education are separated from the Career section. BekkerNumbering (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's not been my experience since I've been working on Wikipedia. I'm going to take this to the article's talk page and see if we can get some consensus from others. That being the case, it's more traditional to revert back to the "settled" version prior to the contention. I will do so now. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nearly every biography on here is structured that way. The benefit of breaking them out into these separate sections is that it allows readers to identify those sections of interest. Most have at least three separate sections: Early life and education, Career, and Personal life. For the same reason that Personal life is separated from Career, Early life and education are separated from the Career section. BekkerNumbering (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying. How can a life be compartmentalized in such a way? It seems unusual for a biography to separate out a section on "Personal life"; biographies are inherently personal. I don't see this as a standard organizational option and, considering the article has passed featured article status and even made it to the main page intact, I'm not sure this is an improvement. Would you mind terribly if it was set back to the way it was? Generally speaking as far as organization, I mean, as I know you made some additional improvements along the way. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, please stop “fixing” links that are WP:NOTBROKEN.
Please go and revert all the erroneous fixes you just made to a series of articles. Raladic (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
[edit]
Hi BekkerNumbering! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)