User talk:Fredlesaltique

Testing

Hi Fredlesaltique! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:05, Sunday, September 15, 2019 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Hello, @Fredlesaltique: Thanks for your interest in this article, and your willingness to improve it. The reason for my edit was to differentiate between what something actually is versus what it is commonly called. Rather like "The Boston Tea Party, an American political and mercantile protest" ... etc. The common/popular name is presented, followed by a short description of the actual event. So, following that model, perhaps a better edit might be "The Greensboro massacre, an armed confrontation between opposing political factions, which occurred" ... etc. The Boston Tea Party wasn't actually a "party", just as the Greensboro massacre wasn't technically a "massacre" (that definition remains rather nebulous, but it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to label it as such, if it might be more technically accurate to described it as a shootout with mass casualties). So while it is a bit more wordy, I believe that the common name followed by short description is called for here. Your thoughts would be most appreciated. Gulbenk (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion moved to Talk:Greensboro massacre

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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just FYI, I found a tool User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink, that does half of what we were looking for in Talk:Udon#Odong. This script is made by the creator of User:Enterprisey/script-installer, which is listed in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, so I think it's safe. --Wotheina (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Why replying in a discussion, please can you indent, per WP:THREAD, as it makes things much easier to follow? Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: I cannot I use mobile 😞 Fredlesaltique (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Neoanthrenus. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sure you've noticed that I reverted quite a few of the changes you made to certain pages around Wikipedia. I took an interest in your edits after a change I noticed on the Cryptolaemus montrouzieri page where you had seemingly added valid information at first but then also changed "Araucaria cunninghamii" to "Araucaria cunnilingus" which to me is blatant vandalism.

I was expecting to see more of the same but I was frankly surprised that this was not the case, however - I did notice that you have a tendency to make completely arbitrary changes to pages when you feel that the proper scientific nomenclature is "unfamiliar" to you or what you deem to be "jargon".

This is not proper and I suggest you refrain from doing this kind of editing in future.

If you feel like I was mistaken, feel free to hit me up on my talk page.

Sincerely, MeadeIndeed (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MeadeIndeed:What vandalism are you referring to? Can you link the article version?

For the jargon, I usually just try to go by the style guidelines in Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable.

"In general, the lead should not assume that the reader is well acquainted with the subject of the article. Terminology in the lead section should be understandable on sight to general readers whenever this can be done in a way that still adequately summarizes the article, and should not depend on a link to another article.

"Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used. In addition, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed).

"If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms. Substitute technical terms with common terms where they are completely equivalent."

Fredlesaltique (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]