User talk:BeBoldInEdits

Old Norvicensians
Please note that I intend to revert you good faith edit as it does not reflect common practice on Wikipedia. See Gresham's School, List of Old Greshamians, Eton College, etc. Regards, DiverScout (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Civility
One of the premises of editing has nothing to do with copy-editing, but with the tenet of WP:CIVIL. Please take note of that. You may also wish to join WP:AVIATION as a good place to make contact with other editors interested in aviation history. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

Major revisions
In making major revisions, your current use of talk pages and seeking consensus is commendable, however, a consensus is not always necessary. If changes are not drastic or involve sections that have been in place for a lengthy period and consequently been reviewed and accepted, please feel free to make these changes. Please note that BRD applies, especially if major edits are taking place. Be doubly careful not to remove cited, "long-term" passages. Seek opinion first. FWiW, you also need to start providing authoritative, verifiable information to replace text you are deleting. Bzuk (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Consolidating similar information is a good approach and if there are three citations, they can either be consolidated or one citation placed at the end of a passage can suffice, as overlinking is also not recommended. The first reversion seemed to be based on removing an entire section that was sourced. Sometimes doing that removes a Harvard citation notation or a full bibliographic notation which leaves the aforementioned or related section as unattributed. BBIE, please consider all my actions as "friendly" as I would welcome another editor in the aviation project and you certainly have in very short order, sharpened and focused an awareness relating to many articles that may have become a bit "stale". A new set of eyes often does that, and since I have over 3,000 articles at present on my watch list, invariably some of your recent edits did make an impact. FWiW, none of that is necessarily bad, but as I indicated once before, there is a need for replacement of a cited statement with another that is also reliably sourced. (copied from a related talk page) Bzuk (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

On crusades
Don't overreact about the notion of being characterized as being on a crusade, as there is nothing wrong with acting as a crusader (as many other editors will quickly point out is the proper accolade regarding my edits). A critical aspect of the WikyWacky world in which we inhabit, is an abiding interest in "setting the record straight." That was one of the primal reasons behind creating an online, dynamic encyclopedia that could be edited by thousands if not millions of individuals, each sharing their expertise and backgrounds. FWiW, let me give you "props" (ala Randy Jackson of American Idol fame [or infamy]) for sticking it out despite the whacks that I and others have given to your editing efforts. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, I find your observations often correct but there have been occasions when there is a leap in logic that is not always corroborated by facts, that old bugaboo about verification and reliability. Please do consider joining WP:AVIATION. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

Welcome to ARS!
{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; " align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
 * colspan="2" |

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

Criticism of FDA
Hilarious. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Content


 * News items and announcements
 * Contest


 * Featured editor: Teeninvestor
 * Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers


 * Want ads
 * Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)