User talk:Caleb Beddes

Welcome!
Hi Caleb Beddes! 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! --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

Common era
I reverted your WP:good faith edit to Common Era because it had a few problems though most of it was valid: it was just easier to revert and reapply the good changes.

Fyi, a link introduced with WP: means Wikipedia internal article, not part of the encyclopedia. If you would like a better explanation for any or all of the above, (this is not my forte), please ask at the WP:teahouse. Once again, welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) You were correct to question "There are some secular concerns": in fact it made no sense since it introduced a straw-man religious concern. I have deleted the whole sentence.
 * 2) You were right to request citation for the claim that there was an anti-theistic reason for the Revolutionary Calendar's ten-day week. I have reinstated your request.
 * 3) You were wrong (because it is redundant) to write "not to be confused with the Nobel Prize winner", since (a) the author is identified as the linguist and more importantly, that is the job of hyperlinks to WP: disambiguate.
 * 4) You were wrong to write some material beginning "it should be noted". This is a Wikipedia principle of being an encyclopedia and not telling readers what they should think. Of course you wouldn't have known this. I'm afraid I don't recall where in the Manual of Style this is written.

Wikipedia:Piped link
Fyi, you don't need to deal with the initial capital letter of an article name when you want to use it mid-sentence in lower case. The system takes care of it. See Piped link. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks. Its nice that I don't need to deal with init caps. Thanks for the feedback on redundancy and writing style. I agree that deleting the opening sentence was a better option, and I'm always cool with concision so long as it does not remove too much context. Caleb Beddes (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Another trick to request a citation is to use cn and "the system" will oblige by filling in the boring detail.
 * Anyway, coming back to your "it should be noted", can you rephrase it as an (encyclopediac) statement of fact, supported by citation? I'm afraid I didn't study it, so your decision on whether it is still required. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)