User talk:Johngalt288

Welcome!

 * }

Reply to me
Just click on the word "talk" following my userid, and you will go to my talk page. Then click on "new section" and you can create a reply to me. Incidentally, I create many welcome greetings, and you are the first in many months to answer at all. Please feel welcome, and go ahead and reply on my talk page, if only for the practice. Oh, Happy New Year! --DThomsen8 (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Outline of Wikipedia
Let me suggest Outline of Wikipedia as a starting point for learning about Wikipedia, and especially the books listed there. Wikipedia – The Missing Manual is available here and being expanded by editors, and of course available on paper and I would expect as an ebook on Nook and Kindle.

You should see a notice that this message is here when you log on. I suspect you missed my message following the welcome because I put both up together.

Of course you can sign messages on talk pages whatever way you like, and beyond that, you can put whatever you like about yourself on your user page, which right now is virgin space. You should look at a lot of user pages before you decide what you want to put on yours. Some veterans have a lot of material, and others just a little bit, even when they have thousands of edits.

I have responded here for your convenience in following up on my suggestions, but I have also left a message on my talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Stefan Zweig
Hi there. I hope you don't mind but I've reverted your changes at Stefan Zweig. It seemed to me that your "punctuation corrections" were not really corrections but a change of style from British (etc) to American English punctuation style. If you have a look at WP:ENGVAR you'll see that this is frowned upon, at least without consensus being reached first. I think it would be wise for you to go very cautiously on this as ENGVAR matters tend to get people pretty hot under the collar round here! :) I've also reverted your text changes. I was initially intending to preserve them (which is why the edit summary is misleading and was corrected with a dummy edit) but then I realized that you appeared to have "corrected" material which was quoted from Time. Obviously, we don't do that, so I wondered if you knew that it was misquoted and you really were correcting it? If so, this could probably have done with a comment to avoid misunderstanding. Hope this helps. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. thank you for the lovely message, but please don't apologize, or feel you shouldn't edit certain things, or anything like that - no-one "owns" anything around here! Indeed there is a whole policy on this. So with something like this it's more about the general style, or perhaps the location etc, rather than something specific you should look for. Certainly, you can click "history" on a page, and perhaps have a look at its Talk page, and that will help give you a flavour (or flavor!) of what's been going on there, but you will look in vain for a page's owner because it doesn't - or shouldn't! - have one. Some articles do have a tag about their variant of English but in others it's just intuition and evidence. If in doubt you could open a new topic on the talk page and propose a change and see what kind of reaction you got. Also, there's nothing wrong with being reverted - there's a whole thing also about being Bold, getting Reverted, Discussing it - also perfectly healthy as long as no-one gets upset. (And thank you so much for not doing so!) The corrections you made would no doubt be correct in a wholly AmE article about a wholly American subject, but you wouldn't want to try doing it in an article about, say, the Queen! Zweig is I guess somewhere in between - wow that's a complicated concept, I should probably stop... Hope this helps, with all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)