User talk:Scribe252

April 2021
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! BriefEdits (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please add an edit summary for each committed edit. It makes verification much easier for other editors. — BriefEdits (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello BreifEdits, Scribe252 here. Thanks for the suggestion. I will try to include summaries, but I have the habit of making a lot of small changes, which makes annotating all of them difficult. There are a lot of articles from San Francisco Chronicle, and other publications like The Atlantic, which I will be happy to cite here, but I do not seem to have the ability to add references.

Hi Scribe252, I appreciate the feedback. Regarding what is correct to write in a lead section, I used the Wikpedia manual of style regarding lead sections as a guide. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section

It says among other things:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

My edits in the lead section improved the article such that the reader can better understand the entire article in a nutshell just by reading the lead section alone. Thus the remark made that the lead section seems not to add much new information but instead summarizes the article, was intentional when I made the edit.

Regards, 2601:645:C001:4A40:5992:7D2B:8961:A48D (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Scribe252, In addition, 2601:645:C001:4A40:5992:7D2B:8961:A48D (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC) here, to address BriefEdits and others regarding using NPOV. I've taken great care in choosing the right words for Biographies of living persons that only take a neutral point of view when adding to the Alison Collins article. The addition I made to Alison Collins article today summarizes the article and also uses neutral information taken from several news sources already cited in the article. I created value for the reader of the article by making the lead section readable enough so that the reader can understand the "nutshell" of the article by reading the lead section alone. I have reviewed what Wikipedia instructs editors specifically from these two wiki pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section I find the claim BriefEdits and Scribe252 are making dubious regarding NPOV because the information is cited in great detail from several news sources already listed in the references section of the article. Sincerely, 2601:645:C001:4A40:5992:7D2B:8961:A48D (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
FDW777 (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited San Francisco Board of Education, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francisco Sanchez. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@DPL bot, I don't think that I put that link, or at least did not mean to. I will make the correction.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)