User talk:Ascelyn

Welcome!

Hi Ascelyn! I noticed your contributions to Donna Chambers 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Wracking ^💬 05:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing refs

Hi, I reverted your changes at Donna Chambers as they were not properly formatted (see final result) and you ended up removing some references. There are several ways you can prevent this from happening in the future, such as using VisualEditor (easiest!) or previews. Wracking ^💬 05:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that!

Note that the "removed" sources were duplicates - 4, 5, and 9 (in current version) are identical, while 1 and 3 are the same except page number (oops, missed that!). I will keep 1 & 3 separate. Ascelyn (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and again, welcome to Wikipedia :] Wracking ^💬 05:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello, Ascelyn,

Three days after you started editing, you were PRODding articles and you have jumped into AFD discussions even though you have only 30 edits to your account. What account(s) did you previously edit with? This is very unusual behavior for an account that is just a couple weeks old so I thought I'd ask. Even most editors who acquired experienced as IP editors don't know about Proposed deletions, much less tagging the article appropriately. Thanks for any information you can provide.

I was going to ask you to steer clear of contributing to deletion discussions until you were more familiar with Wikipedia's policies about notability and appropriate sourcing but I have the feeling you already acquired that with a previous account(s). Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz,

Apologies for responding to this almost a year later, it was very easy to ignore this as I haven't been editing. I have not edited under previous accounts nor as an IP—I've just spent a lot of time reading non-article pages because I found the workings of the project interesting. Your advice to steer clear of deletion discussions until I have more familiarity with the policies is well-taken. Ascelyn (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Pasteurization of France has been accepted

The Pasteurization of France, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome again!

It looks like it's been a while since you edited Wikipedia, but I wanted to welcome you back after seeing your work on The Pasteurization of France, which is helpful in filling in the gaps of our coverage of Latour's books! It's not an easy article to tackle but it was well done. It might be possible to condense the book summary a little bit more, but you've done a good job of compressing Latour down, which is no easy feat. Thanks again, and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing my submission and the helpful feedback: I'll see if I can tighten down the summary of guerre et paix based on what the review articles are focusing on. Looking forward to making more contributions in this area. Ascelyn (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]