Luis Goslin

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Luis Goslin! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 23:05, Tuesday, May 31, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Columbidae

Hello, Luis Goslin – I'm glad you've created an account and have begun editing on Wikipedia. I would just like to tell you something in connection with this edit to Columbidae, in which you changed "which" to "that". First, I have to tell you that I agree completely with your edit. I grew up in the U.S., and in the U.S. we learn that "which" is used mainly with non-restrictive (containing extra, non-essential, non-identifying information) adjective clauses and "that" is used with restrictive (containing essential, limiting, identifying information) adjective clauses. However, since beginning editing on Wikipedia five years ago, I have come to learn that in British English, while that distinction is also true, "which" is acceptable for both non-restrictive and restrictive clauses. I have had extensive discussions trying to convince editors who speak British English that it makes more sense to use "that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for non-restrictive clauses, and that "which" is, in my view, often overused (since it is used for both types of clauses), but I could not make any headway. (Right now I cannot find the latest discussion; if I find it, I'll provide you with a link.) So, when I copy-edit articles (which is mainly what I do on Wikipedia), I may change a few "which's" to "that's", especially in an article that is written using American/U.S. English, but I would not change all "which's" to "that's" in an article written in British English because there is a greater likelihood of irritating British English speakers (who don't seem to use "that" very much). (You can tell whether an article is written in British English or some other variety of English several ways: 1) Look at the top of the article in edit mode, or at the top of the article's talk page in regular mode; sometimes there is a template message saying which variant of English to use. 2) Look for words like "colored/coloured", "favor/favour/favorite/favourite", "honor/honour", "organized/organised", etc.) I would like to suggest the following approach to you:

• If an article is written in American/U.S. English, feel free to change "which" to "that" for all restrictive clauses (as you did in the Columbidae article);

• if an article is written in British English, do not change "which" to "that" for restrictive clauses, or possibly just change a few (to introduce variety), but do not make these the only changes in your edit because that way they will stand out;

• if an article is written in Canadian, Australian, or Indian English, follow the guideline just above for British English;

• unless the article is written in American/U.S. English, avoid changing "which" to "that" for restrictive clauses (as you did in the Columbidae article) when that is the only edit because that way the edit stands out and is more likely to be noticed, and you are incurring a greater risk that you will annoy some editors and get into the kind of long discussions/arguments that I have seen. Just a suggestion. Happy editing!  – Corinne (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Corinne (talk · contribs), Thank you for your remark. I do admit to knowing that some people use "which" less strictly than I do. You teach me, however, that this is a British-US distinction. Since I am neither from the British Isles or the US, I am often unaware of these specificities. I was taught to use "which" with non-restrictive clauses, and I noticed that the rule was often not enforced. I would hate to irritate anyone, so I looked at the edit of the Columbidae that first included the "which", and seeing it was fairly recent, had not been contested yet, and was made by an unregistered user, I thought a correction was adequate. If anyone shows interest in the matter and reverts my edit, I will not argue. Your approach is probably more sensible, and I shall try to use it. Have a good day, Luis Goslin (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Your reasoning behind your edit at Columbidae was good, and I hope you haven't reverted your own edit (I haven't looked). I didn't know this was a Br.Eng./U.S.Eng difference until fairly recently; before that, I thought it was just sloppy writing and routinely changed "which" to "that" for restrictive clauses. I actually never had an issue with it until recently, and then got into the extended discussion. In that discussion (which I will try to find), some Br.Eng.-speaking editors agreed with making the distinction and some did not, so the usage is not uniform even among Br.Eng. speakers. So now, (kind of repeating what I said above), in articles written in Br.Eng., I avoid changing all instances of "which" being used for a restrictive clause (I'll change a few in a long article), and, in articles written in Br.Eng., I avoid making the change when it would be the only change in the edit. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Luis Goslin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Luis Goslin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)