User talk:Ghost writer's cat

Hello Ghost writer's cat! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: Jacqueline Susann

Hello. I see that you did some editing on the Jacqueline Susann article. I did a little cleanup (mostly on punctuation), but also noted one phrase that needs to be sourced.

In the "Career" section, it describes

"the Broadway company of The Women, the caustic comedy by Clare Boothe".

I added the tag [attribution needed] because "caustic" in an opinion? So, by whom? (At least the words needs quotes: or could be changed to read "comedy of errors", as in the article for The Women (play).)

Didn't know if you would be interested in fixing, but I'm not so familiar, so I thought I'd send a note. Hope you are well, — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 14:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was able to find a source after all, so I added the attribution myself. Sorry for the bother. Be well. — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 17:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I couldn't have been of any help anyway because I didn't write that-- I'd only done a little cleanup myself. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Which and That

I agree "that" is preferable, but it's not more correct than "which". It's a matter of style, preference, fashion, etc.. that (or which) has not reached conclusive consensus. -- GreenC 18:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point. I'd disagree that "that" is preferable, rather that it's required in some instances by the intended meaning. (There was at least one case in this article where I left the "which", but added the missing preceding comma.) I think people think it sounds more erudite, sort of like the misuse of "I" in a compound direct object. I've noticed the British use "which" consistently, regardless of the application. But in North American English, "that" and "which" have two entirely different uses. For now, when articles have been written in British English, I try to leave the "which"; when they're in NA English, I make the correction. I have been meaning to investigate whether the British habitual use of "which" is considered correct, or whether it's an error that has proliferated and really should be corrected. Distinguishing between the two provides clarification to the reader, while interchanging the two has no upside. Let me know if you have further thoughts. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)