User talk:KiSming Sparrow
Welcome!
[edit]
Hello, KiSming Sparrow, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Atlantic306 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
A belated apology, and welcome
[edit]I meant to post this yesterday, but I noticed you didn't actually have a talk page yet, and didn't want to interfere with the normal talk page creation and welcoming process. I'd like to apologize for the terseness of my note on your replacement of "at" with "in" to refer to specific locations. One of our policies at Wikipedia (paraphrased) is "don't bite the new people", and I probably came off snarling and foaming at the mouth!
You just happened to hit me in a sore spot: there is absolutely nothing wrong with using "at" with the name of a specific place, such as a city or town, and in this instance it is more correct than "in", since unlike "in", "at" does not imply a physical relationship to the boundaries of the place (inside, within the walls of the town). Until recently, "at" was the standard preposition in these circumstances, but for reasons that I have yet to understand, "in" has become more common, even in situations where it is clearly less appropriate. That does not make it the better—much less the only appropriate—alternative, but for some reason editors who are unfamiliar with the older formulation seem to think that it is some kind of mistake, and replace it without regard for the change in meaning that the replacement creates. I like to think that I write very carefully, at least in article text, so I don't like it when perfectly good English is "corrected" with something that is no more "correct", and indeed may be less so when it changes the meaning of what I wrote to something that I did not intend to say.
Be that as it may, welcome to Wikipedia, and don't let the occasional grouchiness of editors like me get you down. Most of us will happily overlook the occasional head-butting when we see someone working to improve things behind the scenes. P Aculeius (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Spicy (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)