User talk:Bowyer Bob

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! RipplingRiver (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I didn’t realise it was quite that important. I’ll make sure to add summaries from now on. Just to check - if I’m editing a page with lots of small copyediting issues, is it acceptable to leave one overall note saying the edits on that page are all copyedits, or do I need to write out a separate summary for each change? Bowyer Bob (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's fine, just so you let other editors know what you are doing. For that sort of thing, your edit summary could just be "minor copy edits" or "minor copyedits". If it's something more substantive or substantial or that might be questioned or challenged, it should be spelled out -- for example "changed birth year per most online sources". You can also look at experienced editors' edit summaries and see the sort of thing they write. Happy editing! RipplingRiver (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Will do. Thanks for the explanations, examples and recommendations! Bowyer Bob (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Criticize. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Artificial neuron, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Criticize (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed you added the promotional tone tag to the article on Tim Lewis (artist), which I created today. As you did not leave any explanation in the edit summary, I wanted to ask if there are specific passages you think are promotional. For your awareness, the article concerns a deceased artist with whom I have no personal or professional connection, whose commercial studio is now defunct. I have reviewed the article and made some small wording adjustments in order to ensure that the tone us neutral, but if there are particular sections that concern you I'd be happy to consider how these might be improved. Thanks. Ojwelch (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have responded on the article talk page. Let me know here if you have any comments, constructive criticism is always welcome. Bowyer Bob (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response, it is much appreciated and I have specifically sort to address your comments both in the Tim Lewis (artist) article itself and on its corresponding talk page. I hope that the changes I have made today address your specific concerns and have helped to improve the overall quality of the article in question.

As an experienced editor, you will know that good practice on Wikipedia is to provide descriptive reasoning and justification when making edits or adding tags so that other editors understand the concern being raised. It would have been helpful if you had explained your reasoning more clearly at the outset, which is precisely the purpose of the article’s talk page — to allow editors to outline concerns and discuss possible improvements collaboratively.

In that context, your comment in reply that you “…did not give an explanation because the issue was so evident to me” feels both dismissive and uncollaborative, though I am sure that was not your intention. In general, what may appear obvious to one editor may not be so to others, particularly when questions of tone depend heavily on context and sourcing. In this instance, providing a brief explanation of the concern would have helped me to engage with your point constructively from the outset and avoid misunderstandings about the intent of the tag.

I hope this is helpful and I welcome your evidently forensic and analytical approach to reviewing, which is no doubt serving to improve all of the articles you engage with, including this one. Ojwelch (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Ojwelch Well then, I can only sheepishly thank you. I make efforts to add summaries describing what I did, and until now I usually justified edits only when they could be seen as bold (like deleting information), and not when I added anything that is easily removed, but I see how what I did was problematic.

As you kindly and correctly assume, I wasn't meaning to be dismissive and uncollaborative, I was just exhibiting my inexperience. From what I see, many new articles could use some improvement, when I feel I can do it myself I certainly try to, and when I feel like it's not my place or if it's beyond my expertise I tag it for others. "That it was so evident to me" was explaining why I added the tag, as the language seemed non-neutral to me (subjectively, emphasis on "me"), and so future editors who saw the tag would correct and improve it if they agreed, or just ignore it (as I often do) if they didn't. I didn't think much of it because so many new articles need tags, and on the other hand language tags that I see are so often a matter of opinion, giving me the impression that they are of minor importance. The tag wasn't meant in any way to claim the article was objectively faulty.

I was also a little troubled by being publicly accused of "Drive-by tagging", which I understood to mean tagging that had been done without any thought or reasoning (that was until I learned that it's an actual Wikipedia term meaning something else, no need to explain or apologise) and I'm afraid it also came out in my tone.

Sorry for the misunderstandings and thanks for your truly positive and constructive approach. And although I try to avoid making them, I realise mistakes are a way to learn, so thanks for pointing them out so gently and for calmly helping me correct them. Bowyer Bob (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply