Hello, I'm
Bigeshjen. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
Bigeshjen (
talk) 16:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! Can I ask in what way? I am new at editing and would like to make sure all my contributions are appropriate. Natasha862 ( talk) 16:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Natasha862, I'm not sure why Bigeshjen didn't think your edit was constructive. I have restored it. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- bonadea contributions talk 05:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Addition to the above: as I say, I think your modifications were fine, but there can be a risk of plot summaries getting too long and detailed. There is a rule of thumb in Wikipedia's manual of style for novels saying that plot summaries should ideally be 400-700 words long. The plot summary is still within that range and I think the few details you added are relevant to the work – and, importantly, they are covered by the sources. At least, I didn't check everything you added in detail, but I did look at some changes you made to sentences that already had a footnote. (It is not always obvious to new editors that adding new info that is known to be true, in sentences that have a source, implies that the new details are also covered by that source).
- Oh, and another thing – if you look at the article A Wizard of Earthsea you'll see that there is a gold star in the top-right corner, which means that it is a featured article, one of the best articles on Wikipedia. That means that there's a lot of editors who have worked on it, and if you want to make more substantial changes you should probably start a discussion on the article talk page ( Talk:A Wizard of Earthsea) first, or at the very least check the talk page to see what has been discussed before. I don't think there is any reason for you to do that for the plot additions you made, but if someone should revert them again, please do bring it up on the article talk page.
- So this is really just a heads-up for the future. Wikipedia has a myriad guidelines and I don't think anybody can possibly know them all. A good place to ask for help if you run into difficulties with editing is the
Wikipedia Teahouse, which is populated by friendly experienced editors who usually respond to questions pretty quickly. (Feel free to post to my talk page as well, though I'm not always very good at responding quickly...) I hope you decide to stick around! --
bonadea
contributions
talk 09:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the further clarifications! I was so confused since I had just read the book and saw wrong/left out details in the summary. I will keep what you said in mind if I edit anymore novel pages. Natasha862 ( talk) 14:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
|
Hi Natasha862! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
... because it's not my intent (at all) to discourage you, but you should know what you're up against. Start at Talk:Grigori_Rasputin/Archive_6#Discursive,_overgrown and read down the page from there. E Eng 21:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. Taksen seems very passionate!
- As of now, I've been little more than copyediting the article. So I suppose we shall see if any major disputes occur. Natasha862 ( talk) 09:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Bigeshjen. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
Bigeshjen (
talk) 16:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! Can I ask in what way? I am new at editing and would like to make sure all my contributions are appropriate. Natasha862 ( talk) 16:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Natasha862, I'm not sure why Bigeshjen didn't think your edit was constructive. I have restored it. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- bonadea contributions talk 05:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Addition to the above: as I say, I think your modifications were fine, but there can be a risk of plot summaries getting too long and detailed. There is a rule of thumb in Wikipedia's manual of style for novels saying that plot summaries should ideally be 400-700 words long. The plot summary is still within that range and I think the few details you added are relevant to the work – and, importantly, they are covered by the sources. At least, I didn't check everything you added in detail, but I did look at some changes you made to sentences that already had a footnote. (It is not always obvious to new editors that adding new info that is known to be true, in sentences that have a source, implies that the new details are also covered by that source).
- Oh, and another thing – if you look at the article A Wizard of Earthsea you'll see that there is a gold star in the top-right corner, which means that it is a featured article, one of the best articles on Wikipedia. That means that there's a lot of editors who have worked on it, and if you want to make more substantial changes you should probably start a discussion on the article talk page ( Talk:A Wizard of Earthsea) first, or at the very least check the talk page to see what has been discussed before. I don't think there is any reason for you to do that for the plot additions you made, but if someone should revert them again, please do bring it up on the article talk page.
- So this is really just a heads-up for the future. Wikipedia has a myriad guidelines and I don't think anybody can possibly know them all. A good place to ask for help if you run into difficulties with editing is the
Wikipedia Teahouse, which is populated by friendly experienced editors who usually respond to questions pretty quickly. (Feel free to post to my talk page as well, though I'm not always very good at responding quickly...) I hope you decide to stick around! --
bonadea
contributions
talk 09:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the further clarifications! I was so confused since I had just read the book and saw wrong/left out details in the summary. I will keep what you said in mind if I edit anymore novel pages. Natasha862 ( talk) 14:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
|
|
Hi Natasha862! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
... because it's not my intent (at all) to discourage you, but you should know what you're up against. Start at Talk:Grigori_Rasputin/Archive_6#Discursive,_overgrown and read down the page from there. E Eng 21:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. Taksen seems very passionate!
- As of now, I've been little more than copyediting the article. So I suppose we shall see if any major disputes occur. Natasha862 ( talk) 09:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)