User talk:Rynoip
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Rynoip! I noticed your contributions to Melbourne Fashion Festival and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Grumpylawnchair (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Lightsaber have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Lightsaber was changed by Rynoip (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951289 on 2024-01-16T01:10:36+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Edit summaries
[edit]It is more important that your wp:EDITSUMMARY tell us why you did something rather than what you did. If you fixed some grammar or phrasing while you were there, well that doesn't matter. The edit summary you left at Star, Added clarity and conciseness by reducing wordiness for directness and improved flow by logical progression by placing "noted for its asymmetrical appearance" at the end emphasising the feature
has too much almost snarky commentary. If you compare the original
- The asymmetrical appearance of Mira, an oscillating variable star, is an asymptotic giant branch star, a red giant nearing the end of its life
with your
- Mira, an oscillating variable star on the asymptotic giant branch, is a red giant nearing the end of its life, noted for its asymmetrical appearance.
(given the context is "variable stars") I would have written something like Rephrased to emphasise that Mira is an archetypal variable star with an asymmetric appearance. (Rather than that the asymmetric appearance is an asymptotic giant branch star.
But then again my edit would have said
- Mira, an oscillating variable star with an asymmetrical appearance, is an asymptotic giant branch star, a red giant nearing the end of its life
but we can over-analyse these thing to death. The key point I wanted to get across is the summary should say "why" rather than "what". Does that help? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes! Thanks for the help you gave. I'll change and note this advice in the future when editing. Rynoip (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I didn’t mean to be sarcastic or snarky at all with the edit summary. Apologies for the confusion. Rynoip (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't detect any sarcasm and I hope my explanation didn't come across as negative either. We've all learned by bumping into things.
- While I think of it, the edit summary can be inadequate when you need to do a substantial edit. So it is best to just say "see talk page" and write a longer explanation at the article talk page. Though sometimes it can save a lot of wasted work if you propose significant changes at the talk page first then give it a week for reactions: silence signifies assent. (Although you are encouraged to WP:BEBOLD, sometimes "discretion is the greater part of valour".) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying, and no worries—your explanation didn’t come across as negative at all. I appreciate the advice on handling substantial edits; the suggestion to use the talk page for detailed explanations and to gauge reactions beforehand is very helpful. I’ll keep WP:BEBOLD in mind while balancing it with discretion when editing. Rynoip (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)