User talk:Hammermann75

Please use edit summaries

Thank you for your edits to Unification of Germany. Can you please complete the WP:Edit summary, per Wikipedia:Editing policy § Be helpful: explain. Thanks! —GoldRingChip 12:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can you please use edit summaries? It's helpful when editors review your changes. Thanks! —GoldRingChip 16:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, only 17 of your ~330 non-minor article edits have used edit summaries. [1] You've only been here a week, so perhaps you're not familiar with Wikipedia's stance on using edit summaries. Help:Edit summary says:
An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page. Summaries help other editors by (a) providing a reason for the edit, (b) saving the time to open up the edit to find out what it's all about, and (c) providing information about the edit on diff pages and lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists).
The Wikipedia community strongly encourages editors to provide meaningful edit summaries. [emphasis added] To add a summary, type in the text entry field in the Edit summary box located near the bottom of the Editing page. ...
It is a good practice to provide a meaningful summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. In appropriate circumstances, a summary can be quite brief ("ce" ["copy edit"] and "rvv" ["revert vandalism"] for example).
Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted incorrectly, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was.

Please make an effort to provide an edit summary for every non-minor edit you make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited German reunification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French protectorate. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I've had to revert quite a few of your edits to various articles because they did not appear to me to be improvements. I think your judgment about when to change things -- especially images -- is not great at the moment, which is not surprising considering how new you are to Wikipedia.

I suggest that you slow down - almost 1,000 edits in a week's time is an awful lot. Take it easy think a little more about the changes you want to make, perhaps even discuss them on the article talk page before making them. As you get more familiar, you can pick up your pace a little, but for now, I suggest that you throttle back. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, your many, many edits to Unification of Germany are of concern. Please do not edit this article again without discussing your planned changes on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I accept your decision to undo in the pan-Germanism. Hammermann75 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same with German reunification. As a brand new editor, you really can't step into an article and make massive changes as you have been doing. Please discuss first. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to discuss your edits on article talk pages BEFORE you make them, because your judgment about what is and what isn't a good edit has not been very sharp. I would prefer not to get an administrator involved with this, but if you're unwilling to submit your edits on the talk page, I may have to do so. Please do not make any more edits with clearing them with other editors before hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So allow me to correct the timing on Saar Protectorate, please! Hammermann75 (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to read WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).

Please remember that as the person attempting to make a change to the article, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify the change, and to get a consensus if it is disputed; and again, please do not edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I will go to the discussion part of the article. Hammermann75 (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Talk:Saar Protectorate and make your case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did, thanks. Hammermann75 (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement on your user page

You wrote on your user page "After a while, I decided not to use this account to contribute to Wikipedia anymore..." I wanted to point out that using another account, or editing while logged, out as an IP, in order to avoid scrutiny of your edits, would be a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry and would probably result in your being blocked from editing. If you're planning on continue to edit Wikipedia, please use your current account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]