User talk:Lewis150

Falsely marking edits as "minor"

Hi Lewis150! I noticed that you recently marked a large number of edit as minor at Spanish Civil War, Vox (political party), Francisco Franco, Pacific Justice Institute, and several other article that were not "minor" according to our definition. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia –– it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Is there a way for me to retroactively add descriptions of my edits? Lewis150 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no. Just take the advice going forward. And note that adding edit summaries is different from marking edits as "minor". Just make sure to only mark an edit as minor if you're correcting a basic spelling, grammar or formatting error. Anything that changes the meaning of a statement at all is not minor. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any problem with me adding similar edits to these pages if I provide the proper edit summary? Also, do I need to provide an edit summary for every edit? Or was my problem just clicking the minor edit button? Lewis150 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are strongly suggested because they help other editors understand what you're thinking. See WP:ES for more. I did see some other problems with your edits as noted in my own edit summaries when reverting. Indeed, I would never revert someone just because they'd incorrectly marked their edit as "minor". In general there does appear to be a political slant to your edits –– which is fine so long as you comport with our behavioral guidelines. For more on those, see especially WP:CIVIL and WP:TE. Note that I do not think you've crossed the line into TE, but you should be aware that it exists. If you have further questions I'd suggest taking them to WP:TEAHOUSE, which is a friendly forum for new editors. Happy editing, Generalrelative (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]