User talk:Updatewithfacts

Welcome!

This is Updatewithfacts's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Hi Updatewithfacts! I noticed your contributions 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! CapitalSasha ~ talk 00:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Your Edit summaries tend toward lengthy. See Help:Edit summaries for guidelines, including "An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page." And while comments on article and editor Talk pages are not length-restricted, a wall of text can be off-putting to Teahouse hosts and other editors. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD I was trying to limit my edit summaries and I did well to explain my reasoning. I also made an explanation in your talk page and I can tell by your response that while you explained the need for edit summaries to be short, if we can both be honest you didn't answer/reply to my comments. Part of the reason I was excited to be an editor on Wikipedia was to have an open dialogue where everyone is heard and people's concerns, research, etc. are thoroughly and properly addressed. If I am going to be ignored repeatedly, I think I will just go and help out on another encyclopedia. Updatewithfacts (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gravel Institute

Please note that you are at WP:3RR on the Gravel Institute. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, thank you for letting me know that I am on a warning. I haven't been given one so I was unsure. I also appreciate letting me know that the warning is from the Gravel Institute. I read the WP:3RR page and letting me know that it applies specifically applies to the Gravel Institute means I am not barred from editing or working on other articles. I have not made any additional edits on The Gravel Institute for a period of time and I see that it is typically for roughly 24 hours. Part of the reason I have not made any reverts has been due to the fact that no one has unjustly made any corrections to the section I made without a proper respectful explanation. If a previous editor made changes but apologized for their behavior, I would take that in good faith and allow any needed changes to happen.

Anyways, thank you for letting me know. P.S:I did not see you talk about my review of my article on Red Eagle Politics. Please feel free to message me on my talk page or Red Eagle Politics so that I know in depth what I can do to make needed changes and where I was correct/factual in my article :) Updatewithfacts (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updatewithfacts, No problem! I just hate seeing a new editor getting blocked over violating a common rule. By the way, if you want to ping another editor, the best way to do that is either by using {{u|username}} or {{re|username}} Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Red Eagle Politics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Red Eagle Politics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Eagle Politics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spicy (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy Thanks for letting me know about the nomination. I was going to respond back sooner but I was having some trouble learning how to type in the code correctly so that it shows up as a response, sort of? It was weird. Anyway, thanks for letting me know :) Updatewithfacts (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary conventions

Just some general tips for shortening edit summaries. You can save full sentence/multi sentence explanaations of changes for the talk page if they've been reverted once or twice. Here's what I would have put for some of your recent changes.

"added a blue link for CBS17/WNCN" -> "CBS17"
Fixed an error with 2 links and included an interview Chris Ramsay gave to a magazine to help with the notability template." -> "fixed links, added ref"
"included a link to a place of interest; the Chateau de Touffou has an existing page and felt this would add needed volume to this page :)" -> "/*Place of Interest*/ new section"
"Polished up the plot summary by removing a redundant mention of the plot" -> "removed malformed template"
"placed him in its proper alphabetical list" -> "alphabetiz/sed"

Bogger (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogger: Thanks for letting me know about these; it helps to know shorthand and other ways to slim down some of my explanations. I will probably still give lengthy explanations now and then when they are a bit out in left field, but these are a GREAT help! :) PS: Hope the links I gave for Wes so far helped; I will look for some more if you need and please let me know if there are any other pages/drafts you'd like some assistance with :) Updatewithfacts (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]