Jump to content

User talk:Wafflewombat/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Wafflewombat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.



Why can't I edit some particular pages?
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?
Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.
How do I create an article?
See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.
How do I create citations?
  1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
  2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
  3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
  4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
  5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
  6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
  7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

January 2024

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Mia Khalifa, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It won't happen again. I have a question, however. If a talk page topic is many years old, or if the discussion has been completely resolved and there is no more need for it, is there a way to archive it? I've been searching around and I can't figure out how to archive parts of talk pages. I did find one page on Wikipedia that said archiving is a legitimate practice when talk pages become massively long and difficult to navigate, or when discussions have become stale and/or irrelevant, so my impression is that archiving is both possible and not frowned upon, but I can't figure out how to do it. Any help you can give would be appreciated. Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are we allowed to edit or remove our own material on talk pages? I noticed that you reverted some edits I made to my own comments, and also that you completely removed one of my comments. Could you please clarify this? Thanks again. Wafflewombat (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm SomeoneIguess. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gladiator (2000 film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Someone, i guess(talk i guess|le edit list) 23:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I provided clear reasons for my edits, but I apologize if this was not the case. I will make the edits again, this time providing a more detailed explanation. Wafflewombat (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being on the lookout for damaging edits! Wafflewombat (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Gladiator (2000 film)

[edit]

The article Gladiator (2000 film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gladiator (2000 film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Wafflewombat. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Serena Williams—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ~~~~

Good article reassessment for Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace

[edit]

Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

(I'm posting this message for you because of your clear interest in Star Wars. The article has issues with citation needed tags and overly long quotations, which I'm sure you'd be able to help out with (the latter at least). If not you can remove this message). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. I'm not sure how this process works. Are you saying I could help by identifying problems, or by solving them? Wafflewombat (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So basically GAR is for articles that are currently GA's but for some reason or another no longer meet the GA criteria. The process is for attempting to keep the article at GA by resolving issues brought up. In this instance, the article was promoted in 2009 and has since encountered numerous [citation needed] tags, as well as the use of too many quotations (see Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace#Critical reassessment). I notified you because you helped clean up Star Wars (film) so I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping solve the article's issues here? If you're not interested it's no biggie! It'll just be delisted because it doesn't pass the GA criteria atm. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I started adding a few sources to the cast section but it's likely the article will be delisted. Almost every cast member listed in prose is unsourced and I certainly don't have the energy (or time) to try to find sources for every one. Nevertheless, the article still needs work so if you want to help out go for it, but again it's no big deal. I don't want you to feel defeated if you put in multiple days of work only for it to still be delisted. Again, up to you if you want to help out. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I probably won't have time to put in the work required to keep it from being delisted, but I'm glad you notified me of the issues. Maybe in the future I'll be able to work on the page. Wafflewombat (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Darth Vader, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Clone Wars and Galactic Empire. 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) 06:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Wafflewombat! Your additions to Yoda have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

I see you clear your talkpage now and then, that's fine per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Personal_talk_page_cleanup. However, you may want to consider Help:Archiving (plain and simple) instead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ease off excessive Darth Vader editing

[edit]

First, thanks for putting a lot of time and effort into the Darth Vader article, which has improved it in many ways. However, you've made 360 edits in 66 days, which is excessive considering the (relatively very good) state the article was originally in. Edits can be grouped together (otherwise you risk others not bothering to read through what you've done and just reverting the last load, happens here). Many edits appear to be just you rephrasing it to the way you like to read it, effectively toying with it. Also, edits from others are getting kind of 'post-edit approval' changes from yourself. It can get tempting for some editors to unconsciously see themself as the 'gatekeeper' of an article. The strength of WP is obviously in communal reading and improvement from different viewpoints.

Not knowing you, my presumption is naturally that you're well-intentioned, and you've clearly put a lot of time in to do many good things for the article. However, it would now benefit from being left relatively static as others (well beyond just me) cannot assess a moving target. Thanks.

(Please do not 'blank page' on this for some time, other people may wish to comment in the future.) ToaneeM (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. There are two lines from your message that stood out to me:
  1. Many edits appear to be just you rephrasing it to the way you like to read it, effectively toying with it.
  2. Also, edits from others are getting kind of 'post-edit approval' changes from yourself.
Can you please give examples of edits that fit in these categories? I would like to understand your feelings on this matter (and I would like to become a better editor), but as of now I don't know what you're referring to.
As far as I'm concerned, the article can remain relatively static now. I don't have any more substantial edits in mind for it. Wafflewombat (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your friendly and receptive reply. I think both of my recent edits are in these categories. I noticed it as I went along as I'd looked at many of your edits over the weeks but I didn't keep a list. (I try to leave off on things until a pattern's emerged long enough to be reliable, to me at least, rather than leaping in early.) However, beyond that I'd have to sift through them and there's a lot of edits to go through, which unfortunately time stops me doing. You're better off taking a look for yourself, at some where you've edited after another had, and it could well be fewer than I'd recollect and I shouldn't have used 'many' but 'some', or maybe not. As an aside, these things are easy traps for any of us to drift into. (That statement has ironic overtones in an article on TDSOTF :-) ) I reiterate though that I'm sure what you're doing is well-intentioned and the article has definitely benefited. ToaneeM (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your cordial reply. I will be attentive to my pattern of making "follow up" edits, and I will ensure that if I do make them, that none of them are fiddly and they are all necessary.
I have been on the receiving end of a ferocious "gatekeeper", and I would hate to be that type of editor! I will be careful not to drift any further in that direction.
I also appreciate that you recognize the benefits I've provided to the page. Thank you for your kind words. It's a bit strange making hundreds of edits and hearing barely a peep of feedback from anyone, either positive or negative. Not only on this page, but others as well. I assume people are watching the pages, but I never hear from them. Not a terrible thing, and I do feel that my work has been beneficial, but it's nice to get some feedback and recognition now and again! Wafflewombat (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented at Princess Leia and a little at Darth Vader. I am not a fan of the drastic edits you have made to these articles, especially since you have gone against some pretty basic guidelines. What is your basis for judging article content and quality? Star Wars articles don't seem to be highly watched at the moment, but I would expect some eventual pushback.— TAnthonyTalk 20:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I understand your view and am completely willing to listen, engage in dialogue, and revert edits. You may have noticed that I've made some similar edits to other Star Wars character pages. Please do not restore those pages until we can talk. If the main issue is the removal of the Appearances section and creation of the Fictional biography section, it's an easy fix to restore the former and remove the latter. But the vast majority of my time has been spent on other aspects of those articles. Please don't revert my many hours of work on the other parts of the articles without careful review. Also, please understand that I am well-intentioned, love Wikipedia, and am trying to make it the best it can be. There are reasons I've done the things I've done, and hopefully you're willing to listen. From your point of view, it seems I've "slashed" an article, but there is more to it than that. I understand that I may have made mistakes in how I've written about fictional characters, but I'm willing to learn and change how I do it. I'm 100% willing to cooperate with you and come to conclusions about what is best for these pages. I would just feel very upset if my many constructive changes were removed in an attempt to fix other mistakes. Wafflewombat (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I replied at Talk:Princess Leia and am not planning to revert all the articles as yet. I do believe you're well-intentioned, but keep in mind that as much as you want the community to respect the time you've put in, you should have respected the time others put in before you. I'm honestly stunned that as a seemingly new-ish editor you were comfortable with such drastic changes. But I appreciate boldness in general, so I am interested in discussing these issues with you.— TAnthonyTalk 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ToaneeM, I just wanted to send you a quick note to see if you've been following the critiques that TAnthony has made about my editing. They pointed out that some of the major edits are very problematic, and I've pledged to fix my mistakes. I feel really terrible about the fact that I apparently damaged pages in an attempt to improve them. I was going to revert a major change to Darth Vader, which was the creation of the Fictional Biography section in favor of the Appearances section. I am now aware that this was not a wise change. I just wanted to run this by you, since you've been concerned about my high level of editing, and this would constitute another major edit (even though it's a revert). Wafflewombat (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks for seeking a discussion while deciding your best way forward, it's great to see and the site needs more of it.) First off, I don't think the article needed anywhere near so much change as it was already a good article. And what was there was the work put in by other editors. That said, those people are able to monitor your changes and comment. But that's made very difficult when they were done in so many little edits (370-odd now) instead of major edits. I'm afraid it's difficult to quickly appraise your changes; looking at them in a 'then and now' comparison (to the article before you started) shows so much. Secondly, I think it's tempting for some to rewrite a subject into one's own pov when one feels very knowledgeable on it - we feel like we're doing people a decent favour. But so many little edits leave it impossible not to conclude that there's excessive fine-tuning in there (what I previously called 'toying with it'). I believe keeping it to fewer larger edits makes one invest more judgement in what they put in and don't. (You'll see some editors here use lots of little edits instead of a single one to try and make changes more 'revert-proof'.) All in all, restoring the original is not the same kind of major change as all your edits have been, so there's no worries there. But the hundreds of edits, some I imagine being successive changes to the same text, make it very hard to find and retain your good edits while putting back the rest. Question for you: why do you make lots and lots of tiny edits, rather than a few larger edits? :-) Thanks. ToaneeM (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
Hey ToaneeM, I edit that way because of how my days are structured. I am on and off the computer all day, and often only have 10 minutes to edit before I have to go do something else. I wish I had the ability to sit down and edit for an hour straight, but that's just not possible right now. I will ponder the situation and will do what I can to minimize the avalanche of small edits, because I understand the issues with them that you've outlined. Please know that I'm definitely not trying to make my editing revert-proof :-) Wafflewombat (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would try what I often do: editing sections in your sandbox, and pasting them into the article in their entirely when you feel "done". When I've done a major article overhaul, I've actually worked on what is essentially a new draft in my userspace, and then pasted it into the original article section by section when I'm finished.— TAnthonyTalk 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I have tried that. I have a condition that is similar to OCD, and it causes me to become very anxious if I leave a task before completing it. Publishing an edit before I leave the computer has been the best way for me to avoid anxiety and to feel okay mentally and emotionally when editing. But I will consider trying the sandbox approach again, and I will also ponder whether there are other things I can do to alter my editing style while not triggering my symptoms. One thing I can certainly do is avoid making many edits in a row. That way, even if my edits are small, there is plenty of time for other editors to review them before the next edit comes in. Wafflewombat (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're in the unfortunate situation where what's best for you (lots of little edits) is at odds with what's best for the community here. Obviously the latter takes precedence, that's one of the obligations for all of us when participating in this group activity. User TAnthony's sandbox point has to be the way to go. It puts pressure on others to follow and check so, so many little edits. Thanks for listening, take it easy. ToaneeM (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the problem is not that I make small edits, it's that I make a very large number of small edits. If I drastically reduce the number of edits I make on a given page, does the problem go away? Surely it's not an issue for people to review occasional small edits? Wafflewombat (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing occasional small edits is fine, as 'occasional' to me means, say, two a week max. Before it was over 40 a week which is far too much for people to keep up with, assess and accept/edit/reject. But why not just gather up ideas for changes in a list then put them in when there's enough, or just use sandboxing? I did hear what you said about your conditions, as covered in my previous post. Thanks.ToaneeM (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to explain why gathering ideas or sandboxing is difficult for me. I'm sorry if my explanation didn't make sense, but I explained the best I could. I can't put you in my body and mind to experience my condition and what it's like.
I am drastically reducing the amount of editing I do on each page, but I'm planning on making more than two edits a week. Perhaps "occasional" was not the right word. I'm planning on making no more than two edits per day on a given page. That's a huge reduction, and my request would be that we see how it goes. If it's still too much, you can let me know. Some pages need a lot of attention, such as the Han Solo page. Nobody has posted on the talk page in five years, and it's a start-class article. It needs more than two edits a week to get to a higher level of quality in a reasonable amount of time.
Thanks for your willingness to engage in dialogue, I really appreciate it. Wafflewombat (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have misread me, then, as your explanation made complete sense and I'm very sympathetic to the position you find yourself in and admire your determination to work with it in your life, not against it :-) You also make it clear that you know, left with free rein, that resultant mountain of little edits is at odds with how a site like this normally operates. No-one wants the solution to be that you stop editing; your work here has been very valuable, you seem to thrive on it and it would be a sad loss if all that went. It's just finding a new balance that works for you and for the site. It's a pleasure to talk, have a chilled day.ToaneeM (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this wonderful message. It means a ton. Due to my anxious condition, I sometimes worry that because I make mistakes or disagree with other editors, that they don't want me on Wikipedia. I didn't believe that about you, but your words are very supportive nonetheless. I've changed my editing style to address the concerns you raised, and I believe a lot of the problems that TAnthony brought up have been addressed too. It's time for me to stop worrying, relax, and keep making constructive edits :-) Wafflewombat (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantic laser

[edit]

I don't feel that strongly about it, but wanted to better understand your thoughts in reverting my removal of "gigantic" (in the Star Wars article). Generally our prose should be as clean and clear as possible, which means avoiding unnecessary adjectives, especially those that veer towards the hyperbolic (and therefore unencyclopedic). I agree that the plot description section should always be written to allow a reader who hasn't seen the film to understand it, but I'm struggling to see what they're missing in this case. We already describes the station itself as "colossal", which is fair enough, and we make it clear that the laser is not only capable of destroying (obliterating!) an entire planet but actually does so. All we're doing is telling the reader that in this case the laser mechanism itself is "gigantic" which seems like something the reader would need to know, and also unnecessary in terms of the language. Scribolt (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I understand your perspective, and after hearing your thoughts I can go either way on the inclusion of the word. Since your argument is more thorough than mine, I removed it again while I was doing some additional editing on the page :-)
Would you mind reviewing my other edits? I removed what seemed to be some more unnecessary adjectives.
Thanks for engaging in dialogue in a very respectful and friendly way. Wafflewombat (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a superlaser array? It's worth mentioning Tarkin does it as a demonstration of power as well, at the moment he just randomly blows it up like the Joker. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the term "superlaser array" come from? Wafflewombat (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.starwars.com/databank/death-star-superlaser at the least it should be called a superlaser if gigantic is off the table to emphasize it isn't an everyday type of thing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this discussion is happening on my talk page, but I'm going to step back and let you and Scribolt come to an agreement on the laser terminology. I think all the possible versions have merit, and it's a small enough issue that I don't feel like spending more time on it :-) Wafflewombat (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Superlaser works for me, I've added. Thanks both. Scribolt (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good status

[edit]

Hey I have a challenge for you. Why don't you chase your favorite SW article (Chewbacca maybe?) and try to get it to Good article status? If you believe the article meets the criteria and nominate it, you will get neutral feedback for any necessary improvement. And when it makes it to Good, you'll have that feather in your cap. I definitely learned a lot doing this. As I've said, I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a long time and have witnessed the evolution of many guidelines and articles, and participated in many discussions. I'm finding myself bristling at some of your edits, and honestly I'm not sure how much of it is me being resistant to change, and how much is valid criticism toward article quality. It would probably be really beneficial to put a SW article through the process in current times.— TAnthonyTalk 19:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. That's a good idea. I'll look at the Good Article criteria for Fictional Characters and see if any of the pages I've worked on are getting close to being candidates.
As always, I'm 100% open to discussion about any edit I've made. If you're unsure about whether your criticism of an edit is valid, we can always ask a third party to weigh in. I understand why you reverted my most recent edit on Leia; I made that edit because I'm currently editing about 10 SW character articles and Leia is the only one that contains a "summary" of appearances at the beginning of the Appearances section. It just seemed like an excessive number of words in an already-long section. So that's the explanation, in case it's helpful 🙂 I've reduced the number of edits I'm making per day on each page I work on, to give other editors more time to weigh in. If ever I'm going too fast, please let me know!
Thanks for engaging in respectful dialogue throughout this process. It makes everything easier when we can have civil and honest conversations about editing. Wafflewombat (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mace Windu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tales of the Jedi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wafflewombat/Archive_1&oldid=1234947642"