User talk:Yourlocalsuperhero

April 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. CMD (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Apologies for not getting on here sooner (or often). Thank you for the explanation about the finessing improvements, forums, discussions, teahouse, etc. It seems like a rational and pragmatic policy.

I wonder if whstever prompted you to share this was my writing something that lended itself to easy misunderstanding? I would try to clarify this Vavague and general statement, except i'm having trouble navigating w/in the wide variety of Wikipedia editing-related sites. I don't know how to move from this discussion, which a notification led me to, to the history of edits on whatever oage i tried to edit. after a good-faith effort, I can't figure out what the page we're discussing is. (I've try to edit maybe three pages in the last year).

It's therefore necessarily off topic for me to continue, though if you're interested I helping with something I think would be beneficial ... as you know, there's a learning curve that makes it difficult for people who, while frequently seeking references, wish to only only occasional content / editing for <1% of sites they visit, happen to be versed on the issues, and see something so contrary that theyre moved to help improve to help out future readers. If I were to figure out how to develop a skill here, I'd forget it by the time I wish to do something again two or three months from ow.

The most common circumstance in which I would wish to make a minor contribution is consistent with the following - I stumble across content on a matter I've studied in some detail, and find someone else's (mis)representation misleading (most often, intentionally) or perhaps even mistaken. On occasion, ive wanted to address content that I perceive as self-promotion. Youve come across this, yes? An individual or their representatives insert themselves into semi-popular pages that they're not really relevant to, or are so tangentially related and minor that including them would provide the incorrect impression that theyve made a contribution, and that suppoaed contribution is meaningful to the subject. Yes? Its particularly odious when entries are obviously curtailed or misdirected so that someone can suggest they (or their client) has some exaggerated role in an area they're interested in being associated with, and curving the content to the extent that they can awkwardly add themselves requires a misrepresentation of the totality of the issue. There are a lot of ways this could affect existing and future content and reader perceptions.

I have previously thought that

It would be cool if there were a way to flag the questionable content and make a comment

About it. Perhaps there would be a way to put a flag indicating disagreement on a fact that links to an edit on a 'discussion'-type subpage where I, you're selfless citizen editor could explain the problem (and hopefully, suggest a solution, which a couple of citations.)

Conrinuing - I personally don't want to edit Wikipedia, except in this or that very limited way. I think it would lead to improvements if folks like i could do this. Ive looked around a bit but can't seem to find a functional means of offering this assistance to the community.

I also get frustrated by statements ot supported by evidence, or fairly specific and concrete statements of fact that are supported by reference to an entire book or judicial opinion (no pincite). Grr. Once in awhile, I see that someone like me has added a comment that requests a more specific citation, which is great! (How is this done?) I'd like to go one step further -

a common application:

When i come across a page and find an entry is curtailed, blunted, missing galf of the big picture, etc. (Not infrequently, due to someone's curtailing the page's content for self promotion). What am i to do to advance the public interest and helping prevent unfamiliar readers being misled by the imperfect page? Specifically, is there a way to say something like, "Hey, [User #T] seems to have done [Y bad editing] for some [usually self-interested] reason, resulting in m, n, and o. Thats imposing self-interest in the public sphere thats caused real harms p, q, and r."

AND!

Theres a second component i have often wanted to add, but dont know how, and am thus deterred from offering the first notification (above). Part ii: "i suggest that somebody learned contribute content that says u, v, x, which will result in [B] verall improvements on the issue, thereby more accurately representing the subject."

Is there a way for me to do these things? Could I take three minutes to read an article somewhere to learn how to do this? (And bookmark it.) It seems like probably the best contribution that I can offer. And I would probably do so once every two weeks on a diverse array of topics.

Or do tou have an even better, easy contribution?

if that's not possible - and you agree with me that this might tend to benefit the community - would you kindly make this suggestion to the most appropriate officer(s) / group(s) as a function that users like me would like to be able to enact?

I ask because i have felt this impulse fairly often and imagine I'm not alone. It would probably take hours to look around, in vain, for how to develop a skill like this or location any venue relevant to making a suggestion of this sort.

I'm trying to minimize my tangents in life. [And look at this! Im so successful! Ha. Lifes hard with a fucked up brain. Jve made progress in self awareness, at least, and have even developed the strategy - next...]

I want to say thanks again. While I don't know the context in which you offered this suggestion, i can tell that you're motivated by a public interest, and that you offered the tea Room respectfully. just want you to know that I appreciate that. Yourlocalsuperhero (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments belong on the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and may respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)