User talk:Adkirky

Welcome!
Hello, Adkirky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: I approved your at Malala Yousafzai but please note that neither of them had an edit summary.  Please use an explanatory edit summary in the future, that describes what your change was about.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * are you sure they don't have summaries? I see "Wording" on both. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  12:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Bellezzasolo, thanks for chiming in. Technically, you're correct, of course; they both say "Wording". To my mind, that's similar to summaries of "ce" ('copyedit') or "changed text", which don't really tell you much you didn't know before.  Adkirky is a new user, and getting into good editing habits when starting out is always a good idea. A better edit summary for the first of the two edits might have been:
 * 04:24 – "Better verb tense; she's still active." or even just, "Verb tense" would be better than "Wording" which gives no clue at all what the edit was about.
 * As far as the second edit, I couldn't propose a good summary as I didn't think it was much of an improvement.  I let it go because it's not wrong, and one wants to encourage new editors whenever possible, but had another editor reverted the second one with the summary, "Not an improvement," I wouldn't have objected, because every edit should improve the article in some way, no matter how small.
 * It's always good to encourage new users to get in the habit of using edit summaries, and judging from your contributions which overwhelmingly have a good explanation in the edit summary, I imagine you wouldn't disagree with that goal. Mathglot (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There are so many things to learn when just starting out, this is only one of them. That's one of the reasons I like to Welcome new users, which gives them some basic links to start out. Other links, like the one to WP:ES, can be added one by one, as their editing progresses, so as not to overwhelm too much with hundreds of them all at once. Mathglot (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem, I just queried because the template message is very firmly aimed at those who leave no summary at all, even including "even if you write only the briefest of summaries". Frankly, my own use of edit summaries could be better, it's not uncommon for me to leave "CE"! &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  20:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Bellezzasolo, on further examination and reflection, the second one was an improvement per WP:RELTIME. However, this means that the first edit wasn't, as it introduced the relative time expression in the first place; the second edit partially restored the original, but taken together, the two edits were probably not an improvement overall. However, it took me a bit of looking into to consider this, and this is beyond what we can expect of a new user, so any revert would have certainly had a WP:AGF link in there. As it is, it's no worse, and I think we can just leave it.
 * Adkirky, if this all seems like gobbledygook, or Wiki-angels dancing on the head of a pin, it partly is, so don't worry about it. Just keep doing what you're doing, and you'll be a fine editor. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the help and advice, I really appreciate it. I understand that there are a lot of editing standards to adhere to, and that taking the time to get learn the details makes collaborating much more effective. I'll try and take things on board and develop as I go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adkirky (talk • contribs) 01:53, March 24, 2018 (UTC)