User talk:Asto77

Welcome!
Hi Asto77! I noticed your contributions to Nancy Mace&#32;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:

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:

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

Happy editing! Marquardtika (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sjögren syndrome 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. 'Your edit removed significant sourced content, without explanation. You are welcome to restore your sourced content, but please leave a detailed edit summary if you intend to remove sourced content.' Magnolia677 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS: November 2023
Asto77, please review Wikipedia's guideline on sourcing medical content, and engage at this thread at the Medicine WikiProject for help as needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to Andrew Parker, Baron Parker of Minsmere! However, you should know that adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just URL copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between tags, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the cite web template to cite a web page:

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:
 * Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:
 * 1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already entered one or more bare urls to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles, and to avoid future link rot, please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full, inline citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc. More information can be found at Inline citations. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk)  22:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
Your edit to Abu Zayd al-Balkhi has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jürgen Klopp, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thalamus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Kimen8 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * great idea - thanks Asto77 (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liam McArthur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assisted dying.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit counts
Hi Asto77, another user already gave you the advice to use summaries in your edits. From what I've seen so far, your edits are quite good but it would be really helpful if you not only describe your changes but try to include as much as you want to change in one single edit instead of many minor ones and to actually mark minor edits as minor edits – this is what the checkbox next to the summary box is good for. But my primary concern is the amount of edits that you produce in an article's history which makes an overview difficult and in extreme cases nearly impossible. There is nothing wrong with adding something that comes to mind after you published an edit on the same article before, neither is a third or even a fourth edit, but it is important to keep articles and their histories clear and logical. If you want to edit several sections of an article, you still can edit them all at once – just quickly describe the changes in the summary, but please try to avoid revision histories like the one of fatigue where I totally agree with your changes but don't even dare to count the edits you made on this article. –Tobias (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * can't you just do the thing where you compare edits between date 1 and date x? i.e. look at the net effect of the last X edits?
 * wiki is slipping away - up against AI.
 * cheerio Asto77 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, technically that is possible but it doesn't make the history any clearer nor the amount of changes undone and in case of fatigue, there is nothing left to orientate anymore. An AI would go through the whole article at once and publish the changes in one single large edit. Most of your edits are, according to your edit count, smaller than 20 Bytes or maybe a little more which includes around three words. I can only repeat myself: I do support your ideas, but to publish several edits in a matter of minutes on the same article is absolutely unnecessary and preventable. A good revision history is crucial for the encyclopedic collaboration, but useful tools like this one can become critically endangered if nobody knows what happened anymore and you don't want to look through hundreds of changes of one single user to find out where a simple change was made that you're looking for, right? –Tobias (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ha ok. i personally think wiki already overloads 'correct' editing against real leading edge content. maybe finish up as a thoroughly correct but years behind entity that nobody reads. Asto77 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And it's about reaching a combination of both. Thinking thoroughly through your edits doesn't mean that they can't contain recent information, but it surely isn't any kind of solution either to just publish anything to be ahead of time rather than checking what you're actually doing there. And if it comes to the decision whether to choose quality or recency, WP:NOTNEWS states pretty clearly what Wikipedia stands for in this context.
 * It might help if you reread your edits before you publish them to avoid unnecessary edits. Then count to ten, think about if there is anything else you want to change and et voila: you will have more meaningful changes in the same or even a shorter period of time and it is much, much easier for others to retrace your ideas and changes. –Tobias (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * truth is I wouldn't edit in that mode. too exhausted. but that's another story.
 * don't understand why mode of editing is more important than the end result of a better wiki but, as Morrison said, people are strange.
 * have a good life. Asto77 (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you feel that exhausted, maybe it's time to take a break.
 * The mode of editing isn't the most important thing but not insignificant either. If you have trouble keeping your thoughts together you could edit a draft in a text document on your computer and insert it as soon as it's done. But from what I understood so far, you don't seem very determined to change anything, even if there are plenty of options, nor to question your way of action. –Tobias (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * many thanks Tobias, I will thoughtfully consider your suggestions. thank you Asto77 (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)