User talk:Mjaðveig

November 2023
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Gorman polar form did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip, I'll keep this in mind. In the meantime, I would like to remark that reverting constructive edits for no other reason than that an editor did not dot all the i's and cross all the t's, as you did here with mine and as I asked you to explain on your own talk page, is itself neither helpful nor constructive, and I would like to invite you to consider this before reverting other editor's edits in the future and only revert those where the edit itself was unhelpful. Thanks. Mjaðveig (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your incorrect. Edits with no edit summaries are more likely to be reverted. You have to provide an edit summary whenever you edit an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. This can be confusing to new Wikipedians if you do not provide an edit summary. Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted incorrectly, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. So I do not need to consider this, I am also not wrong. Thank you. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be factually true that edits with no edit summaries are more likely to be reverted, but this is an error.
 * Furthermore, although it is a good idea and good practice to provide edit summaries, they are not required, and the relevant help page, Help:Edit summary, does indeed not say that they are (note that when it refers to the consensus policy, it says that "[a]ll edits should be explained" (emphasis in original), not that all edits must be explained).
 * Finally, as I have already explained below, when reverting others' edits, the onus is on you to determine whether this is warranted, i.e. whether the edit was unhelpful, unconstructive or otherwise worthy of being reverted. Nobody is perfect, and if you make a good-faith mistake here, no one will hold this against you, but this does not absolve you of your responsibility to exercise care and good faith and to at least try to assess whether an edit was constructive or not.
 * I believe I have made my point and will say no more on this matter, neither here nor on your talk page. However, I will ask you again to not revert anyone's edits, neither mine nor others', in the future unless the content edit as such was worth being reverted. Thank you. Mjaðveig (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A experienced editor has said I'm in the right. I suppose you should just let it go now. It's not required to provide an edit summary, but it's also ok to revert an edit that has no edit summary. Also the last statement you said to not revert anymore edits with no edit summary is not illegal according to Wikipedia policy. Thank You. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My edit is not an error. How is it an error? Anyone can revert an edit that does not have an edit summary. Don't blatantly say my edit is an error when it's not. Thanks. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That's better
Edits without edit summaries may and are allowed to be reverted as they can be confusing to new Wikipedians. Make sure you always provide an edit summary when editing on Wikipedia. Help:Edit summary. Thanks for your understanding, MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks - again - for the link. If you actually read the Help page in question, which I hereby invite you to do, you will see that there is nothing in it that suggests that the lack of an edit summary is, in and on itself, grounds for reverting. Instead, it specifically says that "[e]ditors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary; good editors may simply have forgotten", and I would like to ask you to adhere to this in the future and not revert others' edits, neither mine nor anyone else's, on the grounds that an edit summary is missing and without actually considering whether the edit itself is helpful. Mjaðveig (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the latest comment on my talk page. A fellow experienced editor has claimed that I am correct. It's your fault if your edit gets reverted if you haven't provided an edit summary. Thanks. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Some words of encouragement
Hey, there. Sorry you've run into a bit of a rough patch. I think you did the right thing in taking it to the [user] talk page and being open to feedback. I hope it heartens you if I say that most editors I have seen will remind you to use an edit summary first and not just summarily revert. I have also had the pleasure of meeting editors here who do hear constructive criticism and are open to other people's ideas. If you have questions or need help, I have found the folks at Help Desk cordial and knowledgeable. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thank you for the words of encouragement. They do give me hope, and perhaps I will keep on contributing to Wikipedia after all (I had previously figured it was not worth the combined cost of time and negative emotional impact).
 * You're of course right that providing an edit summary is helpful, and (as I previously wrote after being pointed to the relevant Help page, saying "I will keep this in mind") I will provide these in the future if I make further edits. Just for the record, the reason I did not do so in this specific case was that the edit summary would have taken more time to write than the edit itself, coupled with a - perhaps mistaken - assumption that the edit was sufficiently short and clear that none was required.
 * I hope that you're also right that most editors here would have reacted differently. I still see no basis in policy for willfully (rather than based on a good-faith mistake) reverting positive contributions of one's co-editors on wholly formal grounds, and I hope that most editors here would not engage in such actions. A polite request for an edit summary, especially when coupled with an explanation why it was asked for, would've gone a long way in my case.
 * I'll ask at the Help Desk if I have questions in the future. Again, thank you, and take care. Mjaðveig (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can tell that you have good judgment, and it will serve you well if you choose to continue editing (or to take a well-deserved break). One thing I find helpful sometimes is browsing a user's talk page. Now, it is an imperfect measure—policy allows people to delete material from their user talk—but if I go to a user talk, and the person responds levelly to most questions, then I will take their suggestions more seriously. If I see a (recent) pattern of non-responses, hostility, defensiveness, and general lack of intellectual humility, I will take that into account when evaluating how to respond. Hope that makes sense, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)