User talk:Pravdaveritas

Welcome!
Hi Pravdaveritas! I noticed your contributions 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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Southern Shaolin Monastery does not have an edit summary.&#32;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. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 14:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pravdaveritas! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Doug Weller. I'm not sure how you thought I was making academically archaeological claims... I merely stated that the temple which is currently calling itself the Southern Shaolin Temple exists on the ruins of an older temple. There were no claims as to the nature of those ruins. I thought it simply fair to show readers who might be searching for a Southern Shaolin temple, mythical or otherwise, that one exists in the present day which is unclear from the present article except through the quoted abbot (surely the article should mention that there is a present-day Southern Shaolin temple even though it is newly built and then introduce the quote from the abbot...). That would be my logic. I think it would lead to a more cohesive fairer more objective appraisal.Pravdaveritas (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please don't reply to a message you've removed, no one can tell what I wrote. " stating that the present temple is constructed on the ruins of an older unnamed temple" is definitely an archaeological claim. I know that there are a number of "Shaolin temples", but that doesn't mean we should include them in the article. The place to discuss that is on the talk page. We can of course have links to temples that have articles. Doug Weller  talk 17:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)