User talk:Akravus
November 2024
[edit]
Hello, I'm Remsense. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Constantinople in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Akravus, please consider that many of your edits are the most visible parts of very well-developed articles, often you've picked WP:Featured articles. It is healthy to pause and consider that an article may be the way it is for good reasons, so please slow down a bit, and consider asking on the talk page first if you don't understand why something is the way it is. Remsense ‥ 论 05:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, @Remsense. While I understand that many of my edits contribute to well-developed articles, it’s important to recognize that even these can contain minor errors or lack critical citations. For example, the Byzantine Empire article overlooks the various forms of government it employed, as it wasn’t confined to just one system. Similarly, in the article on Subutai, the description of his conquest in Rus should specify that it was actually the Kievan Rus. I believe these edits are very important for ensuring historical accuracy.
- Another example is my addition of a new paragraph and an important fact to the Basque language article, which addressed a significant gap in its content. However, most of my edits—aside from the Basque language one—are relatively minor adjustments that correct overlooked mistakes. These edits may seem small, but they play an important role in improving the overall quality of these articles. Akravus (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, that infobox is the way it is as the result of reams and reams of discussion and weighing the importance for various aspects on the talk page. That's why I'm asking you to slow down and ask first in those situations—it is often likely that many others have had the specific thoughts you had before, and we keep having to put it back the way it was over and over. The infobox is not meant to be detailed or complete, it is meant to relay only the key facts about a subject at a glance—the less it contains, the better. With that principle in mind, we very intentionally decided on what was there. We could be wrong, but you'd have to have looked at all the sources we did for that to be likely, right? Remsense ‥ 论 05:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are many aspects of article construction that take time to internalize—newcomers often love tweaking article leads, as the most important and most visible part of an article. But we write leads according to certain principles—they're meant to summarize the body in a balanced manner, and shouldn't generally contain many small paragraphs in doing so. See WP:LEAD, and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE for the point previous. Remsense ‥ 论 05:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying the rationale behind the current infobox format. I understand and appreciate the effort that went into those discussions and the principle of keeping it concise for readability. However, I believe there’s always room to revisit decisions, especially if new insights or perspectives emerge.
- While I understand that many contributors have deliberated over this, it’s possible that some details, which could enhance the reader's understanding without cluttering the infobox, were overlooked. My edits weren’t intended to undermine prior discussions but to address areas where I felt clarity or accuracy could be improved.
- @Remsense thank you for letting me know about this though and next time I would further slow down in the future before making a decisions Akravus (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, that infobox is the way it is as the result of reams and reams of discussion and weighing the importance for various aspects on the talk page. That's why I'm asking you to slow down and ask first in those situations—it is often likely that many others have had the specific thoughts you had before, and we keep having to put it back the way it was over and over. The infobox is not meant to be detailed or complete, it is meant to relay only the key facts about a subject at a glance—the less it contains, the better. With that principle in mind, we very intentionally decided on what was there. We could be wrong, but you'd have to have looked at all the sources we did for that to be likely, right? Remsense ‥ 论 05:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pride, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Akravus! I noticed your contributions to Richmond Christian School 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! -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Cosmic! Thanks for the brief tutorial and the various sites you shared with me! Akravus (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 04:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)