SmittenGalaxy

Hello, I'm Tedickey. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! TEDickey (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, SmittenGalaxy! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! > Tesseractic: talk? ✎ 05:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I was using the rollback on Twinkle, which auto-opens the talk page edit as opposed to a new section. Just pasted it at the top on accident. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024 GOCE blitz award

		The (old school) League of Copy Editors Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to SmittenGalaxy for copy edits totaling over 15,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Useless templating

Hello,

You've recently templated me for removing content with an explanation. But you then said it WAS NOT explained. Are you sure you are templating who you intend to? If not, can you provide a diff of an unexplained removal of content? 68.170.73.15 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It does not say "unexplained", it says "adequate explanation". Removing information in the lede, such as you did at this diff, struck me as a bit odd because you mention genetics, despite the page not being about genetics, although your previous edit was on that page. This led me to believe you mistakenly edited the wrong page and used an incorrect edit summary to justify the edit, which is why I did not revert to that diff.

Both this diff and this one remove sourced information, but I do not feel the explanation given in your edit summary was adequate as to why you removed this information. Wikipedia does allow both the removal of inaccurate information as well as irrelevant information, but as I previously stated, I do not feel your edit summary was an adequate explanation of why this removal was necessary. It was sourced information, so if you can explain why the removal of this information was necessary, I can understand the reasoning for it. Please do this on the article's talk page, however, and not my talk page, nor yours. This is why I did not revert to these diffs.

And finally, this one is probably the one I'd be the most likely to understand, but I do not believe your edit summary was clear as to why it was removed. Additionally, it was still sourced information, and if you have a dispute with the accuracy of the source and its adequacy for use in the article, you may again dispute this on the article's talk page.

I have reverted back to the last diff before your edits. If you have any further discussion to do, you may do it on the article's talk page. Thanks. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You added, and now own, "Mormon apologists give varied responses to these criticisms....". None of your additions are relevant or cited to experts. In fact, you seem to be edit warring to keep WP:FRINGE materials in the article. Every scholarly sourced does not require pseudoscientific rebuttals. Also, see WP:MANDY 68.170.73.15 (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

why wont u let the truth out

? 164.153.61.132 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Arkham Shadow long plot

Hello. When you added that long plot notice to Batman: Arkham Shadow, I believe you made a mistake. Much of the plot section before I edited it was very inaccurate to how the game actually plays out, with events described inaccurately, or not occurring at the correct time as they are shown in the game. Furthermore, the plot was also missing some very important details on events in the game that I had to fix. In addition, Wikipedia allows video game plots to exceed 700 words when they are particularly complex or lengthy. Since Arkham Shadow has all of this and more, and some details of particularly critical events are very important to the point they must be mentioned, I ask that you remove the excessive word message. 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:2D52:7E9D:6FB6:7A4F (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not make a mistake; the plot section is over 1000 words, which is greater than the ⪆700 words outlined by the WP:VG manual of style. This makes it take up roughly half of the total page size, the total word count being 2093 (with the plot section alone being 1033 words of this 2093). You're free to remove it if you can reduce the size down to about 700 (although going over slightly isn't particularly an issue), but until then it's far too long according to the manual of style, and especially far too long relative to the size of the rest of the article. Please do not remove it before that time comes, however. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Blanket reverting a pet article I see

Why are you blanket reverting to a passive misuse of wiki voice, re inclusion of deprecated sources, and the writings of a tabloid journalist. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Because making sweeping changes to articles, even in good faith, isn't something usually done without community consensus. This especially goes for removing content that is well-sourced and adding content that is not in line with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view.

Additionally, which sources are deprecated? The diff where you said you did so in the summary (dailyrecord) isn't a deprecated source. You can confirm this by looking at the list of deprecated sources currently on enwiki.

If you would like to continue this discussion, I would recommend moving it to the article talk page to get better community consensus from a wider range of editors. There is nothing wrong with making such changes on your own, but the scope of what you changed is a bit outside of that "do it yourself" range, especially considering the wording of some of the content you added. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)