Xin Dugu

Xin Dugu, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Xin Dugu! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm Trafford09. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Shinya Yoshihara without 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; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, 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. Hi Xin Dogu. Please don't take this wrongly - I realise you are new to Wikipedia. Please just treat this as a friendly tip :) Trafford09 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Go (game) does not have an edit summary. OTOH, it's clear from your edits - and Talk posts - that you are very well versed in Wikipedia's editing techniques. So this must be a new account you have opened, and you should know already about help:Edit summaries.

The edit summary appears in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Trafford09 (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wholesale changes to main Go article

It is against Wikipedia policies to remove sourced content, without an explanation for its removal. You broke this policy repeatedly in your edit to Go (game). I have restored the version as it was before your edits. If you wish to make changes, please do so more slowly, explaining each time why you've removed sourced content.

I am not claiming extra powers compared with other editors, and of course nobody 'owns' any articles, but I should probably point out that I've done a fair amount of work on many Go-related articles, and I've been on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Go for several years, FWIW.

I'm happy to discuss this further with you, here. Trafford09 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Actually, I am a new editor to Wikipedia. I'm simply deeply passionate about Go (and very aware of interesting or deep points throughout many aspects the game which might otherwise not be highlighted, or are/were presented incorrectly in the article) and saw an opportunity to greatly improve the main article about it which newcomers would arrive at. Apparently I had a decent enough knack for picking up Wikipedia editing code to make you think that I have done this before, but my working out editing was purely a result of my love for Go and desire to make one of its most publicly-accessed resources much better. I'm very new to this and wet behind the ears. ;-)

I did not know about the sourced content removal policy -- does this mean content which is cited? If so, I certainly could have removed it in various places -- while I tried to leave many parts mostly intact, I was editing mostly purely for clarity, correctness, and good presentation of information.

Regarding the Shinya Yoshihara article, I was the editor who originally placed the information in the article and felt it stylistically burdensome and biased, so removed a chunk of it. I replied on the talk page of the previous editor to revert it in more detail as to why, but perhaps I should have placed it into the edit summary? (Is it against policy to remove content which I recently added? :-) )

I was not aware that this policy existed regarding edit summaries as well, but I'd be happy to include summaries of reasons for edits.

Is there anything else I may've done badly that I should keep in mind?

Apologies for any inconveniences I may've contributed to!

Xin

P.S. I'm rather busy this next while so may not be available to reply often, if you should need to contact me.

Xin Dugu (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Xin

P.P.S. (Whoops! Forgot to sign in.)

Hi Xin. Sorry - I was seemingly too quick to assume that your Wikipedia-editing knowledge indicated that you were an 'old hand' - my apols. in that case.

Before I answer your points, I'll just mention a couple of things - tips which may help you:

• Indenting talk: I've amended your reply above to use normal indentation - not that this is any big deal. Please see wp:Indentation for more info..
• When signing your name, you seem to be showing Xin twice. Unless that was what you wanted, just using four successive epsilon (~) characters achieves a normal sign-on, automatically including your name (like mine above).
• I made your reference to an article into a link, for your, my & others' ease.

Now to your points ...

I'm delighted you're a fellow Go enthusiast. Welcome to to WP indeed ! We should be natural allies!

"Sourced content removal policy" does indeed mean content which is cited. The WP guidelines strongly advocates having an Edit summary (see above) supplied along with each edit. This is - especially - a 'must' when removing sourced content. After all, another editor has gone to some trouble to find & provide the original reference.

As we now know you're the same editor who both added & then removed the content to the Shinya Yoshihara article then, sure, I understand your reasons for removing it. But if you hadn't been the same editor, you'll appreciate that my action would have correctly protected & pleased the first editor. I'll probably undo my wp:revert, to restore that edit. This caution / confusion does of course highlight how useful it is for users to have registered accounts, and to remember to log on! Note that you can ask your pc to keep you automatically logged on for 30 days (I think most of us use that facility).

Now, as regards Go (game), I'm afraid I'll have to ask you if you would re-apply your edits, but in a slower manner, i.e. removing one sourced statement at a time, with appropriate supporting rationale (Edit summary). Please leave some time in between edits to the same article, too. That way, if any other editor takes exception, they can argue for a revert. Then, you risk only a small revert, and you are not seem to be 'riddling an established article with bullets' - however well-intentioned. I do hope that this advice makes sense, although I realise it's more work for you at this juncture.

If you have any queries - now or ever - do pop them here (or, if in a few days, then on my Talk page) & I'm sure I'll be able to help you. Or of course, there's the Tea Room mentioned at the top of this page.

Last but not least, I do sincerely hope that we've not put you off editing. I would mean that anyway, but all the more so as you seem to be a natural at it, and we've 361 things in common. Happy editing!

Best wishes, Trafford09 (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Trafford,

Thank you for your kind words about my editing, your balanced requests, and taking the time to respond in detail with advice and explanations. :-) (Thank you for the welcome, too. I doubt you've put me off of editing -- all of the points you raised made good sense as procedures for the general benefit of all editors in such a large encyclopedia.) The citation and edit summary "protocol" makes much sense in hindsight (and, thank you for the tip regarding staying signed in for 30 days!)

I edited a small section of the main Go article -- the main, opening section which I was most eager to share -- to reflect the work I had done previously. I'm still a bit short on time but wanted to try my hand at reverting the few paragraphs I was most eager to see and had spent the most effort on - I hope that the quality of my decision was not too poorly affected by my haste. Is this amount of editing, plus summary, alright? (I'm unsure how to properly express all of the dense work -- small wording choices and agonizing (happily -- I'd honestly like to make the main Go article a well-written, interesting one) over which sentences to rearrange, which sections to completely rewrite, rather than attempting a disjointed mixture, and which sentences to improve upon and weave my own contributions with... within the space of the edit summary. :-))

Also, I'd be happy to leave time in between edits; this seems a reasonable inconvenience to ensure the integrity and continuity of articles. :-) I'm not familiar with how time on Wikipedia is interpreted, though, so what is a generally reasonable amount of time between edits? And, does etiquette differ depending on whether I am simply adding new information (say, a new section) rather than editing or removing existing writing?

Haha, and I am happy to meet a fellow Go player, with 361 things in common indeed. ;-)

Thank you for the warm offer of your help with future queries, too.

I really appreciate your conversation with me and the smiles it brought me; I hope my reply was not too terse or hasty to reflect that.

Best, Xin (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing

Hi again, Xin. Just thought I'd start a new section, as the last was becoming big (no fixed guidelines on section size, AFAIK).

Well, thank you for your many kind words and well chosen thoughts. I have to confess though that 'twas not I who proffered the TH Welcome, but one 'TheOriginalSoni' - another editor.

I'm happy to offer advice, but please don't take it as gospel - it's just IMHO. Please Be bold, and challenge what you think could be improved.

So, your last edit of a small section of the main Go article was a sensibly sized chunk, I'd say. Other editors can digest this amount, and check that nothing held dear has gone (or not without well-reasoned wp:ES). I see that a couple of editors have already made collaborative alterations, which should be fine, and is always the collaborative way, here.

As for leaving time in between edits - well, that's a hard one! I think the fact that 2 experienced editors have seen your edit - and made alterations - implies that they're happy with how the article now is. If you disagree with them, you could chat to them, to discuss reasons. Or, if you're happy with their alterations, then now would be fine for the next small chunk, and so on. Ok?

Re etiquette differing depending on whether one is simply adding new information (say, a new section) rather than editing or removing existing writing, well yes, I suppose so.

Adding text won't greatly bother people, assuming it's not already there in some form, or over-wordy or (esp. in MOS:LEAD) too detailed. Also, we have to beware adding our own thoughts - see wp:NOR - essentially all content should be cited.

Changing simple text also shouldn't cause waves.

However, if something is cited, it's prob. safest to leave that sentence in, I'd suggest.

You mentioned 'hasty reply'; well, unless one is in conflict, I don't think any reply can be too hasty - after all, WP has wp:no deadline.

Anyway, happy to help - just holler! See also wp:Help (sorry for all the links, but you seem keen enough to have some time!). Trafford09 (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)