Joeyconnick

Hello, I noticed you removed my edits to this article clarifying the different names this actress has used in her career, putting in a vaguer explanatory sentence in. If you feel it's "too early" to rename the article to Britt Robertson-Floyd, fine, I didn't argue with that, but I otherwise disagree with your position and find the priorr wording clearer and the inclusion of when she used one name or another to be worthwhile information for someone reading up about this person. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

PS didn't ignore you... it hasn't even been a week.

When someone changes to a married name is possibly entirely irrelevant (unless there's some weird case where they then became easily confused with another person) and definitely not significant enough for the lead. Should we mention they've gone by other names? In most cases, yes (if they were notable under the other name(s). Do we need to include a timeline of that in the lead? No. And currently as you have it, you've only included the time for the latest name change (please note this does 100% NOT mean I think we should be providing an entire timeline... just pointing out the inconsistency and WP:UNDUE of highlighting a married name over others).

You also are editing in against MOS:NICKNAME: Anyone can figure out where "Britt" comes from if someone is named "Brittany". —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Template talk:Canadian banks‎, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Perhaps you could use the template's talk page to discuss this before constantly reverting? Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have consensus. You're the one being challenged. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Joeyconnick, You removed the list of secondary schools I added to the Education section of the East Vancouver article as "Unsourced". What sources would be appropriate? The existing three items in that section are not specifically sourced, beyond being internally linked to their Wikipedia pages, which I did with the secondary schools.

This is my first Wikipedia contribution, so I'd just like to understand the guidelines. Thanks. Born-a-Weegie (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's unclear whether such a list is needed, even: why do we think it is? Does it help readers understand East Vancouver as a topic?

One of the common mistakes at Wikipedia is including information simply because we have it, when in reality we shouldn't be so indiscriminate.

But preferably there should be a 3rd party reliable source that lists schools in East Vancouver. If the other 3 aren't sourced, feel free to remove them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Instant-runoff voting regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Instant-runoff voting.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

(180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC))Reply

Hi, just wanted to reply to one of your comments, and to apologize for some earlier edits, when I was newer a few months ago and still learning the ropes.

Instead, certain editors (by which I again mean CLC) seems to prefer to make repeated multi-thousand-word edits with little to no edit summaries across multiple sections, including putting back changes where they've been clearly reverted based on detailed rationales.

First, I wanted to say I'm sorry for doing this in my earliest edits, e.g. the strikethrough changes. At the time, I wasn't paying any attention to the edit histories, so I didn't even realize these changes had been partially reverted, because I didn't get a revert notification; I thought I just hadn't committed them. Since I saw your comment on my talk page about being frustrated with overly-long edits, I've been working to cut back on that and provide better edit summaries. I appreciate your patience, since I've only really been editing for a few months so far.

Yeah a draft of an existing article shouldn't exist. Instead, editors (by which I mean mainly CLC) should focus on making small changes (at most one section at a time if making extensive edits to a section) with clear edit summaries so other editors can track what's been added, deleted, and transformed and get a good overview of what's changed.

On this topic: The reason I created a draft was to try and follow this advice. You're right that I prefer to edit articles holistically, since I often find myself referencing different sections or moving between them. However, since you'd previously raised complaints about the difficulty of reviewing such edits, I decided to go through with it on a separate page outside mainspace, so I could make large edits there, then copy-and-paste small pieces into the main article to make them easier to review. My edit to the lead on October 6th was me starting this copy-paste process (you can see that I finished drafting that section prior to this). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply