User talk:InkyBlueCheetah
Welcome![edit]
Hi InkyBlueCheetah! I noticed your contributions to Alphonso David 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! Fettlemap (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Donuts[edit]
Hi InkyBlueCheetah, I also want to extend my welcome to you, as well. I also wanted to thank you for your contributions. There are a lot of policies, guidelines, conventions, and other more-or-less rules at WIkipedia, and it does take some time to get on board with them, as a new editor. I had to undo the article name change you made at Coopers donuts, because of one of those rules, concerning when to change the name of an article. You can read about this at WP:MOVE (we call a name change a MOVE at Wikipedia) but basically, there's this concept of an "uncontroversial move", which is anything like a misspelling, a clear mistake, or other technical problem, where anybody can just fix it by renaming the article. For anything else, in particular, for a name change where anybody might reasonably object, then before changing the name of the article, you need to propose a name change on the Talk page, and get consensus for it first. The WP:MOVE page explains how to do this, but if you need help, don't hesitate to ask, here, or on my Talk page. I made a brief post about the revert on the article Talk page, and you're welcome to discuss there, or raise a new section, which is typically called something like Proposed move, and try to achieve consensus for the name change there. Mathglot (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Removing sourced content[edit]
Hello again, another one of those quasi-rules, more like a convention based on an act of good faith that other editors placed content there and sourced it for a reason, is that when you remove content from an article like you did here at Cooper Do-nuts Riot, especially if there's a lot of it, and very especially if the content is sourced by citations to reliable sources in furtherance of Wikipedia's key policy of WP:Verifiability, then at the very least you must justify in the edit summary why you are removing the sourced content. When removing content + references, it's usually best to explain that with a more detailed justification on the article Talk page. I've raised a discussion there as a starting point for you; you can respond to it here. Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Incremental editing[edit]
When you make a very large edit, such as this one at Cooper Do-nuts Riot (same edit as linked above) with changes in multiple sections all over the article, it makes it more difficult for other editors to tease out the improvements (which were the majority, in your large edit) from things that were less than optimal out of the diff results. They might even be tempted to revert your entire edit, just because it's too much work to find just the good stuff that was removed, and put only that stuff back. In fact, that was my temptation, to just revert you, though I'd say 80% of your edit was an improvement. I didn't revert, though, and left you a message instead at the article talk page concerning the removed content, which I hope you will fix up or explain. (If not, in a week or so, I'll revert back to User:Iridescent's edit of March 13.) A better approach than making wide-ranging edits all over an article, is to make a series of smaller edits, either confined to one theme, or physically confined to one section. That way, if another editor discovers a problem, rather than undoing all your work, they can just target one, much smaller change. Also, the diff program results are much more comprehensible on smaller changes of that nature, thus are easier for other editors to deal with. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)