User talk:Pneen

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Microsoft Photos, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Matthew hk (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When using the same source to cite material in multiple places, please use the 'ref name' tag. Further information can be found at: WP:CS#Repeated_citations.

Friendly reminder while on the topic of citations: please make sure any new content being added to an article, actually reflects what the already in-place cited source says. If new content is not backed by a currently used source, a new source is required. Thanks. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to contribute to the Curse page!

The intention with the UFG section is not to reuse a citation. The text that says that UFG was no longer accepting applications should be citing an archived link, and as should the text that I added that says that UFG is accepting applications again. I assume that they're different citations due to the different access dates. I'm not particularly sure how that should be handled. You seem to be experienced with Wikipedia and especially so with references, so I hope you'll be able to address this.

Regarding your revert of my first edit, please do not assume bad faith in my edits. You can verify claims in edits yourself or add the citation needed template instead of immediately removing the claim. I won't try to out-meta you though, but I felt discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia, and making sure the page was updated was difficult.

The talk page mentions many concerns, including promotion, and quite a bit of the page is uncited or unreliably cited, and which you could also address.

Thanks.

Pneen (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've no motivation to materially improve the article… 😋 It is likely on my watchlist for vandalism/patrol reasons. Thank you for the invitation, however… and your enthusiasm!

There was an edit elsewhere that used unique citations multiple times for a single source. At a quick glance: I believe you've since resolved this.

I'm a general proponent of assuming no clue, not malicious intent.

Failed verification is why those contributions were reverted. You've apparently resolved that as well. "…instead of immediately removing the claim." Yes, you are certainly correct there…

Apologies for discouraging. I hope you'll keep at it and become a long-term steward of the article. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm trying my best, just like you. 😁 I recognise your awesome efforts!! 👊

Pneen (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: citations/references – you can (sometimes!) use WP:reFill (toolforge:refill) to iterate across all citations in an article, and automagically correct/populate various fields within cite templates. Some of the things it defaults to need manual intervention but, it can often save a bit of time; especially if there are lots of them.

The horrendous VisualEditor has a button (Citoid) that will also populate citations when fed a URL but, I never recommend visual editor for any normal editing tasks as it is more likely to hinder than help.

The RefToolbar (when editing in wiki-text mode) has a button labeled "Named references" (screenshot) that will let you quickly and easily re-cite things with 'ref name' tags. (just drop you cursor where you want the citation, then select from drop-down menu). -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you telling me! What are some good edit descriptions? With my latest edit to the Twitch page I should have said "Add information about new Twitch app for consoles and add sources with additional information" (but I didn't think of that at the time). When I can't think of what to write, would it be better to say what section I edited? Something like "Edit platform support section"? Or would it be better to wait a couple of hours/days until I can think of a proper one?

Also I saw one of your edits say "Platform Support: CE" but I have no idea what CE means.

Thanks for watching over the Twitch page!

When I can't think of what to write, would stating the section I edited be okay? Something like "Ed d platform support section"? Or is it recommended that I leave it for a few days or weeks before contributing to come up with a better description? Pneen (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"CE" stands for "copy-edit" so in the case of that Twitch edit, I mostly fixed the formatting (bullet points instead of dashes) and did some grammar updates. If I'm doing more major changes, I might say "rephrasing" instead of "CE". Sometimes it is just "updated" (or "updated table"/"updated list") or "added source". If I'm reverting, I'll often say "rvt good faith - explanation" to indicate that I assume the editor I'm reverting acted in WP:GOODFAITH. I generally try to make sure the section is in the edit summary. If I'm doing a bunch of changes, I try to split my edits into smaller chunks so another editor can easily track what I did. You don't have to be perfect (I'm certainly not!) but it is considered best if you can give some indication of what your edit was about. Check out Wikipedia:Edit summary legend which has a bunch of examples on types of edit summaries. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh geez I just realised that my reply got majorly messed up. Sorry bout that. Hate trying to write stuff from my phone. Something always gets messed up. Pneen (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]