Joombi
Welcome
edit
|
I don't feel very welcome. I don't usually sign in and change articles even less because my contributions usually get reversed for reasons that don't make sense. I added important information (like the date) to the article about the Max Headroom signal hijacking but you undid it because you said there were "multiple blatant errors". That's a lie, there was one typo! Why didn't you fix it instead of erasing everything I typed? --Joombi (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
A different welcome, then
editAh yes, the famous Wiki-welcome. Indeed, people often get a pretty rough welcome here, much like the hazing rituals at some institutions, only less planned (and not as cold or wet, really). People who edit anonymously using only their IP address do get treated a whole lot worse than people who, er, edit pseudonymously, which ought not to be a whole lot better, but does at least allow reputations to build up, if only by force of number of edits (a really really rough guide to prowess if ever there was one). And Wikipeditors (if that's the collective noun, I can think of ruder ones) bring all their real-world faults with us, without the risk (usually) of anybody turning up on our front doorsteps armed with an angry expression and a sledgehammer.
On the matter of the lead section of Tolkien's legendarium, or of any other article for that matter, the idea is - if you don't know? - to go through each section of the article's body text, summarising it briefly in a sentence or two, so that every section gets some sort of mention. If the body text doesn't remotely cover the subject, then the article is in urgent need not of having a better lead section but of reorganisation and rewriting, after which it should be possible to create a decent lead. I think you are right that the article in question had a dreadful lead, but it also (still) has a pretty dreadful and unbalanced body, cited to a ridiculous extent to primary (Tolkien) sources with scarcely any scholarly analysis; and that's despite the promising and ambitiously-titled "Works cited", which lists Gilliver, Flieger, and Drout (in reverse alphabetical order, wow) but actually doesn't cite any of them ... In short, the article needs work from the ground up, and the pinnacle, the very last block to complete the edifice, is the lead section ... so I look forward to working with you, and I hope it will involve looking up and using some of the many scholarly sources (Google scholar suggests there are about 1,880 such sources, and who's to say it's wrong...) that address the subject. I haven't reverted anything, but the lead'll certainly need to be rewritten in due course. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't waste much time writing on Wikipedia because of people like you. Maybe I should say thanks. --Joombi (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Edit on Great Expectations plot summary
edit
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the plot summary of a work have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.This edit here. The article is written in British English, and British style, which is slightly different from American English, and the absence of periods after Mr., Mrs. and Dr. is usually noticeable. I appreciate your interest in the article on Great Expectations. It is fairly deep study on a really good novel. In an article of this length, keep in mind that something not said in the plot summary may be said elsewhere in the article. - - Prairieplant (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- You do not run Wikipedia. Stop deleting good changes on articles that needed help. Joombi (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- No Joombi, I do not own Wikipedia, no one does. Do you think whatever you write is the absolute best, and no one can challenge your words or punctuation? I see that your feelings are hurt, and we need to get out of that realm. If you wish to edit articles written with British English style, it is important for you to learn what that is. Otherwise, you introduce errors into the article that someone else must correct, following behind you. I did that once with the revert, a second editor did it after you reverted in response, the second time. Please check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling. When you open the edit page, look at the top for a template that looks like EngvarB with a date following, or British English. It will be in the first few lines of the page. This may also be written on the Talk page of an article, whether it is in British English or some other variant of English. You can assume that an article about a novel written by a British, English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish author will be using British English. Not changing the style already in an existing article is a Wikipedia guideline, see MOS:STYLEVAR. British English does not put periods (full stops) in titles like Mr Mrs Dr, which is different from American English. You typed those periods in the text you added, and did not grasp from my edit description or the post above that this was not an improvement to the article. I am not clear that you read what I posted to your Talk page before you rushed to revert in response. Please do respond on a Talk page first, to learn why the Revert happened. You do not own Wikipedia either, so good manners are essential.
- Responding to a revert by reverting again is the start of an edit war, which is not a desirable situation in Wikipedia. Please communicate on a talk page before considering this action again. Stay cheerful, be polite, assume the best, and learn the Manual of Style. - - Prairieplant (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
You say you erased my work because of a typo with a period? Then fix the minor error and leave the words! Otherwise I wasted my time!
I only sign in once in a while when I see an article that needs help. Usually there's no problem, but I've run into a few people like you who have a bad habit of undoing other's work on book and movie articles. I suspect that you don't always read the changes before you undo them because the reasons you give often don't apply. If you do read them, you don't understand the Wikipedia rules about plots that you keep using as justification for erasing other's work. Or maybe you do understand the rules and use them as an excuse to act like an ass. It has to be one of those things.
I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a repository of knowledge, not a collection of bad writing and incomplete articles guarded by small-minded territorial people like yourself. Your behavior makes others not want to contribute at all. If that's the outcome you want, keep it up. If not, cut it out. You're still not the boss of plot summaries. --Joombi (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)