User talk:Crookemily

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Crookemily! Thank you for your contributions. I am Cirt and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! — Cirt (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sonnet 11

The article Sonnet 11 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sonnet 11 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Xover -- Xover (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, I'm Rrburke. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sonnet 11 with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the semi-automatic message from Rrburke above mentions, it's a very good idea to use the edit summary when changing articles on Wikipedia. There are several reasons for this, mostly related to letting all the other volunteer editors on the project know what you changed and why, making it much easier to collaborate on improving our articles. And there's the additional more pragmatic reason that a lot of editors follow various lists of changes made to articles in order to remove spam (a lot of people want to add links to their blog or product pages to Wikipedia), repair vandalism (when everyone can edit, a lot of really juvenile stuff gets added), or simply because they're interested in the article and want to keep an eye on the changes other editors make.

In this case Rrburke probably saw your edit appear on such a list of changes, and lacking any other information only saw that someone removed all the content from the Further reading section. If the change had had an edit summary saying something like "Removing further reading, these works have little extra value for the reader", or "Removing Further reading per WP:FURTHER" (a reference to a Manual of Style chapter discussing that section), or even "Removing per comments in GA review", Rrburke would have been able to tell that this wasn't a case of vandalism or a test edit or similar. In this case it wasn't any kind of a big deal, but it could get really annoying (for you) to try to edit the article if a lot of your changes get mistaken for some kind of unwanted change and are reverted. The friendly gnomes cleaning up vandalism and such go through literally thousands of changes each day and can easily make such mistakes that an edit summary can prevent.

Anyways, I highly recommend adopting the habit of religiously using the Edit summary field. :-) --Xover (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]