User talk:Sol Pacificus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Sol Pacificus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Fath-Ali Shah Qajar. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)


Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!

Please also note that the lack of an edit summary is a frequent symptom of vandalism. While there is no sugestion of such on your part, edits are frequently reverted as vandalism based on the missing edit summary alone. I B Wright (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, out of curiosity, was this an automated message, a part of common procedure, or is it in reference to edits I have made without filling out the edit summary? Looking at my contributions, this would be minor corrections to typographical errors, so I suppose my question can better be rephrased as, is it mandatory then that all edits have the summary filled out even if they involved only fixes to a misspelling of a one word, misplacement of punctuation, and the like where the reasoning for the edit would be obvious? Sol Pacificus (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Homophobia reference in lede[edit]

After taking a good look at that lede I decided to add a ref after all as you requested, however it is not necessary to add citations to the lede if they are sourced in the main article. Tagging it as you did makes it look like an unfounded piece of editorial, when it is in fact a legitimate part of the article's summary. The reason I added a ref for you is because the rest of the lede is overlinked, making it look out of place, so I understand your position. In future please check the body of the article before tagging the lede with "citation needed", "dubious" or anything like that. It's common practice to leave citations out of the summary. Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I was actually aware of that policy and had even considered taking a closer look at the body to double-check, but I decided against it for whatever reason that I don't remember—most likely that I was in a rush and also felt a bit weary. I think I also thought that either way, the sentence, which in hindsight seems more opinionated than factual (though I'm aware it is not technically so as it's only describing what sources say), stood out awkwardly in the introduction without any citation and as a standalone sentence at the end. At a glance, a reader might think some random anon had added that in as his own personal opinion and tried to disguise it as the thoughts of some vague source. Indeed, that's what I immediately assumed at a glance. I think if we don't want to cite it because it's cited in the body, it should at least be expanded a little to merge it more naturally into the introduction so it doesn't seem like someone's random addition. Sol Pacificus (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)