User talk:Vibelvibe

Welcome!

Hello, Vibelvibe!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western canon

Sorry but I'm afraid I must revert your edit to Western canon. Much of Western canon has been inspired by, related to, or directly connected to the literature and arts of Classical antiquity is very probably true, but there are two problems with it. First, policy WP:LEAD says that material in the lead should summarise a major theme in the body, at least a full section. It doesn't obviously exist. Secondly, bold assertions need to be backed up by a reliable source, in this case an esteemed academic one. WP:Wikipedia is not a forum or a publisher of original research, nobody is interested in your personal opinions. Don't take that personally: my opinions are equally unwelcome.

So with that in mind, please have another go. For the purposes of your assignment, you would probably find it more productive in one of the more detailed sections for a weakness to rectified. Anybody can write text: the hard part is finding evidence that you can summarise and cite. Welcome again to Wikipedia. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your second attempt was technically better but you don't seem to have considered how it would be relevant in context. The passage is describing how definitions of what is canonical arise. So, while The Illiad and The Odyssey are certainly canonical, how did that fact advance or detract from the argument being made? See non sequitur.

On the plus side, your edit identified a mess of a "sentence" and that someone had done as you did: added a random statement about the bible even though the relevant information about the Biblical canon has already been covered a few sentences earlier.

You didn't pick an easy article to work on! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But to take something positive from it, you did make a properly formatted contribution, complete with a relevant citation. That it was not accepted is not particularly significant because this process is one of the most important principles of Wikipedia: see WP:bold, revert, discuss. The experience may have taught you more about Wikipedia than a simple but accepted edit to a minor article would have done. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Public speaking, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright, will look into that. thanks. Vibelvibe (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your new home page

and if you really wanted to be flash, you'd use this markup:

Aliquando enim et vivere fortiter facere est.
— Seneca

It probably doesn't matter in this case and not much for Latin anyway but the reason to use {{lang}} is to guide the screen reader software used by blind visitors as to which accent [?] it should use when reading out non-English words. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and body editing and sourcing

Hi, Vibelvibe, and welcome to Wikipedia! I had to remove some edits of yours at Flagellation, Calypso (mythology), and History of propaganda, mostly because they were edits to the lead, unsupported by citations or by detail in the body of the article. The lead of an article, which is all the content at the top until the first section heading, is basically just a summary of the most important points in the body of the article (the body is everything from the first section heading on down). One implication of this, is that in most cases, it does not make sense to head straight to the lead and change something, unless there are typos, grammar problems, or other issues specific to the lead.

The normal flow, is to make changes to the article body first, and then adjust the lead but only if needed, which is to say, only if the changes to the article body added or changed something major about the article that requires a change to the lead in order to keep it in sync with the body as a valid summary. There are exceptions, and as you get on board at Wikipedia you will have a better sense of it, but for the time being, I would urge you to concentrate more on improving the body of articles, and stay away from the lead, unless you really understand the implications of it. Thanks, and once again, Welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]