User talk:Llll5032

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by .

Telos content

The title of the wikipedia article is NOT Paul Piccone, but TELOS. The journal now publishes for decades, and over the last twenty years or so we have had wonderful articles on Karl Polanyi, Antisemitism and other topics of utmost relevance for social science, and yet we discuss here events in the 1990s. Any reader of the journal will concede: that’s not a journal written by right-wingers, racists, Trumpists, xenophobes, sexists … Any serious debate about Telos must also be based on what has been written in the last 20 years or so … Frete unicolore (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please discuss specific improvements to the Telos article on its talk page, citing independent reliable sources, so all editors may participate. Llll5032 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Frete unicolore, which specific edit are you discussing? @Llll5032 is correct in suggesting the best place for that discussion is over at the article's talk page. I will look at it again now. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing style

Hello Llll5032.

I am just curious why you make many small edits back-to-back with many "ce" type edits and edit summaries interlaced with more impactful edits to the wording or substance of an article? You could just as easily, probably more easily, make all of the edits in a single edit with a single edit summary addressing each of the points, especially when the edit summary covers the same action being undertaken. I have noticed sometimes you will lace one edit into an article followed by another edit self reverting that same edit. I know we are advised per PAG and MOS to make separate edits when the substance of the edit is altogether different, but many times I observe that is not the case in your string of edits on a page that you publish all within a very short time of each other edit. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iljhgtn. Some of my small edits are for correcting my own oversights, and others are to explain edits more specifically in the edit summaries. I am following WP:FIES for edit summaries ("It is a good practice to provide a meaningful summary for every edit, especially when reverting(undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text"), but I am not aware of other PAGs about frequency of small edits. Are you aware of Wikipedia guidance about that? Llll5032 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:FIES and that is mostly about whether or not to leave an edit summary, and how it is best practice to leave one for every edit, but it does not appear apparent to me that a batch of edits that could be made as one, need to be made separately, especially so long as your edit summary accurately and correctly describes what it was that your edit was editing. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, noted. Llll5032 (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you from Australia by chance? Iljhgtn (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you missed this query. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Makary

You made a large number of edits in the same manner I described above just now on Marty Makary. Many including some potentially super minor actions that could be bundled into fewer edits, such as this one, and this one, and this one. Please consider condensing this down into a fewer number of similarly styled and could therefore be similarly described in a single edit summary edits. It makes it much more difficult to review a page and see which edits are constructive and which might need to be reverted when someone speedruns through and leaves a long trail in a short period of time. Again, if each entirely separate in their description that is one thing, it is another when any of them could be published as one edit. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding which might need to be reverted, see WP:ROWN. Llll5032 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen the shortcut "WP:ROWN" before and I at first confused it as WP:OWN. I believe it is a confusing shortcut therefore and request your feedback at Wikipedia talk:ROWN.

As for the contents of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, I obviously agree, and that is why you will notice that I did not revert all of your edits at the Makary page, only those reverts which I deemed "necessary". Iljhgtn (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You inspired me to create two new shortcuts for that essay which I feel far less misleadingly or in less confusing use of language describe its contents. Feel free to use them in the future when you feel it makes sense to cite the essay again. They are: WP:REVERTRARELY and WP:RVONLYNEC. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One editor I recall sticks to 0RR voluntarily, for collaboration's sake. (I do not recall which editor it was.) Reverts are justifiable in my opinion, and I sometimes revert, but partial edits often lead to a faster consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iljhgtn, the "compare selected edits" tool in the article history can show all the edits at once if you prefer. I am not aware of any other editor who has a problem with a series of small edits, but if you see any Wikipedia guidelines or prior Wikipedia discussions for me to review, then you can let me know. Llll5032 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will need to use that. Is that what you use and recommend? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Llll5032 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High number of self-reverts occurring, please slow down.

Please slow down sometimes. I notice you make quite a bit of self-reverts on many of the large edit batches that stream forth from time to time. See this one for just one example of many. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iljhgtn, you do not have to make up your own guidelines for other editors. I edit according to Wikipedia's guidelines. You may cite them specifically if there is an issue with them. Llll5032 (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAUTIOUS Iljhgtn (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAUTIOUS says nothing about self-reverts. But it is a wise policy to follow. Llll5032 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	For occasionally meeting me halfway. Have this. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]