User talk:47.184.189.2

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Dickinson, Texas have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Dickinson, Texas was changed by 47.184.189.2 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.904471 on 2025-02-03T20:20:55+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I am leaving you this message in response to the following edit and edit summary for the Kes (Star Trek) article. I would advise you in the future to open a discussion first by either leaving a message on the article's talk page or on the user's talk page.

I do not have major issues with most of these changes. I believe most of them boil down to personal preference. For instance, using science fiction without the hyphen is also an accepted usage, as done in articles such as science fiction magazine and Science Fantasy (magazine), and I have seen both life span and lifespan used. I do not think that these are instances of one being objectively better than the other so to go back to my edit summary, I do not consider these to be improvements as I do not think that they are necessary. For another instance, I do not see the changes to stuff like (At the time, it was believed Lien was removed to make room for) to (At the time, Lien was believed to have been removed to make room) as clear and obvious improvements.

I do take issues with the "overlinking" remark and the changes made to linking in general. Per MOS:DUPLICATELINK, links are used at at most once per major section. I had intentionally linked episode titles and character names on the first instance in a new section as I believe it would be more helpful for readers rather than having hunt down the link elsewhere. The edit has introduced errors to the article. Star Trek: Voyager is no longer linked on the first instance in the article and is now randomly linked later in the "Development" section. Rick Berman, Michael Piller, and Jeri Taylor are no longer even linked in the article at all. And the change of, the starship USS Voyager (Star Trek), to, the starship |USS Voyager, leaves a stray "|". I believe these changes detract from the article.

I hope that better explains why I had reverted your edit. Before I make any further edits, I wanted to reach out to you first and to have a conversation about it as I believe that is the most important step in this kind of situation. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The hyphen in science fiction is called for in the MOS when used as an adjective, as I understand it. Yes, it is a personal preference to remove the weak "it is", much like the weak "there is"; they are filler words. Life span is, best I can tell, BE, where lifespan, lifecycle, etc. are AE; this article appears to be AE, with slim justification for BE. The stray bar is a typo - vision related. I just wonder why complete revisions are reverted rather than correcting what is necessary when the time commitment to do either is the same. If a reader does not know a term, and the first occurrence is linked, that person would likely hit that link then, rather than the next occurrence a section (usually a paragraph or two). My sole intent is improvement, trying to make an article a step up from texting-style English 47.184.189.2 (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. As I said above, I do not have as many issues with some of these changes. I do disagree with some of them. I have linked instances where science fiction is used without the hyphen, specifically with a FA like Science Fantasy (magazine), and I have seen both lifespan and life span used in AE. If your edit was just limited to these changes, I would not have made an issue out of it.

My focus is primarily on the linking. After your edit, there are cases where either the first instance in the article is not linked (as with Star Trek: Voyager) or something is not linked in the article at all and only in the lead (as with Rick Berman, Michael Piller, and Jeri Taylor and "Caretaker"). Prior to your edit, the article used a consistent linking style. Now, it no longer has that. This case reminds me how of editors use different variations in citations, and how it is important to respect and maintain the citation style used in an article, regardless of personal preference. Again, the article had a consistent linking style, that was approved during the FAC process and that I have consistently used without issues for other articles and other FACs. I have seen other editors use a similar linking style. I did not link items in the same section as you have claimed. I had re-linked items when there was a new section. It is okay if you prefer something else, but that is not a strong enough justification to so radically change how linking is treated in an article, especially when again, errors are introduced. That is the issue.

I do take slight offense to "texting-style English". I wrote the entire Kes article. While I am always open to suggestions on how to further improve an article, I have never used "texting-style English". That comment seemed unnecessary. As for the "time commitment" remark, if you are going to make so many changes to any article, you really should take the time to make sure that they are done correctly. We all make mistakes, myself included. I have certainly made a lot of them. But, going back through your edit to fix all the linking issues that were introduced would take more time than just reverting it so I disagree with you on that. It is great that you want to make improvements to Wikipedia, but I just disagree with this type of approach. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@47.184.189.2 it's not the responsibility of others to correct edits; wholesale revision is not the only response one can take to edits, but especially if they're systemic it's certainly easier. A lot of what you're arguing about is acceptable variation in grammar, not something where it's ironclad (compound adjectives don't necessarily need hyphens, either.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted the article back to its original linking style because again, the edit had introduced errors. I would advise you to read further on linking, as I had already linked and quoted the MOS portion (MOS:DUPLICATELINK) that supports the linking style that I have used. Recent FAs, such as Black Widow (Natasha Romanova), have used this approach. Again, you may disagree with it and use a different approach, but it is also important to recognize and respect whenever an article is using a specific style, whether it is with linking or with citations as I had brought up above. To further explain my personal rationale for it, I think that it would be helpful for readers who jump around to certain sections rather than reading an article top-to-bottom. I disagree with your opinion regarding MOS:OVERLINK as I think that some of the removed links are helpful. That being said, I have attempted more of a compromise, as I did keep several of the edits that you have made with punctuation and grammar. I hope that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Alachuckthebuck. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Cheyenne Autumn have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• Introductory tutorial
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• The Teahouse

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in. If you like, you can create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (47.184.189.2) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Again, welcome! _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 10:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Hoke County, North Carolina, you removed content without adequately 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. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean the redlinks that obviously will never become pages, or the land area part where most people can understand that only the water part is needed because it is such a small percentage and most people can do the math in their heads or the bad grammar part? 47.184.189.2 (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)