User talk:Tinm

Your recent edit to List of free and open-source Android applications appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, product or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists (see WP:NLIST and WP:WTAF). If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC) [edited 07:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tannin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

So that it is not further litigated via edit summary: while precursor can be used merely to mean a preceding entity without explicitly meaning it to be an influence or originator—it is often extremely easy to conflate it as a synonym of ancestor. Such a use in Greek alphabet is liable to be extremely misleading in that way, and there is no real benefit to it. Relax a bit, please. Remsense ‥ 论 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a conversation Remsense. Tinm, it is very common in Wikipedia for a new edit to be reverted with the justification being "not an improvement", meaning that the edit does not introduce a substantial improvement or it is not really better than the stable version. The WP:ONUS is on you to get WP:CONSENSUS by discussing your change and by avoiding WP:EW. Informing you about WP policies is not a threat. The term "precursors" is simply inaccurate here. Linear B, which is unrelated to the Greek alphabet, is merely mentioned in two sentenses as an introduction to the main topic. The main points of the paragraph are the early Greek-alphabet inscriptions and the alphabet's date of origin. The rest of the section is equally about the early stages (origins) of the Greek alphabet; how it was formed, how it came to be. Of course, there will be mentions to the Phoenician as well, being the ancestor alphabet, but they are in relation to the Greek alphabet. In short, the section does not focus on the precursors themselves, so as to name the whole section that. It is certainly something not worth edit-warring for. Piccco (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "Not an improvement" certainly isn't an appropriate justification for a revert. You should give the reason, not your personnal jugement. Tinm (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry if this appeared inappropriate; it's just a common edit-summary we use for instances like this. Piccco (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, the summary of a revert should give the actual reason for doing so, not just how you feel about it. Tinm (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)