User talk:Wafflewombat
Ease off excessive Darth Vader editing[edit]
First, thanks for putting a lot of time and effort into the Darth Vader article, which has improved it in many ways. However, you've made 360 edits in 66 days, which is excessive considering the (relatively very good) state the article was originally in. Edits can be grouped together (otherwise you risk others not bothering to read through what you've done and just reverting the last load, happens here). Many edits appear to be just you rephrasing it to the way you like to read it, effectively toying with it. Also, edits from others are getting kind of 'post-edit approval' changes from yourself. It can get tempting for some editors to unconsciously see themself as the 'gatekeeper' of an article. The strength of WP is obviously in communal reading and improvement from different viewpoints.
Not knowing you, my presumption is naturally that you're well-intentioned, and you've clearly put a lot of time in to do many good things for the article. However, it would now benefit from being left relatively static as others (well beyond just me) cannot assess a moving target. Thanks.
(Please do not 'blank page' on this for some time, other people may wish to comment in the future.) ToaneeM (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the message. There are two lines from your message that stood out to me:
- Many edits appear to be just you rephrasing it to the way you like to read it, effectively toying with it.
- Also, edits from others are getting kind of 'post-edit approval' changes from yourself.
- Can you please give examples of edits that fit in these categories? I would like to understand your feelings on this matter (and I would like to become a better editor), but as of now I don't know what you're referring to.
- As far as I'm concerned, the article can remain relatively static now. I don't have any more substantial edits in mind for it. Wafflewombat (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your friendly and receptive reply. I think both of my recent edits are in these categories. I noticed it as I went along as I'd looked at many of your edits over the weeks but I didn't keep a list. (I try to leave off on things until a pattern's emerged long enough to be reliable, to me at least, rather than leaping in early.) However, beyond that I'd have to sift through them and there's a lot of edits to go through, which unfortunately time stops me doing. You're better off taking a look for yourself, at some where you've edited after another had, and it could well be fewer than I'd recollect and I shouldn't have used 'many' but 'some', or maybe not. As an aside, these things are easy traps for any of us to drift into. (That statement has ironic overtones in an article on TDSOTF :-) ) I reiterate though that I'm sure what you're doing is well-intentioned and the article has definitely benefited. ToaneeM (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your cordial reply. I will be attentive to my pattern of making "follow up" edits, and I will ensure that if I do make them, that none of them are fiddly and they are all necessary.
- I have been on the receiving end of a ferocious "gatekeeper", and I would hate to be that type of editor! I will be careful not to drift any further in that direction.
- I also appreciate that you recognize the benefits I've provided to the page. Thank you for your kind words. It's a bit strange making hundreds of edits and hearing barely a peep of feedback from anyone, either positive or negative. Not only on this page, but others as well. I assume people are watching the pages, but I never hear from them. Not a terrible thing, and I do feel that my work has been beneficial, but it's nice to get some feedback and recognition now and again! Wafflewombat (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your friendly and receptive reply. I think both of my recent edits are in these categories. I noticed it as I went along as I'd looked at many of your edits over the weeks but I didn't keep a list. (I try to leave off on things until a pattern's emerged long enough to be reliable, to me at least, rather than leaping in early.) However, beyond that I'd have to sift through them and there's a lot of edits to go through, which unfortunately time stops me doing. You're better off taking a look for yourself, at some where you've edited after another had, and it could well be fewer than I'd recollect and I shouldn't have used 'many' but 'some', or maybe not. As an aside, these things are easy traps for any of us to drift into. (That statement has ironic overtones in an article on TDSOTF :-) ) I reiterate though that I'm sure what you're doing is well-intentioned and the article has definitely benefited. ToaneeM (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)