Welcome Thylacine24!

You have a response. It's not clear if you responded since the person wasn't signed in.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thylacine24:. After a week, there were no objections to your suggestion on Talk:Far future in science fiction and popular culture so I added Flight to Forever to the article. Thanks for the idea! Schazjmd Talk 13:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orphan Bird, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 20:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I had a similar problem before too. Another editor recommended to me enabling "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". If you want to do this Special:Preferences > Gadgets > under "Appearance" > enable "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". Found it really helpful. Like it says when there's a disambiguation link the link turns orange. Hope this helps! OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 23:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked (at least) two questions at the Help Desk asking whether some edits you made were good. (They were!)

Just so you know, a general principle of Wikipedia editing is to "be bold". Every edit is reversible (see WP:REVERT), so do the edits you want to make and if someone else disagrees they can always revert (and at that point you start discussing). You do not need to ask for validation beforehand or afterwards. (Well, if you start making gigantic changes on very contentious topics, you should ask beforehand; but for grammatical improvements, it is unlikely anyone will get cross.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry to keep bugging you guys about it. I have OCD and feel sort of guilty if a non-grammatical, non-spelling, or non-punctuation edit that I'm responsible for goes unaddressed. Also, the article on The Porcelain Fat Lady probably needs citations, though I didn't add anything that wasn't already there. Also, the article on "Religion in Rome" already had a "citation needed" in the edit which I brought up, which I omitted in the discussion on the help desk, though not in the article itself.--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thylacine24, I've noticed your conversations at the Help desk. I invite you to check out the Typo Team - they can always use eager editors to help correct spelling errors. A bot runs and compiles a list of known/suspected misspellings, and editors go through the list and fix the articles. They're currently working on articles that begin with the letter R. Whenever I can't find something to do, I pop in there and fix some articles on the list. It can be fun. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me.--Thylacine24 (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cementation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given your OCD, you may want to reach out to people who consider themselves "Wikignomes". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:User_wikipedia/WikiGnome . And I agree with the other poster. Be BOLDer! (And doing WP:TYPO may help as well, given your OCD, correcting mispellings and knowing that you'll have full support without having to ask, may help you build up your confidence!)Naraht (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm a loner. And I don't feel comfortable saying that I have much or any confidence when it comes to edits that I have to ask about.--Thylacine24 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Wikignomes are equally loners, so you are in a group of loners. :)Naraht (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I can have difficulty socializing even with other loners.--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood.Naraht (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being understanding.--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's incredibly silly to just say, "Hey, don't be OCD!" But I do want to assure you that despite your worries, your edits have been welcome even when not flawless. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Continue to participate, and if you find yourself second-guessing your edits, refrain from coming to the Help Desk. The articles' talk pages are the place to go; and if nobody is answering you swiftly, that generally means that nobody objected to your edits. Feel welcome and valued, because you are. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also on the spectrum. Thank you for your kind words.However, I fear that if no one is responding on the talk pages, then it's because no one with the knowledge to realize if an edit was made incorrectly has looked at the talk page.--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't sweat it. Like all human endeavors, from marriages to churches, we are all flawed works-in-progress, subject to correction; it's the human condition. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help sweating it; knowing that I may have damaged a page's integrity through a flawed edit is a fear that I can only placate by asking about it.--Thylacine24 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and I'm sorry to be talking about it now, but while the things I talk about here are true, I do wonder if sometimes I (semi-consciously) exaggerate these things for attention.--Thylacine24 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then ask here and do ((U|Orange Mike)) and/or ((U|Naraht)). We'll check. (Sorry to Orange Mike if I shouldn't be offering for you) I'm on the spectrum, but on the HFA/ADHD line, so while I've got a couple of pet peeves, I'm more spastic in my edits (I tend to create entire pages from research), and thus need someone to clean up for me. :)Naraht (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I think I might be getting better about it, if only by ignoring some pages rather than trying to edit them. Whether this is temporary or not remains to be seen, of course.--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sin-eater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Bourne Legacy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, this was an automated Process, (Anything username ending in bot is an automated process other than a *very* few from the first years of Wikipedia), so no need to thank.Naraht (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (ironically) for telling me.--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Little people (mythology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nisse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Keep up the good work! S0091 (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vathek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Beckford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kiev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brodsky Synagogue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thylacine24. I noticed your recent editing on Phineas and Ferb. I appreciate the good faith efforts to improve the article, but I am concerned about the way you are editing. You have made 22 consecutive edits to the article in a very short space of time. Many of these simply make a change, revert it, then revert it back. The overall change introduced in this sequence of edits is to delink Family Guy and change a link from Gossip to Tattle; since Tattle redirects to Gossip, this second edit makes no difference to the reader. I note from your edit summaries that you have OCD. Can I suggest you step away from the article? The constant changes are producing little positive effect and are potentially quite disorienting for readers. I suspect they may be frustrating you as well.

A good way to avoid this may be to make a temporary copy of the article into your sandbox, edit it there, and once you have got it right, copy the changes back into the main article. I hope this is a helpful suggestion. Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, COD, as you know. (EDIT: Sorry to restate that. Also, I didn't read your whole message when I first replied.) (Further edit: Sorry to reply before reading.) (Further edit: these edits were also added out of OCD.) (Further edit: Sorry about all this, and for forgetting to capitalize "these" in the previous edit. Also OCD.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gruiformes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ralli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it so there was no link at all (the relevant link on the page just went back to "Gruiformes"). (Edit: The relevant link on the disambiguation page, I mean. Sorry to forget to mention that.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Catholic authors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronicles of Chaos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After short introductory phrases, a comma is optional, e.g., In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Some camps require it with any such phrase (as just quoted), while others use a rule of thumb, like the phrase having five or more words. It certainly makes sense if it helps resolve ambiguity in parsing the sentence (a funny example of which eludes me at this hour). What was clear to me, the last time I tried to get some specific guidance on this (here) is that, adding those commas to an article that consistently or predominantly does not use them (as you've been doing), is frowned upon – even considered disruptive. Basically, it's like MOS:RETAIN – try to retain the existing style of an article. A lot of us were taught (there's another good essay around here something like how "Miss Something taught us wrong") that commas were inserted to reflect natural pauses in speech, but it turns out that (at least in recent decades) this has morphed into using them far less often. It takes some getting used to, but eventually, that "itch" that we feel to insert that comma fades. If you have some time to kill, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 214#Commas was a more recent discussion. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I was thinking of WP:SNODGRASS. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM: Thanks for telling me.--Thylacine24 (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on copy editing articles :) Best wishes.   // Timothy :: talk  23:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: You're welcome, and thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this is blunt, but as has been mentioned before, please try (harder) to not post meta-commentary, like apologies for formatting errors, apologizing for the apologies, apologizing for forgetting to apologize, etc. The purpose of writing on a discussion page is to communicate necessary information to others. Every change shows up on people's watchlists and change feeds. For example, in a recent thread at the help desk, after responding to the answer with more questions, you then posted four more times:

None of that really means much to anyone else (you already asked for a review in your first response). Also note that, if you forget to include ((Re)), it does no good to go back and add it later – it won't work unless it's signed. So, just add something like this below:

<small>(Pinging ((U|Username))) ~~~~</small>

It's small to clue people in that it's unimportant. No apology necessary or desired. Thanks for listening. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: Okay. Sorry about all of this.--Thylacine24 (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: Also, I assumed that anyone I was replying to would look again at post I'd edited, but you definitely know what you're writing about.--Thylacine24 (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A word to the wise: it is better not to try to impose AmE peculiarities on articles written in normal English. Tim riley talk 22:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Could you please give an example of how I was doing this? Sorry to be hypocritical, given my responses on the help desk in this section.--Thylacine24 (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. Such commas as you inserted at the P. G. Wodehouse article follow AmE practice, but are not used by scrupulous English writers, including Wodehouse himself. The AmE rule is, calmly considered, pure superstition: the comma in "On Monday, I went shopping" serves no grammatical purpose and does not add to ease of understanding. The Bible manages quite well without a comma in "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". Sadly, an English teacher told me recently that the AmE practice is now being taught to young English children, but it is not yet used by grown-up writers of good English prose.

Another way in which American use differs from English is with commas next to conjunctions. I understand that the comma before "but are not used...", above, would not be used in AmE. I am not, please be assured, being rude about AmE usage, but merely pointing out that BrE articles use BrE. There are silly superstitions in BrE too: we are beset by something called the split infinitive which foolish folk wrongly think a solecism. I'm always happy to comment on BrE usage on any point if you wish – just ping me.

More generally, as you are kind enough to ask for guidance, you will see a small bronze star at the top of the Wodehouse article: this indicates that it is a "Featured" article, i.e. one that has been carefully reviewed by a team of editors and judged to be of Wikipedia's highest standard. It is unlikely that such articles require changes to their punctuation or grammar – it is not impossible, but it is wise to be cautious about changing them. Happy editing! – Tim riley talk 07:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Sorry. I'll try to keep that in mind.--Thylacine24 (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley and Thylacine24: At the risk of "talking past the sale", I dispute that the issues mentioned above are AmE v. BrE. I also wouldn't characterize positions on these issues as foolish or silly – there are reasonable arguments to be made (and have been made ad nauseum at WT:MOS etc.) for many practices we see here, and they generally inherit from some pretty well-known and -used manuals of style. What I do agree with is that consensus is to try to keep a given article internally consistent in the "rules" it uses, so readers have other usage within the article to look at when trying to resolve meaning. Of course, it can also be correct to insert a comma in an otherwise comma-minimalist article to resolve an ambiguity anyway. Search for "comma" AND "introductory phrase" in Wikipedia namespace and Google if you have some time to kill. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: Thanks, maybe I will look that up.--Thylacine24 (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art Nouveau architecture in Bangkok has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Clifton-Dey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoffrey Rose.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Sunshine!
		Hello Thylacine24! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding ((subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine)) to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding ((User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon)). Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first day of summer, Thylacine24!! Interstellarity (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ralph Jezzard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Hole and Driven.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot: Sorry about that.--Thylacine24 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Filet mignon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tenderloin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fluke (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collin Wilcox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely feel that the article on Or What You Will benefits from having an ellipsis rather than a third em-dash. DS (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: If you insist. I've replaced ellipses on other pages, for the record.--Thylacine24 (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But in that particular sentence, having a third em-dash felt weird. (How familiar are you with the works of Emily Dickinson?) DS (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: Not very, but I thought the rules of poetry were different than for Wikipedia.--Thylacine24 (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm just saying that too many em-dashes in a sentence can give an unsettlingly Dickinsonian feel. DS (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: Oh, sorry.--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crohn's disease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immunity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD editing such as this is nothing to apologize for. Even if someone disagrees with your change like in this instance, it opened up a discussion on how to best improve the article, which is a good thing. Sometimes even a bold change that someone disagrees with serves as a catalyst for improvement, and personally I saw nothing wrong with your edit; it was a good attempt at patching up a mess and believe me, that lede sentence was a mess. I didn't want you to think people were acting negatively to your edit, and for my part your proposed change was appreciated so thank you, and here's a picture of a kitty, just because. :)

Aoidh (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: Thanks, but cats on the Internet aren't something I'm enthusiastic about.--Thylacine24 (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said you don't like Kittens, how about a Goat?

Naraht (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm really more a sturgeon person. Thylacine24 (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Sturgeon General
	Here you go, a Sturgeon. :) Naraht (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thylacine24 (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thylacine24, it'd be appreciated if you're just making minor edits like decapitalization or hyphenation that you'd tick the "This is a minor edit" box, so the edits don't pop up as major edits for checking by other editors. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me, sorry.--Thylacine24 (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. FWIW, I reverted your edit to this page per MOS:US, which indicates that while "US" is now the default, "U.S." shouldn't be changed without good reason. No worries; I don't expect anyone to know all of the various rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Cheers, and Happy Editing! DonIago (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry. I thought that checking the "minor edit" box was good enough. Thylacine24 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Np apology needed! Honestly I'm a little surprised by the MOS statement myself, but it is what it is, and I saw that many of your edits didn't have summaries, which was slightly concerning to me. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thylacine24 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]