User talk:Wafflewombat

Ease off excessive Darth Vader editing

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:

1. Many edits appear to be just you rephrasing it to the way you like to read it, effectively toying with it.
2. 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)

I've commented at Princess Leia and a little at Darth Vader. I am not a fan of the drastic edits you have made to these articles, especially since you have gone against some pretty basic guidelines. What is your basis for judging article content and quality? Star Wars articles don't seem to be highly watched at the moment, but I would expect some eventual pushback.— TAnthony^Talk 20:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I understand your view and am completely willing to listen, engage in dialogue, and revert edits. You may have noticed that I've made some similar edits to other Star Wars character pages. Please do not restore those pages until we can talk. If the main issue is the removal of the Appearances section and creation of the Fictional biography section, it's an easy fix to restore the former and remove the latter. But the vast majority of my time has been spent on other aspects of those articles. Please don't revert my many hours of work on the other parts of the articles without careful review. Also, please understand that I am well-intentioned, love Wikipedia, and am trying to make it the best it can be. There are reasons I've done the things I've done, and hopefully you're willing to listen. From your point of view, it seems I've "slashed" an article, but there is more to it than that. I understand that I may have made mistakes in how I've written about fictional characters, but I'm willing to learn and change how I do it. I'm 100% willing to cooperate with you and come to conclusions about what is best for these pages. I would just feel very upset if my many constructive changes were removed in an attempt to fix other mistakes. Wafflewombat (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I replied at Talk:Princess Leia and am not planning to revert all the articles as yet. I do believe you're well-intentioned, but keep in mind that as much as you want the community to respect the time you've put in, you should have respected the time others put in before you. I'm honestly stunned that as a seemingly new-ish editor you were comfortable with such drastic changes. But I appreciate boldness in general, so I am interested in discussing these issues with you.— TAnthony^Talk 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey ToaneeM, I just wanted to send you a quick note to see if you've been following the critiques that TAnthony has made about my editing. They pointed out that some of the major edits are very problematic, and I've pledged to fix my mistakes. I feel really terrible about the fact that I apparently damaged pages in an attempt to improve them. I was going to revert a major change to Darth Vader, which was the creation of the Fictional Biography section in favor of the Appearances section. I am now aware that this was not a wise change. I just wanted to run this by you, since you've been concerned about my high level of editing, and this would constitute another major edit (even though it's a revert). Wafflewombat (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

(Thanks for seeking a discussion while deciding your best way forward, it's great to see and the site needs more of it.) First off, I don't think the article needed anywhere near so much change as it was already a good article. And what was there was the work put in by other editors. That said, those people are able to monitor your changes and comment. But that's made very difficult when they were done in so many little edits (370-odd now) instead of major edits. I'm afraid it's difficult to quickly appraise your changes; looking at them in a 'then and now' comparison (to the article before you started) shows so much. Secondly, I think it's tempting for some to rewrite a subject into one's own pov when one feels very knowledgeable on it - we feel like we're doing people a decent favour. But so many little edits leave it impossible not to conclude that there's excessive fine-tuning in there (what I previously called 'toying with it'). I believe keeping it to fewer larger edits makes one invest more judgement in what they put in and don't. (You'll see some editors here use lots of little edits instead of a single one to try and make changes more 'revert-proof'.) All in all, restoring the original is not the same kind of major change as all your edits have been, so there's no worries there. But the hundreds of edits, some I imagine being successive changes to the same text, make it very hard to find and retain your good edits while putting back the rest. Question for you: why do you make lots and lots of tiny edits, rather than a few larger edits? :-) Thanks. ToaneeM (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2024‎ (UTC)

Hey ToaneeM, I edit that way because of how my days are structured. I am on and off the computer all day, and often only have 10 minutes to edit before I have to go do something else. I wish I had the ability to sit down and edit for an hour straight, but that's just not possible right now. I will ponder the situation and will do what I can to minimize the avalanche of small edits, because I understand the issues with them that you've outlined. Please know that I'm definitely not trying to make my editing revert-proof :-) Wafflewombat (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I would try what I often do: editing sections in your sandbox, and pasting them into the article in their entirely when you feel "done". When I've done a major article overhaul, I've actually worked on what is essentially a new draft in my userspace, and then pasted it into the original article section by section when I'm finished.— TAnthony^Talk 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have tried that. I have a condition that is similar to OCD, and it causes me to become very anxious if I leave a task before completing it. Publishing an edit before I leave the computer has been the best way for me to avoid anxiety and to feel okay mentally and emotionally when editing. But I will consider trying the sandbox approach again, and I will also ponder whether there are other things I can do to alter my editing style while not triggering my symptoms. One thing I can certainly do is avoid making many edits in a row. That way, even if my edits are small, there is plenty of time for other editors to review them before the next edit comes in. Wafflewombat (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You're in the unfortunate situation where what's best for you (lots of little edits) is at odds with what's best for the community here. Obviously the latter takes precedence, that's one of the obligations for all of us when participating in this group activity. User TAnthony's sandbox point has to be the way to go. It puts pressure on others to follow and check so, so many little edits. Thanks for listening, take it easy. ToaneeM (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the problem is not that I make small edits, it's that I make a very large number of small edits. If I drastically reduce the number of edits I make on a given page, does the problem go away? Surely it's not an issue for people to review occasional small edits? Wafflewombat (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing occasional small edits is fine, as 'occasional' to me means, say, two a week max. Before it was over 40 a week which is far too much for people to keep up with, assess and accept/edit/reject. But why not just gather up ideas for changes in a list then put them in when there's enough, or just use sandboxing? I did hear what you said about your conditions, as covered in my previous post. Thanks.ToaneeM (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to explain why gathering ideas or sandboxing is difficult for me. I'm sorry if my explanation didn't make sense, but I explained the best I could. I can't put you in my body and mind to experience my condition and what it's like.

I am drastically reducing the amount of editing I do on each page, but I'm planning on making more than two edits a week. Perhaps "occasional" was not the right word. I'm planning on making no more than two edits per day on a given page. That's a huge reduction, and my request would be that we see how it goes. If it's still too much, you can let me know. Some pages need a lot of attention, such as the Han Solo page. Nobody has posted on the talk page in five years, and it's a start-class article. It needs more than two edits a week to get to a higher level of quality in a reasonable amount of time.

Thanks for your willingness to engage in dialogue, I really appreciate it. Wafflewombat (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)