YuiBalle

Hello, YuiBalle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome!  Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there,

While I greatly appreciate your attempts to help, you really need to slow down and make sure your edits do not have problems. I'm slowly working through them and have reversed many. Also, before you use the minor edit marking, you should read this page.

Regards,

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright. Got it. YuiBalle (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sweet! Let me know if you need anything!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

When editing the plot of a movie I've watched, how do I add more information or correct the descriptions given without using citations? YuiBalle (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You don't need to. This is one of the cases where you can use the primary source, the movie, as the reference. However, only do this when you can not find a different source for a summary online. I sent that message for this diff though, not the movies.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Read WP:PLOTCITE for more info.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Understood. Thank you for your help. YuiBalle (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anytime!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

First off, great job with some of these new edits! However, I would like to once again stress the importance of checking your edits for typos, and for re-reading them for tone and flow. This diff, for example, has flow issues, introduced two different pronoun usages in the same article, and has misspelt words. Part of being a respected member here is paying attention to the details, not just the overarching goals.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright. Got it. YuiBalle (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. While fixing typos and improving grammar may be a laudable goal, please note that (while it is OK to "correct" small and "insignificant spelling and typographic errors" in quoted text or to tweak purely typographical elements of quoted text), it is NOT appropriate to materially change the wording of quotes made by people. In your recent edit to ABCDEFU, you change the actual wording of a quotation. If something is in quotation marks (or otherwise presented as an original quote), please do not correct or "improve" the speaker/writer's grammar. Or change or add words that they didn't use. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

While it is fundamentally appreciated that people want to improve things, your numerous minor edits to "improve" grammar, etc. exhibit a ton of mistakes. Nearly every edit of yours I have seen has made things worse (either making the grammar worse, changing the meaning, adding unnecessary verbosity, or some combination of these), so you will find I reverted a number of them.

I do not know whether you are a native speaker of English or not, but you make edits that superficially adhere to some grammar rules, but upon closer inspection are actually incorrect. I do not believe that you have a rock-solid grasp of English grammar and punctuation, as many of your "corrections" are outright incorrect, introducing an error where none existed.

For example, more than one "and" in a list is not always a run-on sentence. If I write "he bought a new shirt and ironed his jacket and slacks", it cannot be changed to "he bought a new shirt, ironed his jacket and slacks" because the remaining "and" is not part of the primary list. The primary list contains two items: "he bought a new shirt" and "he ironed his jacket and slacks". "Jacket and slacks" is a new list which is nested within the primary list.

I urge you to stop trying to fix perceived grammatical or wording errors, and instead stick to fixing factual errors in the content, because I get the impression that you are not yet skilled enough in the minutiae of copyediting to actually improve the grammar in articles. (Wikipedia is already at a very high level in this regard, on average.) The comments others have left above tell me that I am not alone in noticing this -- people don't take the time to post to a talk page over one little mistake.

I also noticed that you have marked changes in wording as "grammatical errors". That is misleading. Changing words entirely is copyediting, and as you have been told above, is NOT a minor edit. — tooki (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will seek a block if you can't do this, as you have been communicated with many times. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I assume the "you" this is addressed to is @YuiBalle, not me? — tooki (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, sorry about the confusion there! Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply