12,161
edits
User talk:Unowninator/Archive1: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
User talk:Unowninator/Archive1 (view source)
Revision as of 23:25, 12 January 2017
, 12 January 2017→Instruct: new section
(→TMs edit: new section) |
Nescientist (talk | contribs) (→Instruct: new section) |
||
| Line 390: | Line 390: | ||
Sorry, I accidentally hit the enter key when writing my edit summary. I meant to say: "I'd say genderless Pokémon fall under the 'few exceptions' mentioned at the start of the sentence." Sorry about that. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 07:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | Sorry, I accidentally hit the enter key when writing my edit summary. I meant to say: "I'd say genderless Pokémon fall under the 'few exceptions' mentioned at the start of the sentence." Sorry about that. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 07:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | ||
== Instruct == | |||
Hey. I noticed you've been doing quite a lot of research these days, obviously in an attempt to improve Bulbapedia. That's a good thing, and I'm really glad you're doing this. However, could you please pay a little more attention to what you're ''actually'' writing, please? To me, it seems you're investing quite a lot of time and effort to acquire knowledge Bulbapedia lacks, only to make edits that improve articles by far less than you actually could. I don't know if you just hastily paste what you have, and then hope that someone else improves the wording etc., but I've seen you do really good improvements elsewhere (I mean ones where others needn't modify). There's lots of value lost. I believe you ''can'' actually get everything out of your findings. If you just try. | |||
The reason I came here is [[Special:Diff/2580769|this edit]] (and the fact that I couldn't really fit everything I wanted to say in an edit summary). If you read the sentence after you modified it again, you will surely notice that you changed it to say you can actually flinch ''individually'', but you're edit summary just says you tested something else (that you can flinch the second, but not the first time). So, your edit summary doesn't match your addition here, and your addition doesn't match whatever you tested. I hadn't originally read your edit summary, so I assumed that someone tested it, and you could actually flinch individually; but, by chance, I tested it again while I was testing other things, and it turned out that wasn't true: when you flinch for your first move this turn, you will also flinch for your second move (same message). I was confused, and then I read your edit summary, which isn't evidence for what you made the page say. As I said, I think it's purely a matter of paying attention; writing detailed edit summaries is good and you do that, but actual page editions are just as important (or rather, they're even more important), and I guess you could try to pay a little more attention there as well. | |||
But, in general: I think you're doing really well, so keep up the good work! [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 23:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
