User talk:D.wright01
Welcome!
[edit]Hi D.wright01! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Pbritti (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
April 2025
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello. Can you tell me which edit you’re referring to? I’ve been careful to cite claims in the edits, so if there’s an oversight I’ve made it would be helpful to know where.
- D.wright01 (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Your edits regarding the Supreme Head of the Church of England were original research. While the doctrinal questions regarding the verbiage of that title are fascinating, they ought to be based in sourcing. Thank you for your edits to the project; please ping me if you ever require assistance! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- noted. The edits themselves did not mention the doctrinal questions, but merely fixed the citation of the Act. I did reference Cranmer’s views in the edit summary; I did this because I wanted it to be clear to other editors that the change was notable. My concern was that it would be considered a pedantic and unnecessary edit if one wasn’t familiar with the importance of the phrase. Can you clarify if it was in fact the edit summary you were referring to? For future reference, are explanatory notes like that in the edit summary not recommended? Or are they recommended, but citation is required? I was worried about properly citing given the character limit of the edit summary. Thank you for your advice here - I’m only asking these questions so I properly understand best practices.
- thanks!
- D.wright01 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Your edits regarding the Supreme Head of the Church of England were original research. While the doctrinal questions regarding the verbiage of that title are fascinating, they ought to be based in sourcing. Thank you for your edits to the project; please ping me if you ever require assistance! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)