User talk:Klmr

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Klmr! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Peaceray. I noticed that you recently removed content from R (programming language) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Peaceray (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Peaceray, thanks for your message. I’m a long-term — albeit very infrequent — Wikipedia editor, and I believe my (admittedly flippant) edit summary adequately described why I removed the content in question: the content was unencyclopedic and opinionated and belongs in a personal blog — next time I’ll use WP:NOTBLOG and/or WP:SOAPBOX instead, if that’s more palatable. My comment would have been understood by people familiar with the article’s subject. And this indeed seems to be the case, since the person who “reverted” my edit went on to fully restore it, and added a (still gratuitous and arguably unencyclopedic but) brief and neutral description in its place. In other words: the person who reverted my edit clearly actually agreed with the gist of it. I’m OK with the ultimate outcome, but it’s unfortunate that the process in which it came about made my edit seem invalid. klmr (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]