Hello, I'm Favonian. I noticed that you recently removed content from Abrahamic religions 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. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Favonian, I am happy to provide an edit summary, and the changes made added value and were accurate and I am happy to discuss further. I believe you made a mistake and in the future contact me first before deleting content. Once you restore it I will provide an edit summary and I think that's a good next step. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nycarchitecture212! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I appreciate your response. I recently noticed that some of my edits were reverted, and I would like to ensure that I understand the best practices. As someone who is a Subject Matter Expert in Manhattan real estate, I found it a bit confusing why those specific contributions, along with a few others, were reverted. I sincerely hope to contribute positively to the community, especially after being a long-time user as a consumer. Wishing you all the best, and I'm excited to be a part of this community. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at your edits, a lot of the issues can be traced to the style of the edits. They come across as spammy, with a lot of adjectives that are at odds with encyclopedic summary style. That is to say, it needs to be dry and to the point. You're not writing for a magazine, it's an encyclopedia. Stick to the facts, and never, ever, draw conclusions in Wikipedia's voice unless they're amply supported in reliable sources - and maybe not even then.

I'm an architect with 40 years of professional experience,. There's a lot that I could write about from personal professional knowledge and experience. But I can't, because what I know can only be included if it can be supported by reference to published sources from recognized authorities. We get a lot of editors who know the Earth is flat, that vaccines are poison, or that the British royal family are all reptilian humanoids. But they can's reference that in reliable sources, so their redits are reverted.

Stick to what the sources say, summarize, avoid close paraphrase, and avoid superlatives, informality, and analysis. If something crosses the threshold of notability for inclusion, it is already extraordinary in the very literal sense of not commonplace. We don't need to embellish. Acroterion (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]