User talk:Redwoodjon42

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Hahn Group, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Felt were unnecessary" not a valid explanation for removal. Adakiko (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Adakiko, thank you for checking my edit. I'm trying to make some small contributions to the Wikipedia community so I am grateful for any helpful tips that can help me along the way.

  After reading through Wikipedia:When to cite, I noticed that there were a number of primary sources that were used as references (for example,Reference No.7 and Reference No.24). Moreover, there were inline citations for statements that does not fall under any of the "When a source is needed" criteria. Unless I am mistaken, are they not considered citation overkill? As such, I had removed them. On my edit summary notes, I have the tendency to be as brief possible as I do in real life. I am seeing now that this is probably not the right behavior on Wikipedia.

  If my edit was inappropriate, let's keep the original version and I apologize for taking up your time. Thank you. Redwoodjon42 (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wp:Primary sources can be useful; especially if they are not self-serving. A {{primary source}} tag might be useful in place of removal It's often a judgement-call. A more descriptive ES might be a good idea. BTW: please ping people to your talk page. See help:notifications. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]