Hello, Exchange Integral! 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. Happy editing! PLUMBAGO11:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Thanks for your edits to Cloud. I'm afraid that I elected to revert them because the added material wasn't in the best place, and was already covered more extensively elsewhere. It's debatable where information about formation should occur in the article, but there's currently a good section on this later on, and repetition of content within the same article isn't favoured. If you've any questions, drop me a line. And welcome again to Wikipedia! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO11:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. In case you missed it, the lead of the article also covers some of the material that you added previously (it omits convection and orographic lifting, but these are probably too much for the lead). I would certainly agree that it seems odd to hold the full detail of formation back until later in the article, but adding even helpful text (as your's is) in an arbitrary place isn't the way to solve this. I suggest that you look at how the article is currently structured, devise some way in which it could be reordered, and then propose this on the talk page. Or be bold and make the change yourself. But whatever you do should avoid being repetitive or breaking the flow of the article. People often focus on vandalism as a problem for Wikipedia, but a greater problem is localised editing that loses the sense of the text and makes articles a series of non-sequiturs. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO08:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your efforts have paid off somewhat — an editor who moved formation deeper into the article previously has reneged and moved it back to near the top. I think that's probably what you were after. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO13:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
