User talk:Softlavender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of edit warring templates

[edit]

A single revert in an article of an edit you made without prior discussion doesn’t constitute an edit war, whether the revert was justified or not. As per BRD the correct approach after a revert is discussion. Kindly restrict your use of warnings posted on other editors’ own talk pages to situations where they are justified under policy. Thank you. MapReader (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made two reverts of the official title on the infobox [1] [2], which is edit-warring. The discussion was already on the articletalk page well before you made your first revert [3]. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Hello Softlavender, sorry for bothering you. I'm not good at English so reading messages will make mistakes. But I want to explain that while I was editing and removing unnecessary links, the power went out. I switched to the app but didn't know how to use the app so I couldn't adjust it in time before you set the warning. Maybe you misunderstood, I'm embarrassed by the message on the talk page, can you delete it? Because there are many things I don't know, I wanted to ask you, not intending to start a fight. As for deleting messages on my page, it's due to my habit. I apologize to you. ^-^ DiamondsRuby (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to delete the usertalk message. You need to leave an edit summary for each of your edits, and avoid putting more than one citation inside a ref code. Softlavender (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok i got it, thank you ^-^,let's make up. I still don't know many things. I hope you will sympathize and help me in the future. My two most recent edits are based on your opinion, no longer combining links. DiamondsRuby (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at The New York Times shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Seasider53 (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

[edit]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

[edit]

Hello! We are allowed to ask other users if they have ever seen anything reliably sourced about info we feel is noticeably, especially remarkably, missing in an article. Please never arbitrarily remove any input on article talk pages which is relevant to article content, whether actual, proposed or missing! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thread violated WP:NOTAFORUM and was deleted. If you try to replace it I will report you to administrators. Softlavender (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It did not violate that guideline. If I replace it, your report to admins, which will backfire, would be most welcome. Please never remove any information or question relevant to article content from any article talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Neill

[edit]

Re my additions to the article on Sam Neill and the policy on living persons, the Policy page on “Biographies of Living People” says that material “challenged or likely to be challenged” shall be supported by neutral sources; but it does not say that quoting from memoirs is forbidden! Re Sam Neill his memoir would enable me to add that he attended Cashmere and Medbury (primary) schools (4 years?) before attending Christs’ College (secondary school), and also why he transferred from Chritchurch to Wellington to complete his BA!. I suppose that I better not say that he did not enjoy his time at Medbury in case it was challenged, although reporting a personal reaction could be regarded as a fact not an opinion.. I had regarded as Neill’s comments on the two roles when he played Irishmen as of interest as he was born in Northern Ireland , though may omit them. Hugo999 (talk)

Re quoting from memoirs of dead people the WWII diary of Alanbrooke edited and published posthumously in 2001 is regarded as more reliable in recording his frustrations in dealing with Churchill as CIGS of the British armed forces than the extracts published in the 1950s in two books by historian Arthur Bryant; The Turn of the Tide and Triumph in the West. This is because in the 1950s Churchill and others were still alive and might sue. This happened with a biography of Stanley Baldwin (see article on him) by G. M. Young when the publisher had to replace at great expense a section of seven leaves after threats to sue by Churchilll and Lord Beaverbrooke. Hugo999 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talkpage; please keep the conversation there to keep the conversation together. Softlavender (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Softlavender&oldid=1234368827"