User talk:LynwoodF/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Sections dormant by 31 December 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Voorpost may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• "monitor">Rodrigues and Donselaar (eds), Monitor Racisme & Extremisme - Negende rapportage], Pallas Publications, Amsterdam University Press (2010), pp. 49-50 ([http://www.annefrank.org/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

) 23:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Correction done. LynwoodF (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I contacted the user about the "scripts" edit, but it doesn't look like they can be reasoned with. I support your revert.

) 19:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Thank you also for taking the flak that I might have received. It was so obviously a failure, on the part of a non-native user of English, to appreciate a subtle distinction that I decided not to engage in a discussion, but instead to revert the edit with as polite an edit summary as I could muster.

I lived in France for several years and was so fluent in French that someone once asked me what region I was from (quite a compliment from a native speaker of French!), but I am loath to correct a Frenchman's use of his own language in a WP article. They have their own particular conventions, some of which seem decidedly odd to me, e.g. the use of tenses in biographical articles.

LynwoodF (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear! Have you seen what the Bulgarian has done? I am not prepared to stir up an edit war, but I am afraid she has wrecked two articles. LynwoodF (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

As I tried to form some kind of agreement with this user and they didn't seem willing, I've just reverted it all back to its original state. The fact that their edits were reverted by two different editors is enough (I think) to show that there is no consensus for those changes, and that they should attempt to discuss them first.

talk

) 12:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I hope the message sinks in this time. LynwoodF (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not. Sigh. :(

talk

) 17:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I groaned when I saw that she was back. If it happens again, perhaps I could leave it to you to do the reverting, so as to avoid any semblance of an edit war. LynwoodF (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand that logic. Two users reverting each other looks more like an edit war than when multiple users are reverting the same user. The latter gives more of an appearance of consensus against the user's edits, which is the case here if I'm not mistaken?

talk

) 11:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, so I am suggesting that if it happens again, I should leave it to you to revert. I could then take my turn if there is a further instance. LynwoodF (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now reverted her edit three times. I should not be surprised to see it come back again. Would you like to revert again if it does? I was wondering whether to put a polite vandalism notice on her talk page. This would probably not have any effect, but is necessary as a first step to requesting admin. assistance. LynwoodF (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. LynwoodF (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have just left some advice on User talk:90.214.223.39. Perhaps you could give them a little free space ( a few minutes? ) to see if they self-revert and start to conform to standard practice. I realise that as an IP they may not see the advice, in which case, if you wish, I will revert their last edit later this evening and guide them to their own talk page. I hope this helps. Regards Chienlit (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I was beginning to get worried about an edit war, so I hoped someone else would get involved. It would be kind of you to revert the last edit instead of me.

I used to live in France and was amused by your username. Actually though, having read your message to the IP user, I think you are a pourer of oil on troubled waters!

It is a pity this user is so keen to introduce this snippet of information. It is not customary to mention primary schools in such contexts and it would probably have been weeded out soon anyway. Best wishes. LynwoodF (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have added a little to the users page, so I will check it out later. I hope there is no objections to primary schools because I would support the IP's desire to add it, just not currently sourced way. After all it shows that Roberts is rooted in the area where here grandfather was mayor - if my memory serves correctly... and I have added similar detail, but properly sourced, to the article on

Helen Glover (rower) which I look after. Regards, lets see what tomorrow brings. Chienlit (talk

) 22:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC) (p.s. Although I am a Francophile at heart, my mirror always shows an English dullard. I read about the Guardian's original chien-lit mistake in the Guardian itself about 45 years ago, and simply loved the word.)

My position can be summarized as follows:

- Living persons are acceptable authorities on their own lives (see Biographies of Living Persons)

- Friends Reunited is a self-authored social media page, like Twitter, Facebook, etc. both of which are explicitly acceptable as sources of information on the author. Alice's Wikipage references her Twitter account and personal website as sources; Friends Reunited is a source of similar validity.

- The appropriate method of asking for clarification of a source is to add a "citation needed" tag, not to revert the edit, unless the information added is controversial.

- The information is relevant given Alice's outspoken atheism in adulthood. Both of her schools were nominally Anglican.

Shall we consolidate this discussion on User talk:90.214.223.39?

Shall do. LynwoodF (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)