User talk:LazLong Sr

Welcome!

Hello, LazLong Sr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

A few helpful links

I've closed the thread at WP:ANI, which shouldn't be seen as any sort of controversial close, but as always an admin or other editor who disagrees with me may reopen at their discretion although I doubt that will happen. I thought I'd follow up with my links at ANI with a couple extra helpful ones.

WP:TPG - This one is a helpful guideline on how talk pages are used. As a general description, our talk pages are provided by the WMF as a space for other users to post queries/discussions to others. It's generally seen as bad form to use it as a forum space.

WP:ARCHIVE - This is a useful link to set up archiving on your talk page. There is no requirement to archive discussions on your talk page but is generally seen as a very helpful way of back-referencing old discussions. Every edit that changes a page in some way on WP are saved as you can see by clicking the View History tab at the top of the page. However, for some editors who have been here for some time who have extensive discussions with other editors their histories can literally stretch for pages. Here is where archiving can help. Also, archiving is seen as a courtesy to users who do not have fast connections or have older computers that may struggle to load enormous talk pages. Most editors archive but some do just leave everything on the page and I have seen some unarchived talk pages stretching back 7 years or more.

WP:RS and WP:RSN - The reliability sources guideline is a fundament of WP and many editors refer to it as a near-policy. Where there are disagreements as to the reliability of a source, RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard, is a place where editors can seek the opinions of experienced editors about a source.

WP:3O - This is where two editors seeking a third opinion can go. In some articles which are not frequented by many editors it may be difficult to gain consensus especially if the majority of editing is being done by 2 editors. In this case, WP:3O is a very helpful place where the perspectives of more experienced editors can be sought.

WP:DRN - This is the dispute resolution noticeboard where disagreements amongst a number of editors can be hashed out. At DRN, you can find many experienced editors who have a great deal of knowledge about WP matters that can provide much the same service as found at WP:3O.

Wiki-jargon is like any other language and takes time. Hope some of these links help! Blackmane (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Cleveland, Texas, 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. Jim1138 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Cleveland, Texas, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

I undid your edit because of a lack of an edit summary. A "See talk page" would have prevented my revert. I struck my warnings.
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, and forgive my ignorance in failure to use "edit summery." I know you have more important things to do than this, so thank you for your time as well as helping me through your expertise. LazLong Sr (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did the preferences thing. It is a pain, but otherwise I would usually forget to leave an ES. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished going through it. Hope I selected the right things - but made SURE to click the blank edit summary. Thanks again (PS) wish it had one to remind me to use the tilde signature *LOL* LazLong Sr (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Hi LazLong, you've removed the same section 11 times from Cleveland, Texas since November 2011. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] If you do it again, you're likely to be reported and possibly blocked; see Wikipedia:Edit warring. Instead of reverting, please keep discussing on talk. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 02:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied from SV talk] If you don't mind helping me, I have a couple of questions concerning your comment to me about the on-going discussion in the Cleveland, Texas city page.

You say, "Instead of reverting, please keep discussing on talk."

First, the discussion has been going on for years and neither he or I appear to change our stances - although there is a simple solution I suggested 24 November 2011 and to my amazement Herostratus brings up this month as a solution as if it was a new consideration - Put that old breaking-news crime story in it's own wikipage.

Next, since the addition in question was added to the page, why is my removal of the addition in question "reverting" as opposed to the repeated reverting by the main individual in the talk-page discussion (or someone he contacts)?

Thanks for looking those things up, and I'll make the rest of my reply on the Cleveland, Texas talk page. Your help is appreciated.

PS - Am I the only one that keeps forgetting to do the tilde sign thing? *LOL* Maybe I'm showing my ignorance here since I'm not a regular editor on wiki, but since a person signs in, and the program adds the signed-in individual's name if they don't use the tilde signature, what is the purpose of the tilde process? I know, goofy question but was wondering.

LazLong Sr (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LazLong Sr, sorry for the delay in replying. I've posted your response here so that it's in one place. You can reply here if you want to; I have this page on my watchlist.

First, thanks for stopping the reverting. The RfC will continue for 30 days, then an uninvolved editor will sum up the consensus. Re: the signature, what's happening is that a bot is adding your signature because you didn't sign. To sign, add four tildes ~~~~ (top left on your keyboard) after your posts. This gives your user name and a timestamp. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And my second question: Why aren't Herostratus' actions "reverting"? LazLong Sr (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LazLong Sr (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)LazLong Sr (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]