User talk:AnfieldSouth

Welcome!

Hello, AnfieldSouth!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Julietdeltalima, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you had been moving this discussion to Talk:Hillsborough disaster as I requested, that would have been suboptimal (a copy-and-paste, rather than cut-and-paste, would have been the better course of action), but once a user has responded to your comments, it is NOT ON to delete them altogether. You have a link to the tutorial on how to use this site: please use it! Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are WP:edit-warring against consensus on inclusion. Two editors have objected to the content you which to insert on Hillsborough disaster. The amount of text you wish to add is disproprtionate and poorly sourced. The WP:ONUS is on you to gain agreement for the text. If you continue to edit war, you are liable to be reported and may be banned from editing. This is your only warning. Pincrete (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it's fair for you to decide to edit text from 2010 and 2016 (removing names crediting with organising a Hillsborough Memorial) just because you feel like it whereas I am unable to revert back to the original entry without concensus. Where was your effort to come to consensus with me before deleting the names which have been in the article for over a decade without anyone objecting? The entry is factual, informative and speaks to a lasting legacy of rememberance of people who were unlawfully killed. The source for the seat is a reputable publication and the amount of text is not disproportionate compared to the article as a whole. AnfieldSouth (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That a memorial exists is worthy of mention (just), when the coverage of a bench and a chair (not even yet in place) on a hill in South Africa is double the level of coverage of the entire UK football world marking an anniversary by delaying all matches - then it is disproportionate. The people who organised the bench and the chair are not individually significant nor widely reported. We are not here to memorialise the dead, regardless of our personal feelings, even less so to honour people who may have organised these memorials. People can read the sources if they want that level of information. WP articles are necessarily concise and pruned of info which is not of widespread interest or value. Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with having people make these edits from a position of ignorance. Spion Kop is not simply "a hill in South Africa" no matter how disrespectfully you put it. Spion Kop has a direct and significant link to Liverpool FC and the South African memorial has been noted and mentioned during the Memorials held at Anfield. The bench us a noted local landmark and has been visited by former LFC players as a mark of respect. As such it is more than worthy of a mention and I don't think you are in a position to judge whether that is the case or not. As I previously stated, the entries (including names of those involved) are sourced and factual. The fact the entries have been on wikipedia for nearly 13 years without anyone objecting or editing should be testament to their value and validity. The fact you object to mentioning the seat because it will not be placed there for another 3 weeks is, frankly, laughable. What difference does it make whether it's already there or will be soon? AnfieldSouth (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your fourth revert. If you do not undo it, you will be blocked for violating WP:3RR.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit has been undone by another editor. To be clear, if you restore the disputed content without first getting consensus on the article talk page for its inclusion, you will be blocked from editing.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see above, I attempted to discuss the edit with Pincrete and they ignored the message and reverted my post, not only the recent one but also from 2010 and 2016. How is this reasonable? Having a entry edited just because someone feels like it is disrespectful in the extreme and seems fair game to everyone except the original poster. Being threatened with banning without having a response to a message is completely unfair and unreasonable. AnfieldSouth (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your edits have been reverted by multiple editors. WP:3RR is a bright line policy because everyone in an edit war believes they are correct. You are the only editor who has exceeded three reverts. When content you wish to add or restore to an article is removed, the onus is on the individual who wants to add the material to get consensus for its inclusion. This is done on the corresponding article talk page (not user talk pages). See this link for additional information regarding dispute resolution.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The revert mentioned by julietdeltalima was noted and adjusted, she has not made any further reverts/edits. You, Ponyo. have not made any reverts so it's only 1 editor who has the issue with the post as I finalised it. If wikipedia allows 1 person to edit an article to their own agenda without consequence, bit not another, there's a fundamental flaw. AnfieldSouth (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, everyone who edit wars believes they are right and the onus is on the individual looking to add or restore disputed content to get consensus for its inclusion. That consensus if not going to be achieved on this talk page, or by protesting Wikipedia's fundamental policies regarding consensus building. You need to follow dispute resolution and make your arguments for inclusion at Talk:Hillsborough disaster.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not revert more than twice in a 24-hour period, as per Wikipedia policies. I also am not, as many people seem to assume, a full-time Wikipedia editor; this is a volunteer task I perform a few times a day when I have a few moments, and I have not had further moments today to address this situation. You have a brand-new account. Please do what a savvy newcomer does in any situation, and listen to what more experienced people are telling you. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ignore your message. I saw it for what it was, a paper-thin excuse for you to restore your own favoured text. Any further discussion should be on the article talk page. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a paper-thin excuse, it's about correctly informing people about something relevant to a topic. AnfieldSouth (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]