User talk:Mags0312

January 2020

Hello, I'm Jerm. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Daisy Lang, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! Jerm (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Lang

Your recent editing history at Daisy Lang 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jerm (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mags0312. My changes to the lead section of Daisy Lang are per MOS:BOXING/LEAD. If you scroll down to the bottom of the example lead sections you will see "An example lead section with just about everything wrong". Out of all the examples given, this is the only one that has place of birth after date of birth, meaning the place of birth does not belong where you put it. As Jerm informed, Lang May indeed be a pioneer in European women’s boxing, but a reliable source must be added for such a statement. Also, the mention of Regina Halmich is completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the subject of the article so definitely should not be in the lead. I removed the sentence of "competing for Germany" because she did not compete for Germany, she competed in Germany. Regardless, countless boxers choose (for one reason or another) to compete in foreign countries, so I don’t see how it’s relevant in the lead section and should really be expanded upon in the prose. – ².O.^Boxing 22:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to give WP:COI a read. I’m not clued up on the policies surrounding conflict of interests but I think this may be an issue. – ².O.^Boxing 22:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]