User talk:Sterredag

Welcome!

Hello, Sterredag, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hi Sterredag! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of False memory several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:False memory, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your message. I did made adjustments to the edit before returning, so i didn't just returned it. Sterredag (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, looks like I misread the history on that one.

Would suggest raising the issue on the talk page now that it's been reverted twice with similar concerns each time, if you feel that the article is inaccurate. Belbury (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find that, but wiki somehow is very chaotic to me and I can't find the talkpage.

I disagree with the concern because it states I posted a untrustworthy source, but I think if you talk about someone who stated the term, the way SHE mentioned is and the page to HER blog how she ment it is the most trustworthy source.

Can you help me find the talk page I clicked talk pages but didn't get into the talk article of the page. ( I even can't find my own talk page unless someone posted on it and I can click in that message) Sterredag (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's at Talk:False memory.

You should see a "talk" tab at the top of every article. Belbury (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I got it now and place some text.

Can you tell me what to do when someone just keeps reverting an edit. I really didn't make it completely diffrent just more neutral and he just keeps not accepting the person HE mentioned own website as a reliable source. Sterredag (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone repeatedly reverts (or restores) the same edit, see Wikipedia:Edit warring for how to handle it.

You can see the page history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_memory&action=history, though - the user Hob Gadling reverted your addition on the 6th, and I reverted your (broadly similar) edit on the 7th, so nobody has reverted your edit repeatedly. Belbury (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oke in that case May I ask why you reverted it? Or can I safely return it since I did made adjustments in the edit and you didn't notice that. Sterredag (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see my edit summary there: Poor writing ("Like additional memories about WHY there are sure.") and unreliable WP:BLOG reference

My mistake above was that I thought you'd reverted the same content more than once. I still think the writing style is inappropriate and the blog source is of questionable use per WP:BLOG. Belbury (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you I understand it more now.

I could adjust that sentence, that is however how people experience ME do experience it. They most often not just think it was diffrent, but have additional memories to it.

I'm still looking for the article I once read years ago how that would made false group memory a less explanation of it.

But I can adjust that.

Then the reference. This is the blog of Fiona herself.

I dont understand why you think the refrence is not reliable, since this is her page, and her talking about this effect. As in the article is stated SHE dubbed the term. And i refrenced the link of her blog in which SHE explaines how she meant the meaning of this term.

Could you explain how that is unreliable. Sterredag (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the thread you've started on the article talk page when I have time, if nobody else addresses it first. Belbury (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

since it has been a week and nobody else responded I just wanted to send a little reminder, respectfully of course. But maybe you just forgot. Sterredag (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about it, I'll take a look. Belbury (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]