LH7605

Welcome

What made you think that a pictured of a close collaborator would not be good for an article? Look at articles such as Rossini, - how many images of others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Gerda Arendt, I suppose you are talking about this edit? I actually deleted the picture because it was totally out of context to me. It had no description or subtext whatsoever and had nothing to do with the article on Handke. If it was a picture of Wenders at the set, while shooting the movie based on Handkes novel or anything similar, I would not have deleted it. But it only showed Wenders at the Berlin Film Festival a few years back. That has nothing to do with neither Handke, nor his book, nor the film adaption. I am in favour of including more pictures though, what do you thinkg about this one? Greetings, --LH7605 (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC) PS: I deleted the "welcome" box.

Avoiding an edit war

Hi LH7605,

thank you very much for your report. 86.176.181.198 has been blocked to prevent further edit warring. However, the correct advice in the edit summary of Special:Diff/934865353 applies to you as well. Edit warring is disruptive even if you are right. I will provide standardized advice about this issue below. You have not been blocked because you have not received this warning before. This is the only reason; please be more careful in the future. Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The latest revert should ideally not have been done by you, but reverting edits from blocked users, even if not made during a block, may be exempt from the edit warring policy. Also, you had probably not seen this message yet.

Please note that especially for such highly watched articles, you almost never need to do this yourself. Someone else will see and fix the problem a few hours later; there is no rush.

I like the following essay, but it is only an essay, not a guideline or policy: Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for informing me about the edit-war-policy and the three-revert rule – I actually did not know about that. And thank you for the good faith you put in me. Best regards, --LH7605 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a rare answer to this kind of warning, as it likely feels unjustified to most recipients. It's not really for me to judge, but I'd say you likely have a precious mindset that is often missing in this encyclopedia, and that I personally don't always manage to keep.

Feel free to remove the message, and/or especially the one below. It is not meant to be a pillory; it has clearly reached its target and is no longer needed. I hope that despite the unpleasant surprise, you do generally enjoy editing here.

Please let me know if any questions arise, or feel free to ask at the Teahouse for independent advice whenever needed. If I may share one more link, I'd like to share one that is shown in the left sidebar. I have not noticed it for years; it didn't seem to be important. Only recently, I have noticed the value of the Community portal.

Best regards and greetings from Wuppertal
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the "precious mindset", don't put too much faith in me ;) Joking aside, it does not seem unjustified to me and I appreciate that you shared valuable information with me – which, in a nutshell, is what wikipedia is all about: sharing valuable information. Therefore, I won't delete the message below (for now, at least).

Greetings from Kölle am Rhing, LH7605 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

the word "tennis" in articles

This had been brought to the attention at Tennis Project that readers were never informed, on these stand-alone articles, what sport we were talking about. Golf, Snooker, Cricket, Tennis. We agreed and now we make sure that all the article say the word "tennis" in the first sentence. It might be obvious when Federer or Nadal are playing, but to many readers the names can be unknown. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me @Fyunck(click): I already undid my edit as soon as I saw that all the other US Open articles had the word "tennis" in it. Seems a bit unnecessary and even tautologous to me, but I agree that not everybody knows who Serena or Roger are. Cheers, --LH7605 (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I saw you undid it, I just wanted to let you know why we did it. It's probably not as much for Roger or Serena these days as it is for Newcombe, Rosewall, Hingis, Henin, etc... and we just make sure it's consistent. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Campeonato Brasileiro Série A

I don't understand why the simple fact that the competition still don't have any match played yet, despite being part of the current season, can't have the link to its next edition displayed. Wikipedia is a platform to people access information and this kind of attitude just make information less accessable to everyone. Xguilex (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You can put it there after competition has started but current season is giving the impression that the season is already running, which in fact is not the case. I'd rather give no information than a information that is not 100% accurate. Unfortunately, there is no parameter such as upcoming_season as far as I know, so we just have to wait until May 3rd, 2020. (besides that, there is also a link to the 2020 season on the page). Cheers, --LH7605 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

not too bad of a prediction from my side here, I'd say... LH7605 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Champions League

Hello somebody edited English Winners and Finalist from 14–10 back down to 13–9, should be it changed back as we know there will be an English Winner and Runner-up ?. 31.200.145.49 (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Care to elaborate why you come to me? Have not been editing at said page recently...I personally think that there is no benefit in including this info now. Why not wait a few days until the 2021–21 Final is played and the edition is finished. Best, --LH7605 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No reason in particular that I came to you. When I try to edit the winners/runners-up or finals it does not let me why is that ?. Is it a special section or what ?. Regards 89.204.188.146 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't know, best you ask on this page: Talk:List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals. Best, --LH7605 (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't revert the lists into sections

Hello, LH7605. Please, do not revert the 2021 ATP Masters 1000 list into sections. As much as I appreciate your contribution to the section by keeping short and concise, it makes it that much for difficult to edit the source code, which leaves it for future editors to only use the visual editor and that obstructs those who edit on mobile. Please, refrain from doing this. Best. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Qwerty284651: glad you reached out. I guess you are talking about these two edits? (The deleting ones in between were due to technical limitations on my behalf). I actually don't understand why you reverted this way of showing the bracket / results, because it seems to be much easier, as the results are automatically fed through 2021 Italian Open – Men's Singles and no editing at all will be needed at 2021 ATP Masters 1000 (hence solving the mobile edit problems). It also would save up some bytes, I guess. Don't worry, I won't start edit-warring but I'd very much like to hear an explanation why you reverted my edit calling it "Potential vandalism". Best, LH7605 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable source.

Hello. Youtube is not a reliable source, so I've reverted your edit. If you use a reference, please provide it in the article. Thank you, MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 00:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)