XIV

Alternate talk page
Welcome To My Alternate Talk Page FlightTime ( talk · contribs · count · accounts · move log · global rename log · uploads · logs · rights) Click here to leave a new message If you're here, "then my main talk page is protected." I do occasionally check this page, but to be sure I'm aware of your post please include {{ping|FlightTime}} with your message. Thank you FlightTime It is 6:54 PM where this user lives in the Mojave Desert. Welcome to my alternate talk page. Start a new topic. Archives Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 This talk page is automatically archived by, lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 14 days may be automatically moved. Threads with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.
	Welcome to my talk page. Start a new talk topic. Archives Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 14 days may be automatically moved. Threads with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.

Hi FlightTime!

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... I'm new to editing XIV!

I tried making number of corrections. And improvements today to the "Santa Susana Field Lab wiki." If I'm reading this right, you've reverted all my edits using Twinkle? If this is true, I'd like to ask you to undo your blanket reversion, as it's not clear to my why you would revert all of my edits.

It seems like you have a problem with the opening section, the third paragraph; you wrote "Unexplained removal, no sources to support changes." When I compare your change to the version that came before, I am confused, because it does indeed look like I simply deleted a whole chunk of text without any explanation/sourcing. That confuses me, because that is not the edit I intended to make; I made a smaller change to that section, and did provide a source.

I think I understand what happened though when I look at at edit that was made earlier today, by Adflatuss. When you compare my edit to the edit made by Adflatuss, you can see that Adflatuss thought that all of the material in that section should be moved to a different section of the wiki article, and so Adflatuss moved the material. Somehow, when you looked at it, this then made it look like I simply removed a bunch of content, when in fact it had simply been moved by another editor to elsewhere in the article.

Does this clear things up? I'm hoping we can resolve this, and that you can restore not only this edit. But all the other edits I made on this page today. I think when you look at the quality of my edits, you can see that they are generally well-justified, well-sourced, and not vandalism.

Thank you! Freakychakra987 @FlightTime: Freakychakra987 (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)※

@Freakychakra987: Review some of the links in that welcome template, most of your edits are a waste of time, changing the "best known" and "professionally known" don't need changing, unless it's a spelling error or incorrect English, I,'d leave it alone until you get more experienced. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)※

Hi @FlightTime,

Can you please respond more substantively to my message? I don't understand your response. It's pretty patently untrue that "most of my edits are a waste of time." Most of my edits were substantive changes that corrected inaccuracies, updated dead links, added relevant context... I'm not sure what you mean about "best known" and "professionally known," I don't believe any of the edits I made today used those phrases. And again, I don't think it's fair or acceptable use of XIV to revert all of my edits on a page. Because you disagree with parts of them. Freakychakra987 (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)※

Hello, on June 13th I added a link the Sammy Davis Jr. arrangements at the New York Public Library using the "archives at" template. You deleted it not long afterward, saying I needed consensus. Why is consensus needed on the addition of a featured link to the archives of a person? It's not a disputed fact about Davis, it's simply a link to archival material. I've added this kind of link to many other entries and "nobody has ever complained." The reason the "archives at" link exists is to draw attention to original documentation of subjects. If you're against its use, I'm curious as to why. Thank you. Reedmanwiki (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)※

@Reedmanwiki: It looks like I was suggesting discussion due to the location of your addition, between the infobox and the lead is not a normal place to insert links. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)※

It's meant to be a prominent feature for people to notice, therefore it's place under the quick facts box at the top right. If you really don't like it there I'll put it down with the external links but that defeats the purpose. Reedmanwiki (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)※

@Reedmanwiki: Well, it don't belong before the lead. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)※