User talk:Sartorialaficionado

Sartorialaficionado, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sartorialaficionado! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Sartorialaficionado, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  VViking_TalkEdits 13:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Karl Lagerfeld, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Bennv3771 Can you clarify how exactly is that WP:SYNTH you quoted when reverting the addition? It clearly says in 2019 and source citation is at appropriate places plus I quoted single source, which contradicts her previous statement, thank you. Sartorialaficionado (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sartorialaficionado: You combined two independent statements with a loaded "although" to imply a conclusion that is not supported by either source. Neither source connects Adele's 2019 exercise regime with Karl Lagerfeld's 2012 statement on her weight. Please refer to the examples given at WP:SYNTH. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There was no conclusion by me, only statement of the fact. She said she was proud of her body, but went on the strict diet and training regime that's all. Sartorialaficionado (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You have come to a conclusion (that Adele's 2019 regime contradicts her 2012 statement) on your own that is not reached by either source. Combining two unconnected statements of fact to imply a conclusion that isn't there is a clear cut violation of WP:SNYTH. The second source makes no mention whatsoever of Karl Lagerfeld in any case and doesn't belong in an article about him. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You have a point that it is a little too wide, since that is the case can we remove Adele's statement? It's not that important for Karl's article and I don't think it belongs there in first place, what is the point of Adele's disagreement? It's obvious she disagrees otherwise she wouldn't be what Karl calls "little too fat". Sartorialaficionado (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Coco Chanel; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--VViking_TalkEdits 17:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You should have self reverted because you have nothing but bad fate assumptions, if you continue being disruptive I intend to pursue settlement on other venues. Sartorialaficionado (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)