User talk:Lauraham8

November 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Web search engine, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi - I'm Girth Summit, and I'd like to start a discussion with you about these changes you have been making at Web search engine. Your initial statement, Biases on Google have been prevalent for Google searches encompassing women. Google search has featured a range of sexist ideas such as... is vague, not directly referenced, and makes a factual statement that requires attribution. I can see what you are trying to do, and I'm not against including some discussion of these ideas, but you're going about it in the wrong way. Please consider what I've said, and perhaps consider putting a proposal that editors could discuss on the article's talk page rather than directly into the article. I'm going to put a templated message below here which gives information about our edit warring policies - I'm not saying that you've done anything wrong, but I recognised that you're new and it's important that you understand these policies going forward. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  18:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, you need to be attributing this, and providing a reference for each assertion - if it's all coming from one book, page numbers would be useful. I know you provide a ref in the next paragraph, but it needs to be very clear who is saying that there are biases in Google searches encompassing women - we can't just state it as bald fact.
 * You also need to be a lot clearer about what you mean in the list of ideas Google searches have featured. Do you mean they link to websites that espouse these ideas? We need to be specific, so reader understand exactly what the survey was measuring.
 * The text is somewhat confusing. You first mention Noble just using her surname, without introducing who she is; later on, you use the first name, but we still don't really know who she is (presumably an academic, judging from the book's publisher, but without a Wikilink this needs more context). You also don't explain what is meant by 'a direct correlation to old media in a new media architecture' - that needs explaining, I am a native English speaker and I have no idea what that means.

November 2019
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. Girth Summit  (blether) 18:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)