User talk:Marbe166

There is no consensus to remove it, a few editors thinking it is too trivial years ago is not consensus. The edit note is against wiki policy and again written without consensus. It's notable and is the main reason she is known in the English speaking world. You don't get to remove sourced information because you don't like it or think it's trivial. The talk page already has plenty of comments saying "hey this is notable and the skier herself has made light of it" which was also mentioned in the edit.Basetornado (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I am amazed that you defended this photo. Do you ever use a talk page to discuss such things, or do you just revert arbitrarily, sort of on a whim? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I have nominated List of first ladies of the United States for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 16:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Try to learn this time instead of just steamrollering your way through all opposition (and I make no apologies if this sounds snippy, you've created an unnecessary mess which I'd nuke back to the starting position except I think you'd just edit war it back again instead of doing the right thing). Cutting and pasting is not the way to move an entire article from one title to another. Articles can be moved, which takes their revision history with them. Otherwise it will appear (hopefully inadvertently) that you have created the entire article yourself from scratch where it should actually be attributed to multiple authors. It is possible for admins to perform a somewhat cumbersome process of copying history from one article to another. You've compounded the mess by leaving almost the same article in two places. Pick one and edit the other, then clean up your mess. The absolute minimum required behaviour when copying a mass of content from one article to another, where a histmerge is not practical, is to declare the attribution in the edit history so it is clear where to look for who really created the content.

Pinging @Lars A: who should also read this as the editor who did the initial simple cut'n'paste move. Lithopsian (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Lithopsian Get down from your high horse. The fact is that this warrants two articles, one for Anders Roslund and one for Roslund & Hellström, the writing duo. Anders Roslund did not have a standalone article before, and now he has, and Lars A and others have improved it with facts that do not belong to the Roslund & Hellström article since those facts don't concern Hellström. Therefore a page move would have been inappropriate. And, do not accuse me of claiming that I wrote the initial article myself. Wikipedia is de facto a collaborative project, and no single user can claim ownership of an article. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Lithopsian and Marbe, thanks for your patience! I understand now I made a bad mistake. I am really sorry having made a mess. It was done entirely out of ignorance and inexperience. It simply didn't cross my mind to try and check with manuals and guides. Thanks Lithopsian for showing me why cut-and-paste moves are bad. Lars A (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)