From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Edgefield County, South Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Edgefield County, South Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Unsourced Content in article

It seems that a user added a lot of content to the " History" section but did not cite any sources. Skimming through, it looks like some of this information will be quite hard to find references for. There is a edit before the user added the content that I can revert the section back to. I might be wrong but it looks like it was copied from the article Edgefield, South Carolina which would also have to be fixed too. What is the opinion on this? DiscoA340 ( talk) 22:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi DiscoA340. I took down the RFC template per WP:RFCBEFORE. There doesn't seem to be any need for an RFC... at least not yet... if you aren't facing any opposition. I see you're an experienced editor but I'll run though some things you may already know, in case it provides you more clarity or confidence to proceed.
I only glanced at the content, but your concerns seem reasonable and supported by policy.
All editors are invited and encouraged to WP:Boldly make improvements. You don't need an RFC or permission to trim inappropriate or unsourced content. For any unsourced content that appears reasonable, correct, useful, likely to be sourcable, you may want to consider letting it stay and tagging it as {{ Citation needed}}. It's not necessary to remove anything you think worth keeping.
You might want to see WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You can just go ahead and edit, if someone reverts (and you don't agree with it) then you can discuss it. If discussion hits a deadlock, then an RFC can resolve the dispute.
You suggested possibly reverting back to 07:08, 12 December 2020. That seems to be overkill. The Short description should almost certainly stay, I'm not sure but I think at least some of the infobox changes appeared appropriate, and in general you should see if anything else is worth salvaging. Alsee ( talk) 19:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Alsee I understand, I'll look through the section and pare down some of the excessive details. Also, I didn't mean reverting the whole article back to that edit. I would have only taken the "History" section as that was the last edit before the excess details were added to it. Sorry for the confusion, have a good day! DiscoA340 ( talk) 20:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Edgefield_County,_South_Carolina&oldid=1196417051"