User talk:AryKun

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome AryKun! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:39, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Elephant

You claim that the article should only be about the 3 living elephants. There seems to be no consensus, and your viewpoint is contradicted by the article itself (I just reverted all the ways in which it does, since you seem so confident about it. I didn’t want to do it, hopefully the previous versions can be restored if consensus dictates extinct elephantids can be included to some degree). Editors seem not to agree with the viewpoint you have. CoastRedwood (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think consensus is against me, you disagree with me, and the article contradicts me, why are you editing the article to match what you think my opinion is? Any reason for doing that besides being a fucking numbskull? AryKun (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, block me, not the person vandalizing a highly-trafficked article to make a stupid point. AryKun (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was your opinion that the scope of the article is meant to be restricted to the 3 living elephant species, not mine. CoastRedwood (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't vandalize the article to make a point if you don't even believe the point. AryKun (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I was trying to make a point? Just please don’t contradict yourself next time by saying that the article’s scope is only for the 3 living elephant species, and then being against changes I make to fit that view. CoastRedwood (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this issue isnt about argument’s it’s about finding consensus. CoastRedwood (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then focus on finding consensus instead of sitting around arguing when the entire conversation has involved only three editors. Go and leave a message on Talk:MAMMAL instead of churlishly vandalizing the article because of some imaginary notion of what my opinions are. And also, get off my talk page and quit bugging me. If you want consensus, you can ask additional editors to weigh in, you don't have to annoy me to my breaking point in the hopes that I'll give in to whatever edits you want to make. AryKun (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said the article focuses on the three living species. You are fixated on the definition of the word elephant and think that because the extinct elephantids are also called elephants, they have to be shoehorned into this article. When most people look up elephants, they want to read about the living elephants and our article focuses on those. We should educate readers about the extinct elephants, which is why Elephantidae exists. If you are having trouble understanding this concept, look at penguin, fox, or literally any article about a paraphyletic taxon with extinct members. They mention the extinct the members, which is why I'm against removing all mentions of mammoths and Paleoloxodon; those mentions provide crucial info and context. That does not mean that our article should give the extinct species as much attention as the living ones. AryKun (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AryKun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

CR had a long argument on talk with two people, did not convince either of them that their changes were necessary, and then proceeded to borderline vandalize the article by removing tons of essential information. They said they were doing this to make the article conform to my opinion, despite the fact that no-one, least of all me, asked them to do it. In this process, they pinged me no less than 6 times across pages. I understand WP:PA. However, I also think the thoroughly juvenile way CR went about trying to win the argument can be understood as enough of a provocation for me to swear at them and call them an idiot. I have no history of picking fights or being unnecessarily rude to other editors, but I can hardly be expected to tolerate someone vandalizing an article and then saying they're doing it for me.AryKun (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're trying to justify your attacks, not tell why they are wrong. That brings you closer to getting the block extended, not removed. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@331dot: jfc. I know PAs are wrong, I'm just saying I did them cuz I was pissed off at the vandalism. I'm unlikely to repeat it because I'm unlikely to be that provoked again. I do explicitly refuse to say they are unjustified; CR practically vandalized the article using the justification that that's what my POV requires, 10 days after letting a discussion on the issue go stale with no consensus. I'm not going to grovel and apologize for it like I was in the wrong for swearing over mainspace vandalism in my name. I won't do it again, but I refuse to debase myself by acting like it was worse than the vandalism. AryKun (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the next reviewer will want, but I don't want you to beg, grovel, or apologize(if you're not sorry). I was looking for some acknowledgement of incivility and an understanding that personal attacks are not justifiable here. If you have an issue with the behavior of others, there are better ways to handle it. Just because you can say fuck doesn't mean that you should. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to avoid PAs in the future, but only because it's policy, not because it's unjustifiable. I acknowledge I was very uncivil, I also think it was justified. PA is one of those policies that I follow because it's policy, not because I agree with it. This might be a bit blunt but I feel like it's best if the next reviewing admin knows my actual thoughts on the issue, instead of getting a generic, insincere apology. AryKun (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I will do my best to avoid PAs in the future, but only because it's policy, not because it's unjustifiable" is the wrong answer, and as I suggest above, brings you closer to a longer block, not getting this one removed. Policy shouldn't be the only thing keeping you from making personal attacks- and that didn't work on this occasion, either. Basic human courtesy should. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I meant by the PA being justified: I don't mean that the PA was a good way to go about doing things, simply that I believe there was a justification for it. Let's say I started a discussion with you over the scope of a page and let it go stale with no consensus. 10 days later, I remove a paragraph of sourced and relevant information from the page, say this is because that's what your opinion requires, ping you six times, and start a section on talk called "331dot's odd opinions". I feel like you might see how someone would lose their temper and swear here.

I know the PAs in this context were not appropriate and I most likely wouldn't have made them if I'd waited a bit to respond instead of replying in the heat of the moment. Things can be bad reactions to something and still be justifiable, because humans aren't chatbots. What I don't see is how the PAs were blockable when the block policy clearly says the PAs have to be very severe or the user has to have a pattern of making PAs. And I honestly don't get what basis you'd use for extending the block. I've stated I won't do any more PAs at least thrice in this thread, and there isn't any reason to believe otherwise since I don't have a history of being particularly uncivil towards other editors. A block extension would be punitive when PA blocks are explicitly meant to not be that. AryKun (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be punitive, it would be to prevent the chance that you will get pushed over the edge again. I don't think that's necessary, I only intended to suggest you didn't make progress to getting unblocked. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AryKun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

ik successive unblock requests this soon aren't usually approved, but i'm annoyed so wtv. I won't do any more PAs because I'm planning to ignore the argument at elephant, but I don't think it was unjustified. I think that vandalizing mainspace is worse than calling someone a fucking idiot, I just plan not to call anyone a fucking idiot because I don't like flamewars. I'd wait the block out, but I'm lowkey insulted. Blocking policy clearly states that blocks for incivility or personal attacks are warranted when those attacks are either persistent, extremely severe, or likely to recur. I have no pattern of making PAs and show no signs of making any more, and I doubt fucking idiot is in even the top 50% of the most severe insults on the internet. So what is the point of this block, making me grovel over how swearing at someone is a cardinal sin or something? AryKun (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is, frankly, one of the most terrible unblock requests I've ever seen.

It shouldn't have to be explained to someone who has had an account for five years and made nearly ten thousand edits that childish name-calling is not how we do things here. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your GA nomination of Selayar whistler

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Selayar whistler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Selayar whistler

The article Selayar whistler you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Selayar whistler and Talk:Selayar whistler/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Selayar whistler

The article Selayar whistler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Selayar whistler for comments about the article, and Talk:Selayar whistler/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]