User talk:Becausewhynothuh?/Archives/2023/August

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Cali Cartel.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 06:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

March 2023

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Edits like this one are not acceptable in Wikipedia discussions, and your behavior is likely to result in a block. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

that IP user has been using TTCs constantly, has tried to shut down any dialogue. (all of which was civil to this point) and has no intention to engage meaningfully without resorting to namecalling. all I did was ask him to stop talking and continue that habit of his. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

IP did no namecalling, actually. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

he did tho.

"Based on this person's several transphobic posts here, I believe someone should break out the hammer. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]"

"It's established policy, regardless of your transphobic dogwhistles. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]"

"Looking at their edit history, it would appear they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather in part to push their ideological viewpoints. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]" Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Those are all comments on editors' actions, not on editors themselves. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

context matters. it's clear the fella's intention to use those terms there was to shut down any dialogue by using the aforementioned TTCs. it's rather evident that while you could argue they were 'comments on editors' actions', the reason why he used it in such a way was to discredit us in the eyes of everyone else.

either way, his intentions weren't those of some meek human, and he knew perfectly well what he was doing.

but I'll avoid inflaming the situation just like you suggested, no worries. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Republican Party (United States), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Republican Party (United States). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Galobtter (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

You violated the restriction at Tucker Carlson ("You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message") with this edit. Galobtter (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Beijing. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

how is it an edit war if i reached a compromise which respected your wish for single rowspanned images to be skylines and my belief that the preview should always be the most significant or associated component of the city. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There has been no discussion about this "compromise". I have reverted back to the status quo and you insist on repeatedly demoting the skyline images from the lead image slot; as the skyline is prominently featured in almost every city's article (for good reason), I disagree with this change. Continuing to remove them from this slot without discussion after you have been reverted is edit warring. Please revert yourself on Beijing and start a discussion per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Please also revert yourself at London. Per WP:EDITWARRING, edit descriptions are not a substitute for discussion. You are actively edit warring by continuing to revert away from the status quo of having skylines as the primary image. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

How is it an edit war? I didn't revert anything, I changed the edits so that both your wish and mine could be fulfilled. Clearly, you have no intention to reach any sort of compromise and think that it's 'my way or the high way'. You did the same for the Houston article, where you had absolutely no basis for your constant reverts beyond mere wish fulfilment for yourself. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to reach a compromise if an actual discussion is started, but you have failed to do so. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." An actual revert is just one metric of an edit war. But you have not initiated any discussions. I will also ask you to assume good faith. I'm not sure what wish you think is being fulfilled, but as you have been warned in the past above, try to keep the discussion on the content. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Your desire to see the page as you want it to be. You asked me to revert the London article despite the fact I respected your wish to keep the skyline as the most prominent image. Then when i also respected your wish on the Beijing page to keep the skyline as the most prominent image, you felt the need to give an edit war warning. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't explain edit warring to you any more clearly than the links I have provided. If you can't recognize that other editors have a right to revert your changes if they do not believe they are an improvement from the status quo, and that you should then start an actual discussion on the talk page (per WP:BRD), you will continue to have issues and you will continue to be reverted. I understand you are acting in good faith, but you have to follow dispute resolution policies. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I assumed that since you've been conveying what you feel is most important for the image collage during the post-edit summary, my replies in turn worked to convey to you what I was trying to achieve. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion is false. The skyline is not some universal metric used everywhere on Wikipedia. Ex: For Washington DC, the most widely known aspect about the city, it's association with the Federal Government is highlighted by making the Capitol, a landmark, the lead image. I don't know why we can't reach an obvious consensus by letting the single spanned images be skylines. There is no rule on Wikipedia, nor is it some sort of necessity for the first image to always be a skyline. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be universal to be common and more of an apt lead image for an entire city rather than a single landmark. Regardless, I have not agreed with any of your changes besides the one made at Madrid. Your argument that the famous block also served as a skyline was well taken. It would be even better if you had bothered to try to start a discussion rather than edit warring. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The only issue with that is that using 'skylines' serves no purpose for the city itself as the tallest and most prominent buildings always end up being seen instead of the parts of the city most associated with said city. Furthermore, I'm trying to mesh this thinking with the hover previews as the most obvious connection to the city should be what is displayed when hovering over the city's hyperlink. Hence, I edited the Beijing article to try and fit your need for the skyline to have the most important role, while still having the forbidden city in a double pic row above Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to do. And I disagree it is the best course of action. I think it is detrimental to distill a city down to a single landmark. A skyline gives an adequate overview of the scale, topography, and style of a city, without giving undue weight to any particular site. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This would make sense if said picture of the skyline was a well known skyline picture. For example, the New York skyline is so famous, that it's current lead image is easily the best choice to represent 'New York'. However, when skyline pictures are of less well-known cities or even parts of the cities that are nowhere as well known as other parts of the city, a skyline picture serves little purpose. This is why I wanted La Gran Via for Madrid. Either way, i'm not trying to change all lead images from skylines to monuments. Instead, I'm just trying the hover preview to display the most well known aspect of the city. If the skyline featured that aspect, all the better for it would serve my purpose as well. It's just that the skyline pictures on Wikipedia often tend to be rather throwaway in nature, except for ultra famous skylines Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand your argument and I disagree. Choosing the lead image is complicated and there are differing opinions. Your perspective is understandable and fair, but I do not believe a single image of a landmark (unless it provides a sense of the city itself such as the US Capitol building for the Capital of the US) should be the primary image. Regardless, this discussion is only useful if we are discussing individual cities on individual talk pages. Thank you for reverting at Beijing. I am not trying to go after you for some "wish fulfillment" or to bully. I am trying to make Wikipedia as good as it can be. Please follow established policies regarding dispute resolution instead of just using comments and reverts in the future. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting yourself at London. I still request that you revert yourself at Beijing per WP:EDITWARRING and WP:STATUSQUO.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

done. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I will soon be trying to edit the info boxes for loads of cities in such a way the the hover preview shows the most important part of said city whilst also featuring skylines as lead images as you requested. Please do not take offense as I'm simply trying to do what would kill two birds with one stone. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I will revert my edit if it doesn't work as intended. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That does not fulfill my request. I believe the hover photo should be the skyline image. That is my entire point. As I said "you insist on repeatedly demoting the skyline images from the lead image slot". Cerebral726 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with your edits of the same nature, now at State Capitols. You can feel free to start discussions at their individual talk pages, or perhaps WikiProject Cities, but I disagree it is an improvement en masse. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not continue to violate dispute resolution policies. You have been given plenty of information and opportunities to improve your methods. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not keep claiming to have some moral high ground when all I'm doing is follow the protocol as established for several US state capitals so far. Go look at the page for Sacramento, Madison, and many more. They all feature the state capitol. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

They feature them, but the lead photo is the skyline, which is my repeated concern... Cerebral726 (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to change the formats to try and see the most apt version but because I keep getting reverted by you or receive random threats by this Chronus person, I can't reach the compromise edit that I'm trying to get. Kindly stop reverting immediately as I'm not trying to vandalize the page, but simply get an edit that works best for all parties. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Your inability to listen to any of the advise I have been trying to give you on dispute resolution and WP:BRD and seeing genuine concerns about your edits as "threats" could easily get you banned. If you would like to experiment, please use WP:PREVIEW or WP:SANDBOX (info Wikipedia:About the sandbox) Cerebral726 (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like. This doesn't give you the right to keep reverting my edits when there is 0 protocol supporting your love for skylines-no-matter-what.

This isn't even about random cities, it's about US STATE capitals. the only reason the vast majority of these are known to the general public is the fact that the State Capitol is located there. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Madrid

Immediately stop changing the status quo in the Madrid article. The photo you changed doesn't fit the layout and is too big to be at the top of the infobox. Do not change the article until you reach consensus on the talk page and stop promoting edit wars or I will warn the admins of your behavior. Chronus (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

get a grip Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Becausewhynothuh? Those who have to "get a grip" are those who systematically disrespect the most basic policies of this project. I'm not the first to complain about your abusive behavior. The next step is for administrators to be notified. Chronus (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

there are absolutely 0 rules set which validate your hand wringing and immature behaviour. I just had a civil conversation with someone else and we actually came to a consensus, something which seems unlikely with someone who uses 'STOP!' as his edit summary. Get a grip i.e, calm down and stop getting so emotional.

This isn't some life or death matter for you to get so heated- 'IMMEDIATELY STOP OR ELSE I'LL COMPLAIN TO THE SUPERIORS'. Threatening fellow editors is a pretty bad idea to get your message across. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You do not know how to read? I mentioned at least two project policies that you systematically disregard: WP:STATUSQUO and WP:WAR. And which imaginary "consensus" is this that you think you have reached? The editor Cerebral726 still disagrees with your behavior further above. The administrators has already been notified. Chronus (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

He disagrees, after a hefty discussion. He gets credit for that. You barge in and start threatening another editor with 0 courtesy, decency and manner, and expect me to treat you like a saint. Stop getting emotional and whining about 'personal attacks' when you are more than glad to be extremely coarse in your language.

"imaginary consensus", maybe if you spent more time reading before you just attacked others, you'd see where we achieved consensus in our original sub-thread. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Notifying on behalf of Chronus. Please don't forget to do so in the future.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

saw it already. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

BRD

Please read Bold, Revert, Discuss. Basically it states that you are free to make a bold edit, but if someone reverts it then you should take it to the talk page and not redo your edit. You seem to be getting into edit wars on a lot of pages over skyline photos. So for these if someone reverts you it's clear you don't have consensus, so please start a conversation on the article talk page and obtain said consensus. If you obtain consensus to change, then you can change the article to your edits again, but not before. If you revert back to redo your edit this is edit warring. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 18:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I did do that with Cerebral 726. But Chronos barged in and started threatening me and I didn't take very kindly to that. So i asked him to 'get a grip'. He promptly ran off and started reporting me for 'inappropriate behaviour' Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Becausewhynothuh? Stop lying. You've done this to everyone. It just reverts back and forth across multiple articles, without proper arguments. This has to stop now! Chronus (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

this is beyond comical. There is nothing in this for me to gain by lying lmao, least of all to some random emotional guy on the internet who can't stop being insincere and arguing in bad faith.

'done this to everyone' wth are you talking about. why do you keep lying and exaggerating so much. I was having a civil discussion with Cerebral until you had to come in and act like an emotional mess, acting as if I've killed someone. I made minor edits, someone else reverted them or accepted them as the situation necessitated. 'without proper arguments' i've literally had a 2 dozen comment long discussion with cerebral, why do you insist on lying.

'This has to stop now!' stop being so emotional about this lmao what's the deal with you. you're making this a much bigger deal than both cerebral and I thought it was Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't characterize what you think my opinions are. I do think your inability to learn how to resolve disputes on Wikipedia properly are a problem. You did not approach it correctly, and tried to edit war and only temporarily changed your methods after continued rebukes. This bickering is pointless, and Chronus has started a discussion at WP:ANI that will resolve the issue. I would also encourage Chronus not to engage with personal attacks, as there is nothing to be gained. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Great, so you're also gonna proceed to outright lie about the discussion you had with me. 'approach it correctly' Yes i did, you kept on reverting my edits on several pages, no matter what you thought your logic was. I tried being civil for all that while and thought it worked but if you're gonna insist on misrepresenting what I did, icba.

either way, i didn't engage in any melodramatic nonsense like this Chronus person keeps insisting on. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Your comment "Why were the existing pictures changed from their status quo without any sort of discussion?" here seems to indicate you still don't understand the concept of Bold, Revert, Discuss. A discussion only needs to take place if and when someone reverts the change, at which point a discussion may be made. I agree with Chronus, and the images were there for about a week. Choosing to revert the images with the explanation that you think a discussion needed to take place before is not a valid reason for reverting, and as I see Chronus's changes an improvement, I have reintegrated their changes. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so then i did make the change, and thus the images should be reverted to the status quo from before his edits, as BRD prescribes

While I can agree with the Pier image, I have to disagree with the skyline picture, which is considerably poorer in quality than the previous picture. The best quality picture would be the more ideal choice for lead image. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

These conversations need to happen on the talk page of the articles, not on a user talk page, so all users interested in the article can contribute. Canterbury Tail talk 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 19:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Disappointing that despite all your edit warring warnings, your BRD warnings and other comments, that you have decided to continue with your edits. So you have been blocked for 24 hours for now. When you return you must discuss any changes to infobox images in the talk pages of said articles. If you continue with your current pattern of disruptive editing you will be blocked again. Canterbury Tail talk 19:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are you not realizing that I did not revert his edit? you banned me for literally nothing. I didn't even move the lead image, all I did was edit the 2nd and 3rd row. you didn't even see what the edits I made were.

They weren't even editing the same thing. Kindly reconsider the block. I didn't revert Chronus' edit, instead, I changed a different part which didn't offend any of their sensibilities. so in essence, you blocked me for harmless editing, not edit warring. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You continued the same pattern of edits that people had clearly asked you to stop and told you to go to the talk page to get consensus. You've not gone to the article talk page on ANY of these city articles to get any kind of consensus on the photos. You're also being extremely dismissive of others. Serve your block. Read all the policies and guidelines that people have pointed you to. Then when you return go to the talk pages of the articles you're interested in changing and work to get consensus through those talk pages for the changes. If you continue your current pattern of editing when you return, I will be placing an editing restriction on your prohibiting you from making any edits relating to images, broadly construed. If you continue edit warring you'll be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Another example of why this article exists.

But sure, I'll serve the block. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That essay was written 12 years ago, and yet here we still stand.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

point still stands. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Becausewhynothuh? Is your response to the block a threat to leave Wikipedia? I see that there is not a single degree of self-criticism. A missed opportunity. Chronus (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

jesus christ do you ever stop talking. toxic editors like you who aggravate calm situations unnecessarily is what I was referring to.

nobody said I'm leaving wikipedia, and unlike you, I don't deal in threats. stop interacting with me and stay away. of every single editor who I've interacted with, none was as unpleasant (or unpleasant at all) as you were. have a good look at how aggressive your demeanour is and how charged your rhetoric is before you lecture others.

and again, stay tf away from me. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Becausewhynothuh? Yes, continue with the attacks. This only works against you. @Ponyo and Canterbury Tail: Can you see this? Chronus (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chronus:, you've been asked not to post here. Please don't continue to do so.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chronus: please stop aggravating the situation, your comments here aren't helping. Let them be, and lets judge them by their future actions not their past ones. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail It's so sad that despite @Chronus having a history of bad and entitled behaviour (as can be seen from his talk page), I am the one who suffers the consequences of dealing with crass behaving editors.

Do go through his talk page, his constant arguing with others, name-calling, and stubborn behaviour were all present from the get go. He attacked me on my talk page and yet I was the one banned. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you focus on yourself, not other editors. You're lashing out a little after being blocked, that's expected, but stop commenting on other editors it's not doing you any good. I wish you a good time off, and hope you return more open to discussing on the article talk pages. For now, I won't be responding here any further. Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

cheers. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

why do you keep complaining and alleging that I'm being toxic when everyone can see how uncivilized your demeanour has been throughout this unnecessary interaction. starting with the threats on my talk page to rants and 'sO eMbARrAsSeD' on the other page. like why couldn't you have started off a little sane and tried avoiding this utter waste of all of our time Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

unblock

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).

Becausewhynothuh?/Archives/2023 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am very much within the 3 revert rule. how have I been blocked when i did not even revert on a single page 3 times? Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Both the block log and the block notice on this page state you were blocked for edit warring. Neither state you were blocked for a violation of the three-revert rule. If you don't know the difference, then you haven't been reading the policies that have been pointed out to you. Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

You clearly haven't read any of the policies or guidelines that people have been linking to you. You were warned for edit warring, warned that you should follow BRD, yet you continued. 3 reverts isn't some bright line that you only get blocked when you cross it. If you are showing patterns of disruptive edit warring you will be blocked if you continue after warning. You were extremely clearly warned and pointed to the policies, even have a discussion at ANI, but you decided to continue your editing pattern. Canterbury Tail talk 19:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo and Canterbury Tail:, it's seems to me Becausewhynothuh? has not changed their methods in response to their block regarding how to engage editors in discussion: [1]. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you just always gonna keep complaining for the most basic edits now? Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Seriously?

This. Have you seriously not heard anything that anyone has said to your above, or the warnings that you've received. If you make an edit, someone reverts you, you need to discuss on the talk page of that article and not continue what you think is the best edits. This has been explained to you repeatedly above, and yet you're still doing it. At this point it's feeling very like I Didn't Hear That disruptive editing. You MUST get WP:CONSENSUS for your edits, not keep doing them. I'm awaiting your response and your next edits and choosing not to block you outright immediately. And this is before even touching your seemingly making up of numbers, not providing any sources, that is going on on the Religion in the United Arab Emirates and Islam in the United Arab Emirates articles. You've been warned previously about supplying reliable sources for your edits, but you are still not doing that. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know our guidelines and policies. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt over just a bit of heated editing the other day, so please give me a reason why I shouldn't be blocking you right now for one of a whole string of reasons. Think seriously and long and hard about your response, because the next block will be an indef one, and your next edit should be a response to this message. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The edit summary very clearly mentioned that I would be reverting back to a different edit. I wanted to see the hover preview, but because of cerebral's zealousness to revert instantly, I couldn't see the preview.

2. I would very much like to do I Didn't Hear That editing because all I've faced from cerebral has been constant obstruction and reverting, while on the other hand he carelessly changes whatever he likes to see without pushback. However, that would be irresponsible of me to do so I still keep replying to all the discussions, and I even started a new one for the religion article. Maybe take it a little easy?

3. what's with the 'warned many times' stuff? when exactly? several months ago? and that too on disputed matters as well? either way, that had nothing to do with this religion article.

4. You shouldn't be blocking me because I've not vandalised anything and have had to put up with a load of crap on the part of editors like Chronus, who you rather conveniently didn't ban or block despite the fact he has a history of being a very disruptive and unilateral editor. So the last time you blocked me was a bit unfair in the first place.

5. Seemingly making up numbers? wth are you saying? why would i wanna do that? I am using the very numbers Wikipedia has provided on other pages like this or this.

The truth is that the sources already mentioned are highly unreliable sources, and very often outdated. The only other option in such a case when sources are that outdated are to atleast have some uniformity among the numerous closely related articles on this site.

Why can't you try seeing my side FOR REAL. unlike cerebral, i don't obstruct every single edit someone else makes and am ready to compromise, as can be seen here, and thus, I don't go and complain to some admin every single time an editor makes a decision I disagree with. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

??? how would an indefinite block out of nowhere clearly not be in violation of WP:PUNITIVE??

And why me before anyone else? How could you possibly not have noticed Chronus highly disrespectful unilateral editing style or Cerebral constantly breaking 3RR. of all people you chose me, for making edits as minor as the city articles have been? Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

If I don't reply immediately, kindly do not take offense, as I am a little occupied for a while from now. Awaiting your reply. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, lets address these one at a time.

1) The edit summaries of the link edit mention no such thing. And the edit summary that was in those edits "most impatient editor i've ever dealt with." could be construed as a personal attack

2) Did you seriously just state that you would "would very much like to do I Didn't Hear That editing"? Did you really state that you wish to do disruptive editing and ignore all the guidelines and policies people have been pointing you to?

3) Any warning on not using reliable sources means you've been pointed to the policies and therefore have read them and understand them. One day ago, one month ago, one year ago doesn't matter. You've been pointed to them so you should know them.

4) Remains to be seen

5) You altered numbers to be not what is stated in the source. I will grant you here that the pre-existing numbers weren't in the source either, but you don't change unsourced numbers to other unsourced numbers, you change them to sourced numbers and update the source. Never alter numbers etc without updating the reference for it. What is on other Wikipedia pages isn't relevant, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Reliable sources are reliable sources. It's fine to take a reference from another page and use it elsewhere, but don't change things just because another article states so. It leads to your edits looking directly like disruption edits when the sources quoted don't match up with the numbers you are editing. This is just a learning experience though and not something I would consider deliberate. Just make sure when you make an edit that it matches up with the direct references, otherwise you need to update the reference to another reliable source.

As for the rest of the image edits, I very clearly told you after you were blocked that when you returned you were to take your image edit ideas and discuss them on the talk pages of the articles. Instead you have continued making image edits on the same articles, and not a single post has been made to any of those article talk pages to build consensus. You were told very clearly to building consensus for your edits, and you have completely ignored that instead just continuing to make your city image edits on the same articles. The edit history of Las Vegas, which for some reason you want to direct my attention to, clearly shows that you have not done what you were instructed to do when you returned from your block. To date you still have not made any attempt at on talk page consensus building for any of those city article images.

So what are we supposed to think? Someone who is making innocent mistakes, or someone who is deliberately choosing to ignore what they are being told on the policies and guidelines of editing Wikipedia and just doing what they want with no interest in collegial consensus building? Communiation and consensus building is required, it's not optional. You have clearly gotten into a situation where multiple editors disagree with the edits you wish to make, the onus is on you, the one wishing to make the edits, to get the consensus of the community before attempting to continue with those edits.

At this point I'm not going to do anything, but if you continue this pattern of refusing to discuss and obtain consensus for your edits then action may be taken. You seem genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia, so I encourage you to work with the community, not against it, and discuss civilly on the article talk pages if anyone disputes your edits. And remember to source your changes. Canterbury Tail talk 12:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

And still you refuse to listen to what you're told and go to the talk page to get consensus on your image changes. At this point the only explanation I have in my head, which I hope is wrong but I can't think of a reason it isn't, is that you just think that what people are saying to you and what our editing and consensus building guidelines are doesn't apply to you. Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

nope. it's more along the likes of I'm not always thinking of some Big Brother figure constantly watching over my shoulder for any darn edit I make on city based pages even when the context was not a revert war. You're acting as if I started a full scale edit war and haven't discussed anything at all for matters of debate when all I did was make a somewhat bold edit. lemme restate - nobody reverted what I edited, so what exactly was the issue?

why did you completely ignore the fact it's been 3 days and i've made several edits on different pages etc. what I learnt from you is to get consensus/start a discussion when an edit is disputed. but this new message essentially wants to convey that I never make any edit on my own volition Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It's better to discuss significant changes on the talk page ''first'', rather than testing to see if someone will revert you. Being bold doesn't mean do whatever you want, and as an apparently new-ish user, I encourage you not to fall into [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering]]: Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles -- BCorr|Брайен 17:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunate side effect of being an actual law student Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You continue to make changes to photos in infoboxes withput disucssion and with incomplete or misleading edit summaries, such as in these edits you just made: [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Southern_California&diff=prev&oldid=1168413117 and https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Northern_California&diff=prev&oldid=1168414987.

Please stop. BCorr|Брайен 16:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

how the hell is that an incomplete or misleading summary.

i literally mentioned that i just made the rowspan uniform i.e., 2/1/2/1/2 and you're here losing your shit about that? not just that, you've been stalking my edits and reverting EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, tf is up with you? and not just that, you don't apply the same standards to different edits lmao like the politics of US article Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing photos and photo order in city articles

Please discuss making changes to article on the talk pages first. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I have tagged you and started a discussion.

My thoughts were that if my bold edit were to be reverted by somebody, I'd start the discussion.👍🏻 Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Becausewhynothuh?. I'll just note that you don't need to discuss the changes wih me, but with other users who have contributed to the page and presumably found a consensus. Also, "tagging" by adding a username to a post doesn't alert the user, so it's not like social media -- best, BCorr|Брайен 17:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Ofc, ofc, I didn't mean to discuss solely with you, but since you had been the one to revert, I thought discussing with you first would be a good idea.

Thanks for bringing my attention to the tagging part, I didn't know tags were apparently used solely to refer to a user instead of also notifying them. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced changes of statistical data

Please do not change statistical data in articles such as Hinduism in the United Arab Emirates and Religion in the United Arab Emirates without citing a reliable source. Your edits appear to disrupt text-source integrity; see WP:BURDEN and WP:RS for additional info. If you have any questions about editing wikipedia you may consider to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t change any statistical data for the Hinduism in the UAE page. I used basic logic and maths. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

where you at Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply to your note on my talk page, "Tf are you doing?"

Hello -- you wrote on my talk page:

Tf are you doing?

I've had it with you. No matter how many good faith edits I make, you keep reverting them for the most flimsy reasons?

your entire bone of contention with ANY edit i make is the fact that i was in an argument regarding infoboxes previously.

No just that, but you're HIGHLY selective with this argument about infoboxes. you revert everything i edit because i was part of an argument a week ago.....just to revert my revert of a Bold edit??

what exactly is your agenda because all i've noticed over the past day is you stalking every single edit i make and reverting it. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. You are ''continuing'' to make changes to photos in infoboxes without discussion and with incomplete or misleading edit summaries, as you have for the last week, therefore you are attracting attention. I would urge you to stop making these sorts of edits as multiple editors have stated that you have gone beyond boldness in the repeated edits.

BCorr|Брайен 19:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

BUT HOW TF IS THAT A BOLD EDIT!?!?!?!?!?! i'm literally not even changing the hover preview image, not am I changing the lead image. For those two articles, i just changed the rowspans from a weird 2/1/2/2/1 to a nice even 2/1/2/1/2

That IS NOT A BOLD edit.

not just that, but when i don't even make infobox related edits, you still revert me!?!??!! tf have I done to you? i thought we got along well after that Barcelona message but all you've been doing is targeting me for the last day...? and it's not even like I made infobox changes anywhere beside the northern/southern california articles. you've even reverted text edits. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Please carefully review Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

seems like something you're doing eh?

your edits for the politics page is the foremost example of that. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Hello, I'm Cerebral726. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Far-right politics seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The claim "90% of the world would then count as 'transphobic' " is a POV edit, and not aligned with reliable sources. You need to be much more cautious with your editing regarding modern politics Cerebral726 (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at WP:ANI. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

alr Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at WP:ANI, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. And at least your talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

ok sorry Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop using misleading edit summaries to make it appear that you are working to remove POV items when that is not what the edit does, or enforcing your personal definitions of "bad editing" and "bold edits". Examples from today:

• Politics of Texas at 06:07, 3 August 2023

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_Texas&diff=prev&oldid=1168534373

This edit summary was "highly unsourced statement" yet the edits were changing "Many" to "Some"; changing "in" to "through"; and changing "Solving of problems" to "Solving problems"

• San Diego at 06:58, 3 August 2023

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=San_Diego&oldid=1168538433 with the edit summary "I still think having Petco Park - a literal ballpark as the hover preview image is bad editing practice so i have switched the 2nd and 3rd images"

BCorr|Брайен 16:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This is what poor understanding of the English language does to a fella, in this case, you.

solving 'of' problems is grammatically redundant instead of simply 'solving problems'. Furthermore, you can't have present continuous tense in 'have continued to win' but still end the sentence with 'in 2022', that's literally incorrect grammar as the context clearly demonstrates that the timespan being talked about is since 2016. do stop coming at me with such poor attacks. my comment that it was a highly unsourced comment was independent of the grammatical corrections I made. there.

secondly, how exactly is my edit summary regarding the petco park edit an issue? you're literally nitpicking as hard as you possibly can. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for continued lack of civility, good faith and battleground attitude. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 19:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Immediately ignoring WP:BRD

This edit where you completely ignore WP:BRD, reverting Bcorr's revert, is exactly the kind of behavior that has gotten you blocked before. I'm not sure how many more chances you will be given if immediately upon your return you make the same mistakes you did before. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Northeastern United States

Hi. I'm sorry for adding Ohio to the list of northeastern states. On re-examination, I think the source, Nations Online, may have been looking at the United States in terms of compass points and concluded that Ohio is part of the northeast by subdividing the contiguous U.S. into four equal parts at the exact geographical center. By that definition, as far as I can tell, at least 90% of the midwest would, paradoxically, be a subregion of the northeast, with south Missouri being the exception. I don't mean to imply that conclusion is accurate, though. Hmm1994 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh that’s alright 👍🏼 définitions regarding Maryland Delaware being in the south are definitely odd but this was the first time I had seen Ohio of all states in the Northeast so I was just taken aback and a little outraged on the summaries section. No harm done now that that’s been removed Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from citing blogs, thanks

Thank you for contributing to the article Interminority racism in the United States. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. 2601:204:C901:B740:A895:5509:CA3A:3CF9 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll certainly keep this in mind and try to not use unreliable sources Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You betcha! Thanks for being willing to learn, grow, and improve. 2601:204:C901:B740:A895:5509:CA3A:3CF9 (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chronus (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)