Jump to content

User talk:TylerBurden/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

"Russian state owned media is not a WP:RS, regardless of picture"

But i didn't use Russian state owned media as a source???? My three sources were: A link to a video posted on a Russian telegramm channel (because that channel is the original source of the video as far as i know, what else am i supposed to link if i want to use a video as a source?), someone's youtube video showing the vehicles displayed at patriot park, and the other source is specifically a very anti-russian twitter account

Also, WHAT OTHER SOURCES CAN I USE???? I didn't find any english speaking articles from major newssources about the captured AMX-10RC, but it is a fact that it was captured there is like a million photos of it posted on social media, there is videos on youtube from people visiting patrot park and seeing it, there is a video of that AMX-10RC being trasnported through Mariupol and then being spotted on a highway near Moscow, one of my friends fucking personally saw it he visited patriot park. I thought wikipedia is ok with photographic evidence being used as a source, after all i see Oryx being quoted fairly often and that's all Oryx essentially is D1d2d3d29 (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@D1d2d3d29 You've recieved information on your talk page, while I understand where you're coming from, Wikipedia is more about covereage in reliable sources than pure photographic evidence. Look through the different links posted on your talk page. TylerBurden (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Then, what links am i supposed to use? No english speaking major news publication made an article on the patriot park captured vehicles D1d2d3d29 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
D1d2d3d29, it's actually really simple: if you can't find a reliable source, don't put it on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Wait, i just noticed something, i used two reliable sources in my edits on the AMX-10RC article but my edit still got removed, wikipedia considers oryx blog a reliable source (i assume it does because i saw many of articles that use it as a source) and i used several tweets that Oryx used as a source on their website or retweeted with their tweeter account and they still got removed (for example this tweet: 🇺🇦 Ukraine Weapons Tracker on X: "#Ukraine: A Ukrainian AMX-10RCR armoured fighting vehicle was captured by the Russian army- this stuck vehicle was abandoned by Ukrainian troops in Novodonetske, #Donetsk Oblast at the beginning of the last month and was recovered only now. https://t.co/UDvdqkegP7" / X (twitter.com), if you were to go to the oryx article on Ukrainian equipment losses and clicked on "AMX-10RC captured 1" it would redirect you to this tweet, or for example that telegram post i used as a source, before July 27th "AMX-10RC captured 1" actually redirected you to a screenshot of that telegram post).
So wikipedia considers oryx blog a reliable source yet tweeter and telegram accounts that are used as a source by oryx are not reliable? To be honest i don't get it D1d2d3d29 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
D1d2d3d29, this is getting really confusing. You need to be more clear. This edit has a tweet and a Telegram post for sources. Not good. "If you were to go to the Oryx article..."--what? No. Cite reliable sources. Don't expect editors to go to this or that place to verify that some tweet you used is actually...who cares what it is. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here: you seem to think that every blown up tank or whatever is of encyclopedic relevance. It is not. The requirement of citing reliable secondary sources goes hand in hand with something else: WP:NOTNEWS. I follow Ukraine Weapons Tracker myself, but putting what they post in a Wikipedia article is just not a good idea, because UWT is a hobbyist's website, albeit a decent one, and the stuff they put out is firmly in the NEWS category. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes i am talking about that edit. My point is that the tweet and telegram post i used as a source were also used as a source by Oryx blog, and most wikipedia appears to consider oryx a reliable source, oryx used that telegram post as a source and uses the twitter account i linked as a source constantly. So my point is that my edit got removed for using unreliable sources despite them being used as a source by a reliable source D1d2d3d29 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@D1d2d3d29 Doesn't matter, the difference is something was published by a source considered reliable, rather than a Tweet or Telegram post a Wikipedia editor considers reliable. TylerBurden (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ättestupa

The reference for the link to senicide might be "Chatterjee, Pyali (2014). Thalaikoothal. The Practice of Euthanasia in the Name of Custom. European Researcher, 2014, Vol. 87, Is.2, pp. 2005-2012. doi:10.13187/er.2014.87.2005" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipus (talk • contribs) 11:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wikipus I think I may understand what's happened here, you meant to link to Thalaikoothal, not Thalaikoothal (film)? Because even if the film deals with the subject, it would make more sense to directly link to the practice. If that's the case, you may have added the wrong link by accident, or you may have been unaware it had its own article. TylerBurden (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
So we leave it... Wikipus (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from further harassment

Your increasingly bizarre and threatening messages are not entitled to a place on my talk page and I will be continuing to remove them. Please drop the stick as I can no longer even discern what it is that you want. There is always the talk page of the article if you have something to say. Elinruby (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby Ok, would you like to discuss the issue here then? As has been said the entire time, the issue is you adding citation needed tags to content that is already cited. All this talk about threats etc I have no clue what you're talking about, since the only threat I can recall was you warning me about civility. Like I said, you have on multiple occasions added unwarranted citation needed tags to sourced content (literally inline citation in paragraph), and you seem either unwilling to recognize how that is disruptive or simply don't care why people might find it disruptive. My intention was/is to get to the bottom of why you're adding such tags. It doesn't seem possible since you won't even recognize how it might possibly be an issue. TylerBurden (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Warning for aspersions and harassment

.
This is now the fifth misrepresentation of policy and the fourth ICANTHEARYOU post on the subject and you really need to stop. Go talk to the two admins on the talk page if you still have concerns. Or you could talk to Liz about that copyvio. If there's an unaddressed tag out there I will come back to it when the anesthesia wears off. Have you been discussing this crusade of yours with anyone else? I ask because this is beginning to remind me of another editor with strange ideasof yours with another editor? I ask because this is beginning to remind me of somethinWhat do you even want? Validation? I fixed the copy vio and added a reference. Go away and stopping beating this horse. g.
Please. Go fix an actual problem. Why are you still banging on about this? I fixed the copyvio and added a reference. There is nothing further to discuss; you are Simply Wrong. You need to stop.Elinruby (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Convenience link for Liz= Russian invasion of Ukraine; Tyler Burden, I just saw the part about nine links. Not unless you are talking about something else now. 0ne link at the end on a lengthy paragraph with zero quote marks. I am going back to sleep now and turning off the phone Elinruby (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby Since you mentioned a personal situation I'm going to try and assume good faith and assume you wrote this message when not in the clearest of headspaces. TylerBurden (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Vikings

I am going to ask you not to make baseless accusations that extended confirmed users, like myself, are violating policies. Also, read all of peoples comments. Stop taking this personally. Snævar (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I can see you decided not to bring this to an edit war, smart move. I still do not think that you have learned from the experience, though, hence my comment. Among the arguments that follow your belief are Zaereth's denials of DNA not mattering and then there is all the talk about trying to look at the case as an sock-puppet case. And here you are asking me to judge it based on your arguments on the article, when you are one of the persons, with your comment on 29 August 01:32 to not look at the article from its contents but whether it should be denied on sock-puppet charges - something that is an administrative issue and belongs at WP:ANI or similar venues, depending on the severity.
Then there is you trying to claim that some sources you found on an another English wikipedia page, has any bearing on years of knowledge on the subject. You sound high to me. Take a look at my local curriculum, in particular pages 200-209. They also cover the aspect of trying to understand other peoples comments, something you are clearly lacking. As I said, I have done years of reading on the subject. As you can see from said curriculum, any Icelander, which I am, can see that your arguments do not hold up anything and are built on sand. Icelanders have the largest library of books from the Viking era, the subject of the article in question, so those articles you found is only a drop in the ocean comparatively. You should recognize when other people know more about the subject than you do.
Lastly there is again your baseless accusations of trying to say that I violated some policies. Let me tell you something, mister 3 year old account. I have been on Wikipedia for a decade, I know both the current rules and the ones that preceded them. I have also been an administrator on an different Wikipedia for over a decade, yet, you have the nerve of questioning my judgement. Snævar (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@Snævar I don't recall accusing you of violating any policies, but it seems you've decided to violate WP:NPA here, since this message is full of personal attacks. Follow WP:BRD, and take the discussion to the talk page of the article. TylerBurden (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Zuijin

Hello mr Tylerburden can I add more informations in page of Zuijin about them please??? Kizetora (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kizetora Sorry I'm not quite sure what that is, but you're free to edit articles. Just keep in mind that there are some policies such as information you add needing to be verifiable. WP:Citing sources goes into more detail. TylerBurden (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you but that page Is locked and doesn't allow anymore editing. What should I do??? Kizetora (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@Kizetora Then you will need to either wait for the protection to expire or gain the right permission to edit it, you could also try the article talk page. TylerBurden (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
As you may have guessed, this is a sock of a blocked user, User:Akaora, who also persists in trying to edit that page as an IP - hence the protection. I've opened an SPI. A shame they've wasted your time, attention and courtesy. NebY (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@NebY I see, thanks for letting me know. TylerBurden (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
OK can I add some new informational from the Japanese Wikipedia for the zuijin??? Kizetora (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

RBS 70 Good Faith Revert

Can I ask why you reverted my map for the RBS 70? I know it's tagged with "No original research", but the information I used came from the page itself. Is there something I didn't check? TruncateVirus99 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@TruncateVirus99 There are a few reasons, aside from the referencing issue (which I can expand on later) I don't really see the use for a map when the information it provides is already present in the form of a list, which is also a lot easier to maintain than making new maps when usage changes. In addition the file doesn't actually cite anything as a source, and even if it was created using the Wikipedia article as a reference that would still be an issue since Wikipedia is a user generated site that changes constantly, making it not so much a WP:RS for other Wikipedia content. Another much more trivial issue would be the "mapchart.net" watermark which doesn't make for the most encyclopedic appearance.
Overall I think whatever minimal practical use it might have is outweighed by the issues, this is not really an instance where a map is needed. Cheers. TylerBurden (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, alright. I can understand that point. What about the loads of other weapons/vehicle pages with maps, though? TruncateVirus99 (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@TruncateVirus99 They've probably been added because people don't consider these things, a lot of these types of articles are unfortunately in poor states from both policy and WP:MOS standpoints due to not enough people moderating them. If you have added other such maps, I don't have the time or motivation to go around and remove them, the only reason I did so in this case is because the article is on my watchlist. TylerBurden (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Alright, thank you for telling me. TruncateVirus99 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

T-90 and Russian Ground Forces edits reverts

What do you mean about "bad writing"; I just wrote what is contained in the sources (which you call "fine"). Can you give me an idea about how should I write; Especially I can't find a reason for reverting my edit in the Russian Ground Forces page. In both cases, I just updated the pages (which are relied on sources from 2022 while the situation has obviously changed) using only reliable Western sources. And about references' format, I understand, but I am a person with disabilities, I write using the On-Screen Keyboard, so it's difficult for me. I suppose someone else (or you;) can do it. XANTHO GENOS 5.5.2024 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@XANTHO GENOS 5.5.2024 "reported in an article on 13 September 2023, citing US and European officials, that Russia overcomes the Western sanctions" I don't know if English is your first language, but that is not good writing. What I will do now that I have a bit of time is restore and copyedit your changes a bit. If you are able enough to edit Wikipedia and spend considerable time updating Russian military content, then you are able and should have enough time to use a simple citer tool like https://citer.toolforge.org/ to ensure the references are properly formatted. All you need to do is paste the link. TylerBurden (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I am Greek, so English is not my first language. XANTHO GENOS 5.5.2024 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Winter war reverting

Provide a reason for reverting my edits on the Winter war article. "Repetition of content" is not a valid reason to revert 3k characters of edits, and neither does "repetition of content" make an edit controversial. I assume you are aware of WP:STABLE#Inappropriate_usage and are not simply trying to apriori revert all changes by default, by alluding to "potential" controversiality. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@MrThe1And0nly It's clear your edits lack consensus, so discuss on the article talk page, not here. You're free to make bold edits to featured articles, but the WP:ONUS is on you. TylerBurden (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
So by "clear" you mean that what I had written of the historian Kotkin's take was contentious? Weird, I could swear I saw nobody taking issue with it. Who knows, maybe someone would have, if you hadn't reverted it for no reason? It was well sourced, acceptably written, and was not repetitive, as each argument it brought was one not discussed anywhere else.
If you have nothing else to say, I will be undoing your reversion, for you are simply stonewalling, contrary to Wikipedia:Be bold. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@MrThe1And0nly Given that you are being reverted on the article with me not being present on the site let alone the article, I guess it's not just me. You did repeat the same content, so try to assume some WP:GOODFAITH, featured articles should not be repeating themselves. TylerBurden (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
In fact it was me reverting the other guy :) MrThe1And0nly (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@MrThe1And0nly Yes, so much that you managed to get the article protected for edit warring. :) TylerBurden (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
With my revert standing :) MrThe1And0nly (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I was wondering if I could recieve some guidance, seeing as you have more experience with Wikipedia than me. On the Russo-Swedish War (1590–1595) article, I added "Swedish victory" providing 2 sources and later 4, all of them were reliable as far as I know. Then, it was changed to "Russian victory" by someone named Emilioveh, citing 4 sources which probably aren't as reliable as the citations I gave. I recently reverted this, on the basis of the sources not being as reliable as the sources I cited. I just want to know if this is against any guideline or something of the sort. Thank you Gvssy (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gvssy Hi, sounds like a content dispute, so should be discussed on the talk page of the article where each side can present their points. I can have a look as well. TylerBurden (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thirty Years War

Just a quick note to thank you for fighting off various "additions" and proposed "amendments" to this article :) In case it comes up again, Wedgwood says the civilian population living in Magdeburg had fallen to around 5,000 by the end of the siege. Not the same thing as claiming the other 25k died. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Robinvp11 Thanks, same to you. TylerBurden (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Updating reference and note styles

I wonder if you can advise on the following. I am trying to understand how to improve reference and note styles. I get that referencing styles cannot be changed without consensus, but....

I made some comments at Talk:Vasa (ship)#Referencing. I tried to make a good case, preparing a demonstration of functionality. It appears to me to have been rebuffed by the predominant editor of the article (c.40%) on the basis of "I just don't like it". I decided to let the matter lie as I was getting nowhere.

Then I discovered a dead link reference in the article that I would like to have read. The normal solution (for me) is to tag the dead link and see if someone fixes it. But this was in one of the "two references in one" cites, so I split the reference with an edit summary that explained why I was doing this[1]. This was rapidly reverted[2], without the dead link being fixed.

Shortly afterwards, the notelist template was removed from the "notes" section and those notes using the efn template were altered to another style.[3] Then the matter was raised on my talk page. On checking, I found that the usage of efn templates substantially predated my involvement in the article – which demonstrates that other editors there choose to use that functionality.

So, I suppose this is three issues, in ascending order of difficulty.
(1) Is it correct to just go and reinstate the efn templates as usage by other editors is an obvious consensus that this style is useful to the article?
(2) How do I get the article's referencing style into the modern world so that the encyclopedia reader can easily see what references support the text?
(3) Any thoughts on how to deal with an editor who is somewhat difficult to handle? This is not an out and out case of bad behaviour, so "difficult" is a considered word. I appreciate that some of my actions could be criticised, but I have tried my best to do everything right on this and other articles where we interact, but all of them seem to have unsatisfactory elements to them.

I am fine with discovering that there are some things that I cannot do, but I don't want to miss an opportunity to make what I perceive to be improvements. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired Hello, I'm not sure how much advice I'd be able to offer in this dispute since I have not done much work with the finer details of reference/note styles, especially not on featured articles. But I agree with the sentiment that it should be as easy as possible for readers to access sources, and if that means abandoning some old school styles that some editors might prefer due to personal taste/being used to them I think ultimately the priority is the reader. I took a brief look at the thread and I think you made fair points, but it seems the discussion didn't lead to anything productive so in that case I'd say the course of action would be to involve more people in it. As you probably know, there are quite a few different venues where you can ask for additional opinions or request dispute resolution. TylerBurden (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I'll keep chipping away at the problem, not least because a newly published source means that the article can have a lot more content now. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello

I added “transcontinental country” to the opening got the page for Russia because the page for the Soviet Union had the same in its opening. Should I add it back to Russia or remove it from the Soviet Union? Firekong1 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

They don't have to be the same. In the case of Russia it's redundant, don't know about the Soviet Union, but if multiple continents are already mentioned then it would be equally redundant. TylerBurden (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

It is you who are edit warring. What is wrong with you? Check ANY PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA. You are contravening a SITE-WIDE convention. - FalconJackson (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If it is a site-wide convention, you should be able to link to the guideline or policy stating such, which is what I have been asking of you since the beginning. No amount of caps lock will make you right if you can't actually back up your statements. TylerBurden (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Scandinavian internet codes

The IP is right neither .gl (Greenland), nor .sj(Svalbard and Jan Mayen) are in any definition of Scandinavia. I nearly did the same as you, initially assuming it was 'the normal problem' of objecting to the English definition/usage. Pincrete (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete I see, I reverted the edit since there was no edit summary explaining why it was removed, but I see the IP editor restored it this time giving the reason why. TylerBurden (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Help

Do you know how to fix my wierd campaign box in the atricle Skirmish at Skövde? Dencoolast33 (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

i fix it, so no worries Dencoolast33 (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

How?

How was my edit on Proto-punk non-constructive? Accurately stating which country the band comes from is, in my opinion, constructive. Velociraptor888 21:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Velociraptor888 My bad, I saw your "cunt" edit on Cnut and mistook the edit as vandalism. I'll go ahead and self revert. TylerBurden (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. Thanks for clearing it up. Velociraptor888 21:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice

I really, really do not know how else to get you to just not come off as rude, and improve your tone with other editors. Sorry.
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)DarmaniLink (talk) DarmaniLink (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

use dmy dates

It seems that you are changing date param in Use dmy dates in many places, e.g. here: Use dmy dates|date=January 2023}} -> Use dmy dates|date=March 2024}}. Why is that? As far as I understand, dates in tag must be the date when tag was placed. - Altenmann >talk 00:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking only at the top of the article, the rest of differences was not on screen. I admit that the change I noticed is basically harmless. - Altenmann >talk 19:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a link in the automated edit summary referring to MOS:NUM, those edits use a script to automatically make it consistent with the established date format. TylerBurden (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Altenmann I posted my reply right after yours here, but it's no worries. TylerBurden (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I did look at MOS:NUM, but the edit looked suspicious, because date=January 2023 -> date=March 2024 didn't change date format. - Altenmann >talk 19:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The dates mean article uses format x consistently as of the last audit, in this example the check done before March 2024 was in January 2023. TylerBurden (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
P.S. I wrote "basically harmless", but it is not exactly so. If you novelize the date for any of referencing or cleanup hatnotes, this will create a wrong impression, because some wikignomes (like me) pay more attention to old tags, so I hope your change is related only to the "use dmy" tag. - Altenmann >talk 19:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I can't recall ever seeing that, but let me know if you notice otherwise. TylerBurden (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary reverts

Stop with your unnecessary reverts on the article about the Finnish language. These sub branches don't need a source just like other items of this kind in an article about a language. These sub branches are already classified as sub branches of the family, it's shown in the articles themselves and articles about other Finnic languages also feature them. I already stated this in the edit summary which you obviously didnt read. Your last revert even removed a paraphrasing of a previously somewhat clumsy sentence which is unnecessary and definetely doesnt need a reliable source either. Stop reverting edits without even looking into what youre reverting. 85.254.75.130 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not meet WP:RS. They are user generated content which can be changed at any time. Provide actual reliable sources and expand the body of the article to support them if you want to make changes to the infobox. TylerBurden (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
If you are so eager to keep removing these items from this article then why arent you removing them from the articles about Estonian and Livonian languages? Stop behaving like you own the page. These are classified sub divisions which apply to all three of these languages as well as other Finno-Permic languages. Look at how other articles about languages work and then show me where exactly each subdicion of the classiffication has a reference. Thats not how language classifications are shown on Wikipedia. Once classified, the sub division gets added into the article about the language which is included in said sub division. Period. 85.254.75.130 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
You're violating WP:OR and edit warring to do it. I don't have time to follow every language article on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean I won't oppose attempts at lowering the quality standard when I see them. You've already been warned for edit warring so I suggest you stop attempting to brute force your changes through. TylerBurden (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Let’s not edit war over the map

Just start a discussion to remove the map (which has been used for the last two years and updated by hundreds of editors). This isn’t even an WP:ONUS situation, but rather an attempt to remove a very well WP:CONSENSUS-found map without a consensus to remove it. Just gain a consensus to remove it, which you do not have yet. Per WP:BRD, you removed the map, I challenged it, and now a discussion takes place. So please, start a formal discussion (with how many talk page discussions are about it, an RFC is best) to remove it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter It absolutely is a WP:ONUS situation, the map isn't sourced and it doesn't matter how many editors have updated it or how long it has (contrary to policy) been present. It is a policy violation and so is your edit warring to restore it. TylerBurden (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
It is sourced bruh. I literally linked the pages it is sourced with. Do not remove it again without a consensus as you have been challenged on the removal. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter Carefully read WP:ONUS again. TylerBurden (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement warning

Hello TylerBurden,

As described at the edit warring noticeboard thread, edit warring by making and repeatedly restoring a potentially highly controversial change is really not an option, even if you believe that the verifiability policy favors your revision. The usual response to unblock requests in such situations is "edit warring is disruptive even if you are right", and the main reason why no unblock request will be needed is that blocks are not punitive and it seems extremely unlikely that you'd continue after receiving this warning.

This warning will be logged at WP:AELOG/2024 § User sanctions (CT/EE), the central place for logging sanctions in the WP:CT/EE area.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree The (2) reverts were made due to the WP:ONUS policy, I stand by the point that the map is WP:OR and that is why I removed it since my understanding was that unsourced material can be removed at any time and the consensus on including it must be achieved by those wishing to do so. That being said you are the administrator and if you felt I was in the wrong I'll respect your decision. TylerBurden (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLPRESTORE are all great. I'm probably one of their strongest enforcers in cases that would otherwise lead to action against the enforcing editor. You are also right about unsourced material being removable at any time.
I should thus not complain (much) about the first removal. But with the exception of BLP violations, the revert of such a removal should ideally be discussed first, and the infobox image at Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox is a place where discussion is really needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Norwegian cuisine reverts

Stop with the rules-lawyering (and possible edit warring) over my Norwegian cuisine edits. It's not your place to "correct" my formatting corrections to the article. You are also misinterpreting the MOS regarding me cleaning up bad formatting of text. Calling it "misusing my rollback rights" is very close to not assuming good faith of other Wikipedia editors. I also see on this talk page that you've been edit warring with others, which may violate WP:POINT. Bumm13 (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bumm13 You are edit warring to make edits contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN, you're not cleaning up anything, you just seem to have an issue with redirects. Using rollback to do so is WP:ROLLBACKUSE, unless you're somehow implying that undoing your edits is vandalism. If you want the guidelines changed, then raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Redirect, because until then you have no valid reason to go around and enforce your own subjective view. TylerBurden (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TylerBurden/Archive_4&oldid=1229068410"