User talk:TylerBurden
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Let’s not edit war over the map[edit]
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)
- 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)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
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
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Your edit on list of wars invovlving Sweden[edit]
You've recently removed the white and red finns from the Invasion of Åland entry on the list. Could you provide your point of view for removing them so that i could have a better understanding of your point of view?
- Dencoolast33 (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did, the point is that they are political factions and not main belligerents. Therefore their involement is better covered on a more specific article, not one about every war Sweden has been involved in. It's the type of excess redundant detail the article has suffered from for years already. TylerBurden (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Though, they were not necessarily political factions, but rather diffrent governments engaged in warfare with eachother. Both deployed soldiers to Åland and put together, they lost around 50 people on Åland. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, they are still not main belligerents. TylerBurden (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for sharing your views with me, and i wont revert your edit. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, they are still not main belligerents. TylerBurden (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Though, they were not necessarily political factions, but rather diffrent governments engaged in warfare with eachother. Both deployed soldiers to Åland and put together, they lost around 50 people on Åland. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)