User talk:TylerBurden

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 1.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An
  contentious topics procedure
  .

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

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.

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, 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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@

WP:ONUS again. TylerBurden (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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

@

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]