User talk:TylerBurden

Archives

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

Mehmed pasha Sokolovic

Hello Tyler, can you please warn user Shadow4ya to stop persistently removing my recent edits from the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha article. It is about his origin in which I wrote: "There is great dispute among historians about his origins. According to some historians, he was of Bosniak origin, while others claim that he was of Serbian origin" (sources were listed)

Since there are different opinions among historians about its origin, I have presented both theories, of course quoting from several sources. He thinks "consensus must be reached before any new change can be applied", but again the article talks about one side of the story while ignoring the other. There will never be any consensus on its origin because everyone has their own opinion that should be respected. For example, in the article about Rustem Pasha Opuković, all three theories about his origin are presented, since only one cannot be taken. Please revert my recent edits. Thank you in advance. I hope neglecting someones origin and an ethnic group isn't the purpose of wikipedia. Mrjazz123 (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrjazz123: Hey there Mrjazz, sorry for the slow response as I've been busy. I had a quick look at the article you're talking about and I am quite certain that the editor you mentioned is asking you to gain consensus on the article talk page, which is Talk:Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. Per WP:ONUS since you were reverted, your next step should be to raise the issue on the talk page and explain why you think the content should be added. If you can't reach an agreement with the editor there, there is WP:DISPUTE you can have a look at as well. If there are sources supporting your edits, which you say there are, people might agree with you on adding the material.

(Just saw the talk page) Since Shadow4ya dismissed your attempt to communicate with them as vandalism, which is wrong by the way, and I just noticed did not respond to your comment on the article talk page after reverting you, consider starting a WP:RFC for more input. TylerBurden (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your help Tyler. I am glad someone takes this matter seriously. I also asked Jingiby for help but he dismissed my suggestions saying: "I don't think there is any serious dispute about it. Bosnian national identity crystallized in the second half of the 20th century", which is completely false. Even tho i explained to him, he ignores me. Mrjazz123 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning IP for an edit they were already warned for

Hey Tyler! I noticed that you warned the IP 2600:1017:B80D:DF3:CC4C:D5B4:270:85C6 for using Talk:Norway as a forum.. however I had already warned them for that 9 hours ago and they hadn't made another edit since. What was the reason for the second warning? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Blaze Wolf, I explained it in the edit summary here. TylerBurden (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just saw that, however I disagree with your addition of a second warning or a level 2 warning. Yes it is blatant talk page trolling, however the user hadn't made any other edits of similar nature prior to that, so maybe they had just mistook Wikipedia for something akin to Reddit (I doubt it but still). If they had made other disruptive edits in the past or other edits of a similar nature then I would agree a level 2 warning. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf That's why I also think a level 2 is best, since the feature of it is from what I understand to be meant for edits where you're not sure about the intention, whereas 1 and 3 are more gentle and stern respectively. I suppose we disagree on the level of warning system, but a level 2 is still more appropriate for the edit in question in my opinion. Either way like you said they do not appear to have edited since, so it doesn't seem to be an issue at the moment. TylerBurden (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from. Feel free to remove my Level 1 warning if you so choose. Otherwise I'd suggest removing your level 2 warning so as to not possibly confuse the user for being warned twice for one edit. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: Yea, thanks for understanding. I don't like directly overriding peoples warnings, so that's why I tend to just add my own if I feel someone may have recieved a bit of a soft warning compared to what their edit was. But that could of course be somewhat confusing to recieve two messages, since you handled it first, I'll just let you decide what do. It's not like the edit was extreme so while I would prefer the level 2 personally, if you want to go with your initial instinct that is fine by me. Good on cathing the edit itself quite early as well, hate when stuff like that just lingers on talk pages lol. TylerBurden (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sounds good. I'll go ahead and remove your warning (Really if you had given them a level 2 warning before I did, I would've disagreed but left it alone, I only removed it because then it would be a duplicate warning). Thanks for explaining! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic edits

Just a note, edits like Special:Diff/1109127887 that don't affect the rendered page in any way are considered cosmetic edits and are generally discouraged. There isn't a point to reverting that edit either, of course; just wanted to let you know for the future. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: Hello and thanks for the heads up. I'm (somewhat) familiar with cosmetic edits, I have made a few such edits recently to the short descriptions since capital ″S″ seems to be more uniform and standard amongst articles. But of course it is a very minor thing and certainly not something I'm looking to annoy people over, I actually debated marking it as minor edits or not but opted not to in case someone objects such edits, which ironically pops it up on the watchlist for more people (the ones brave enough to trust that people actually use the feature properly). But I'll keep it in mind for the future. TylerBurden (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would suggest not changing the capitalization of the short description template. There is no point to standardization here (and if there was, it would be better to get consensus for such a task and use a bot to do it). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page reversion.

How would I go about citing a weapon in a video game? I was under the impression screenshots from video games weren't allowed, so if you have any bright ideas on what constitutes a "reliable source" by all means let me know. V92 (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucky9Two If you can't cite something, then don't add it, because it then doesn't meet the notability criteria. That's Wikipedia 101. If there is an article from a good source mentioning the weapon, then that's a reliable source, that's how such content is usually added. TylerBurden (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also whatever you posted on my talk page I can't seem to view, as the page is completely blank. It says there was an edit, but it doesn't show up. V92 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucky9Two Shows up fine for me, it was simply a notice about making unsourced edits. TylerBurden (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"not notable" could be argued for the other entries as well, so I don't understand the distinction in why one is okay, but another isn't. Regardless, I don't care enough to fix it because this entire exchange has been a waste of time for a triviality. V92 (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucky9Two The other popular culture entries have sources verifying them, so not sure why you'd reach that conclusion. You added something without a source in a section full of sourced content, not sure why you're so surprised it got removed either. Maybe see WP:VERIFY if you don't know how this stuff works. Maybe your video game simply doesn't meet the criteria, which is ok because not everything has to be on this site. TylerBurden (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haaland edit

apologies JCJC777 JCJC777 (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

You closed edit part roald dahl topic.you should take me a unprotection form.i will request for a edit.the wikipedia example form isnt working.pls take a another one. Trex3212 (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]