User talk:Yosemiter

• Archive #1: April 2015 – August 2017
• Archive #2: August 2017 – February 2019
• Archive #3: February 2019 – December 2019

American Arena League sources

Hello how’s your day? I have noticed how the AAL has been very unreliable lately. I have no clue if you saw this yet but the Tornadoes posted their schedule on YouTube, the Ironmen released their schedule on Facebook and the worst thing of all, the Carolina Energy’s website lists old AAL teams and old Arena Football Teams (the only current one being the Arizona Rattlers), all this is under the “league section”. Also the Tornadoes mention a Maryland team, the Pittsburgh Defenders, the Detroit Ironmen (am error but it’s funny to me) and they mention playing the “England National Indoor Football Team” I kid you not. ThatOhioGuy (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatOhioGuy: Individual teams in the low-pro/semi-pro circuits have always had tons of misinformation on their websites. I believe the AAL website itself used to be maintained by the guy who is now working the media department with the Mass. Pirates, so it looks like the AAL never replaced him. The reason I have to keep writing "announced themselves" and have not changed the league alignment is that the teams are historically unreliable. Many teams in the past announced themselves and were never once mentioned on the AAL website or schedules (Vermont Brew and others that come to mind that never launch or end up in the EIF or similar). I am fairly certain Maryland is a semi-pro team in MAIFL as seen here, I am assuming they mean the PA Copperheads instead of the Defenders (who are most likely dead), and who knows with the so-called National Team. The page will be updated when something verifiable happens, and that may not be until the season starts at this point. And you do not need to update me on the minutia of weird stuff with this league as it seems you too lurk on ArenaFan forums, which I scan every few days as well as Indoor Football Forum and few others so that I can be aware or reports to look for once they are verifiable. Yosemiter (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: Ok, sorry for bothering you. I just thought this stuff was just odd, haha. Have a nice day. ThatOhioGuy (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatOhioGuy: Seems they changed their web address, but the website is still a mess. All the teams that announced themselves are on it though (and the Jersey Bearcats, which said they were part of different league, so there is still issues). I added the teams to "Current" if both the team and website have stated as such. However, I could still use some help finding coaches and venues if they have been announced. (Also, you don't need to use the reply template {{re|}} here, I get notified no matter what on my own talk page.) Cheers, Yosemiter (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I did see something that said the Mid Atlantic Indoor Football League had merged with the AAL so that means the Reading Raptors, Western Maryland Warriors, Maryland Eagles, Central Penn Chargers and the Jersey Bearcats are all joining to form an “East Division”. ThatOhioGuy (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatOhioGuy: Where did you see that? (a link or is just speculation on the comments section of a Facebook page?) It's possible, and they typically have non-league games every season, but the owners of the Raptors and Warriors have pushed the advantages of their semi-pro status over the "professional" claims of the AAL. I just don't see them getting along with the AAL senior managers unless the AAL changes their tune and embraces the semipro budgeting they should be operating on. Yosemiter (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Reading Raptors just confirmed it on their Facebook, I'm not the best at linking sources. I'm also in a discord server about indoor football and we found that Inside The Arena talks about it (given I don't know how reliable they are) ThatOhioGuy (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatOhioGuy: Ur III, who runs "Inside the Arena" is extremely unreliable. He will "report" on any rumor he sees. He even "reported" on All-Naked Arena League this year after some folks from ArenaFan made a series of jokes on him. I would wait to add until at two announcements are made: one by the teams and another by a league, AAL or MAIFL. There's WP:NORUSH. Yosemiter (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking the same, even though Reading confirmed on their facebook, I agree we should wait for the AAL, even though the AAL facebook hasn't been used since June of 2019. ThatOhioGuy (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh I think the merger is confirmed, if you haven't noticed, the AAL website is under construction again and there is a video playing when you get on it and they do show a few MAIFL logos, the Maryland Eagles, Central Penn Charger, and the Western Maryland Warriors, but we should obviously wait for the opening again on February 4th. I'm also shocked the UAL is going to play (with three teams). ThatOhioGuy (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatOhioGuy: Thanks for the update, but agreed that we should wait until the website loads the schedule (which they have Feb 1 right now it looks like, if that means anything at all with that league). A bit odd the Reading logo was the only MAIFL team not present in the vid despite being the first post the confirmation on their social media. As for the UAL, don't count those chickens til they hatch. "Indoor" teams playing on rodeo grounds have historically folded early. Yosemiter (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Minor leagues and RS

JzG I am open to suggestions then on how to balance keeping leagues and teams up to date while balancing both RS and WP:OR. I heavily push for WP:V, which I use when both a team and the league have stated something, typically to prevent WP:RSBREAKING edits.

But that usually means that I have to keep back other editors from updating pages where even the primary can be non-RS like The Basketball League, American Arena League, National Arena League, Federal Prospects Hockey League, etc, simply because many of these leagues have been tending to rely on social media instead of press releases, which is ignored in newspapers. Non-RS blogs then cover the league changes, something that is easier to link, cite, and archive than a facebook post that can easily be deleted. These fall under questionable and self-published sources, but I do try and make sure the only part being cited from them is a non-controversial fact, such a screenshot of the social media post. In the case of why this ANI was opened in the first place, the BroBible blog was there to show that someone noticed that one league ended and the folks behind it started another. Then maybe four or five months later, a paper might make a blurb of Did you know we had a team? In this case, the The Kent Reporter wrote about it a month later. I have been enforcing "As of" on the league alignments, but it usually feels like I am policing a bunch of fancruft.

There is a reason I have AfD'd and prodded many of the team and season pages involved with these leagues. Yosemiter (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Name change update

Since the football team Acoustic Acoustic changed its name to Austin Sound, can you change the Austin Acoustic page name to "Austin Sound"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1018:C8F8:7014:8329:8BC3:77FF (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@2605:6000:1018:C8F8:7014:8329:8BC3:77FF and Greyjoy: IP, please read WP:COMMONNAME, there needs to be independent reliable sources that use the name before we change names of articles. So far, no one has even reported on the league change much less the team name. Perhaps when games start being played, some news sources might notice. Yosemiter (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Henderson/Las Vegas AHL team

I believe VGK owner Bill Foley mentioned in an interview that the team name would have Henderson in it, not Las Vegas. SportsFan007 (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I read a transcription where he said it would probably be "Henderson or Nevada". But either way, WP:NOTCRYSTAL still applies, the AHL called it Henderson/Las Vegas. Seems odd to call it Henderson if they are not going to play their for a couple of years anyways. Best to wait. Yosemiter (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Faur enough, Thank you! SportsFan007 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@SportsFan007: Just for reference, it was here: [1]. I did see a newer one mention Henderson specifically, but it is all just WP:SPECULATION until announced. Also I saw this edit of yours; is there a source for when the AHL arena will be complete? Or should you note they will be in Henderson "upon completion" instead of the hard (and currently unsourced) date of "2021"? Yosemiter (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I put 2020 back on all of them. SportsFan007 (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I specifically meant your edit to Henderson, Nevada. Is there a source that says they will start playing in Henderson or when the AHL arena is expected to be complete? It would be inaccurate to say they will play in Henderson in 2021 if there is no reference, and it would be inaccurate to say they began play in Henderson in 2020 if they are playing in Paradise. It just needs some clarification statement in your "Established" column. Established in Henderson (maybe 2021?), Established in LV (2020), or Established as a franchise (1971)? Yosemiter (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@SportsFan007: Once the team gets enough press or a team name, the Ice Hockey Wikiproject creates new articles for each team. So a page called Henderson/Las Vegas AHL team or Las Vegas AHL team, depending on the agreed upon WP:COMMONNAME, will be created separate from the San Antonio Rampage. It may be a good idea to use the piped redirect now so when a page is created for the new team, you won't have to around and change all the links immediately. (Also, I will be away for a few weeks, so I won't be of much help soon.) Yosemiter (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok, I see what you are saying, I'll remove it for now. SportsFan007 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Barrhead Bombers

Can you please make my hometown Barrhead Bombers wiki page? VGKCUPCHAMPS'19 (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@VGKCUPCHAMPS'19: From my WP:BEFORE searches here, it either does not pass Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines at this time (WP:TOOSOON) or it is very borderline (especially since they have only played one season that ended up getting cancelled). Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Jersey Hitmen

I have noted that you stated that only the top team (NCDC) is of any importance. That might be your opinion but every level is important to the players, parents, coaches, and families. We are requesting that the additional information be included with regards to Head Coach as well as the page move to Jersey Hitmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondeanny (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jasondeanny: Please note, terminology I used was NOTABLE, which has significant meaning on Wikipedia and is not an opinion. For minute unsourced details (as lists of youth hockey coaches for the mites, which tends to go out of date since no one updates regularly), I suggest you try another wiki, such as the Ice Hockey Wiki. Due to your possible conflict of interest please read THIS LINK. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Canyons Village at Park City

How do you feel about moving Canyons Resort to Canyons Village at Park City with appropriate text edits to reflect new reality ? User:Abune (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Abune: As the main subject article is about a previous independent entity/organization, and not about the physical location (Snyderville Basin), then I would say Canyons Village at Park City is not the appropriate WP:COMMONNAME of the defunct resort given the historical context of the subject itself. All current "Canyons Village" information is already contained within the article Park City Mountain Resort as it is now simply a location within the greater entity post-merger (a la Blackcomb Village). While not completely WP:V, I do know that in local nomenclature, the general area is just simply "Canyons". Yosemiter (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought more about skiing slopes location, difficulty, etc., not about actual ownership or trademark. Do you think it's feasible to move it to Canyons, Utah or just leave it alone as it is ? User:Abune (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Abune: It is about ski areas, and Canyons is not an independent area anymore. All current info is found on the PCMR page; all historical pre-merger info is found on Canyons Resort. For example, they have added runs between the two areas, so how would we verify if those are "Canyons trails" for the Canyons Resort page or "PCMR trails"? The answer is we leave them on the entity that still exists and save the article on Canyons about the entity it once was. As for "Canyons, Utah", it is definitely not the COMMONNAME (that would probably be a DAB page anyways, as Canyoning is very popular is Utah and there are many in Category:Canyons and gorges of Utah). Yosemiter (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, will just leave it alone as it is ! Thank you for your input ! User:Abune (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Abune: No problem, for article titles WP:COMMONNAME would probably be a good read for you (and also WP:INDENT for talk page replies). Other articles to keep on eye on are Alpine Meadows (ski resort) and Squaw Valley Ski Resort as they a single entity now, but have not fully merged at this time (there is no direct way between them yet). Something similar may need to be done there if the gondola is ever built. Yosemiter (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Edson Aeros

Hi, I'm new to this but have created a page for the Edson Aeros. At least i think I have, it says its "draft". How do I link this in the WSHL page? thanks P.S. any assistance would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sample00 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing figure skate

Dear Yosemiter

• I added this to figure skate because there is now other Skate sub fields such as roller skate,inline skate , roller hockey etc in the list of sports, so we have 2 option, 1) add this to figure skate, 2) add an another topic with name of roller skate, inline skate or roller hockey, they are different with ice hockey. so what must we do?

for example roller hockey has professional league in member countries in World Skate Federation.Farahpoor (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Farahpoor: Please read the top of the page you edited: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." You, nor anyone else, can unilaterally change a Notability Guideline without first discussing the change. You must make a WP:PROPOSAL at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) using evidence that each and every player for what you are asking has Verifiable Significant independent coverage to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline.

My first question though: What even is a "fully professional figure skating league". Your examples are all team sports, figure skating is not. There are "team events" where single skaters and couples can get a team score (like gymnastics). But I have never heard of "playing figure skating". Yosemiter (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• yes you are right, I have no problem with your discuss, I just said, sports list must have other subfileds of skate, roller,sakte, inline skate, ... that they are team sports which have league. just that. so you say that I must make WP:PROPOSAL at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) for those sports and make them independent, ok. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farahpoor (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Block for edit-warring

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Yosemiter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I freely admit I reverted unsourced changes to List of Lego themes four times over a period of 1 week (not 1 day), but I did so by citing sources and adding them to the article in the reverts themselves such as this edit. I also provided more within the Talk:List of Lego themes such as this addition. I tried to discuss and instead they attacked me, stating they were right despite the sources (even though changed their stance ("faction" was never an official term used by the Lego Group to themes became increasingly associated with "factions"). I was reverted by them stating the primary and secondary sources were "wrong" without a contradictory source to their credit. I was merely acting to protect the content against what appeared to be a user insistent on adding their own OR based on their edit history. I was about to take it to ANEW after the second revert today and the warnings to the user, but I had to leave my computer due to work. If you don't want to unblock me, then so be it, but I was earnestly trying to discuss the changes while maintaining what was verifiable in a limited amount of time, so they appeared as reverts as the IP showed no interest in collaborating or discussing. Yosemiter (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The reverts have been made in good faith, to enforce Wikipedia's policies, by an experienced user who knows about dispute resolution processes and was attempting and intending to use them properly. The block seemed to be necessary to prevent edit warring, and none of the 3RR exceptions clearly applied, but the block might not have been actually necessary to prevent further disruption. It has now expired; welcome back. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

From WP:GAB, it suggests that you must either explain why the block reason is incorrect or not applicable to your conduct, or you must convince the reviewing administrator that you won't do it again. I'd suggest you clarify which direction you are pursuing. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba and JBW: I broke the 3RR in the strictest definition, in that I reverted three times. But I did so believing I was acting in a antivandalism capacity against a well-established NOTHERE editor based on their user page and comments displaying generally uncooperative attitude towards the WP:V in my BRD attempts (and they were shown to be wrong in most instances). I argue, does reverting 24hrs after the offending edit, leaving incorrect info up, make it any better than reverting that editor immediately while also adding sources addressing the incorrect edit? (Mind you, I work in medical and got called away before I could complete an ANEW report.) 48hrs for a first offense also seems a tad harsh based on what I have seen previously given to other editors, but that is my opinion. Yosemiter (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There are exceptions at WP:3RRNO. Which one are you claiming?—Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: You have some experience with me and should I know I am pretty open. So, in the most direct sense, I will not claim any 3RRNO outright. #4 is the closest in that the editor was making changes that contradicted sources in the article, and sources I added during the reverts, talk pages, and edit summaries. But I do not think I can honestly say they were "edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism" as it is a niche subject that is not monitored or well-sourced as it stands. I did stop after three reverts on the day of the block, but extenuating circumstances stopped my ANEW (which I had never done before and was trying to figure out when I got called away), so I believed I was still following the correct procedure at the time. The fourth revert was 6 days prior. Yosemiter (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You did open a request at AIV, so a parallel ANEW report would have been seen as WP:FORUM shopping. At any rate, the other editor reported you for EW. It does not look like they notified you, which is standard procedure. However, you were presumably already aware of the site's edit warring rules given that you had already warned them about EWing. Generally, it shouldn't matter who files the report. The orginator's behavior is not exempt. I'm not sure if it was directly related to that report, but the admin blocked them for EW first before blocking you 15 minutes later. I've left a note at the blocking admin's page asking for their perspective. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I had multiple pages open, I began writing the ANEW after this revert at 23:40 (which, had I waited on the previous revert by a few minutes, would have been counted as 1 instead of 2? I am not sure how the counting really works as I considered it the same revert of unsourced and contradicted sourced material in my head as I was adding sourcing in the previous revert), giving this warning at 23:40, while simultaneously trying to address further concerns with the IP's edit with this edit at 23:44. I got called about an advisory case at approximately 23:46, paused my diffs additions to the ANEW report, then saw this spite prod at 23:46, but did not revert and figured it might qualify as AIV rather than ANEW at that point given the IPs history, and chose the path I knew better and could do more quickly, so AIV at 23:48 with as much as I could write quickly. I did not complete the ANEW at that point and I left by 00:00. I did get auto pinged in the IP's ANEW edit, but I could not respond before I left and it was after my AIV report. Considering blocks are supposed to prohibit disruptive editing, and not punish because I had to deal with a problem user again, it seems a bit much given the limited time I had to make a decision. I'm not perfect and I may have had a poor choice or two, but I was trying to work within my means at the time, address the IP's concerns, and not surpass the 3 reverts in 24 hours (which is the exact amount I had on that page in that time span). Yosemiter (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not up to me to review your unblock request, but if it were I would not accept the request in its present form, as it is clear from what you have written that you do not understand the reason for the block, and also that you think what you did was justified, suggesting that you would do the same again. Here are a few comments which I hope may help to clarify the issues for you.

1. A significant proportion of what you have written above is explaining why you think your edits were right. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right.
2. You are well aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, having commented on them in the past, over the course of several years.
3. Saying that you were careful to avoid overstepping three reverts in 24 hours does not make edit-warring any more acceptable. In fact if anything it makes it less acceptable, as it shows that you knew what you were doing, and were trying to get round the policy by sticking pedantically to what you thought was the letter of the policy. (In fact, that is not the letter of the policy at all, but an astonishingly large number of editors who habitually edit-war think it is. You are blocked for edit-warring, not for breaking the so-called "three revert rule", so whether you stayed within the limits set by that "rule" or not is irrelevant.) JBW (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have thought again about this, to a significant degree as a result of Bagumba encouraging me to do so. I still stand by the substance of what I said above, but considering everything, including the fact that you have not been blocked before, I shall immediately reduce the length of the block to 36 hours rather than 48, and I shall be perfectly happy for any administrator to unblock you immediately if you will state that you will not edit-war again, even if you believe your edits are right. JBW (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Every Edit I see you make, there is absolutely 100% no spamming. Florida Panther77 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Women's ice hockey task force

Thank you for your contributions to women's ice hockey articles. I thought I'd let you know about the women's ice hockey task force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's ice hockey. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Cross-namespace redirects

FYI: the proper CSD criterion for cross-namespace redirects from mainspace is R2, not G6. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: My bad, thanks. Yosemiter (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Islanders arena

If things operate with teams playing in their own arenas next season the Islanders will play in their old arena for the 2020–21 season. [2] Deadman137 (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Deadman137: Thanks, I also found this more recent one after my post. Still not a "Nassau will be open" next season type certainty, but what is these days? Yosemiter (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Your revert on Gaming the system

Point taken. WinnerWolf99 (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Syracuse Stallions

Hi Yosemiter. Regarding this, please see point 3b of WP:DRAFTIFY, which says that pages should not be moved to draft if there is assertion that the page belongs in mainspace, such as a clear statement to that effect in the edit history, or on the talk page, or a revert of a previous draftification. If you don't think the article meets the GNG, I would suggest taking it to AfD. – Joe (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Archive/Access

Now you've archived them, that makes sense, but that wasn't what you did originally (you may have archived them the 2nd time and I missed it), you just changed the access date incorrectly. 194.28.124.55 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Access-date is relative, archive is not. I opened (accessed) the link after you (most recent) when I verified the links in this edit where the time zone of publisher was still the 4th. Access-dates are there to aid the bots in archiving links in cited sources and those links had been archived on the 4th, at 23:19:21 (note: it did not archive on the 5th). You then changed it for no other reason then to express that "I'm right, and you're wrong". I then added the archive and explained in my edit summary why. You then blatantly reverted the archive change, clearly without reading the actual edit or summary, for what appears to be ownership issues. I admit I'm not entirely innocent either, but I was trying to explain and not blindly reverting. Perhaps try using an account so others can better communicate with you? Yosemiter (talk)

Ok, ignoring the fact I'm using an IP (I can't have an account where I am), perhaps you can clear this up for me.

Assume I add a ref to an article today (10th Jan), but the ref was published on the 6th - should I put in the access date? or just not bother and hope someone adds an archive date to it?

Trying to understand, as when I did have an account, not adding an access date was a no-no. 194.28.124.55 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)