User talk:TylerBurden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Woodroar (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi TylerBurden. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY 03:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi TylerBurden! I noticed your contributions to Erling Haaland and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Mattythewhite (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for a change.

Dear sir I want to bring your attention towards something which you have mentioned in chasa caste . As a odia I know that chasa are not comes under shudra Varna. You may have confusion or some misleading information about it. They are are actually panikhia jati in Odisha so it is not possible that they come under shudra Varna. You may be confused among chasa and mulia . Both are different. Even the east Odisha chasa are different from chasa from dhenkanal and anugul area. Chasa from dhenkanal,anugul and debgarh are hold high social status in society.They actually belongs to vaishya Varna .The kahandayay cast are from Kshatriya Varna.Now a days marriage are happening between these two community.so Plz consider it and make this change. Thank u. S Das0406 (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@S Das0406: I haven't done anything on Chasa (caste) other than revert your unexplained content removal, as you were reminded of multiple times on your talk page you need to include a valid reason for the removal in your edit summary when removing content from articles. Since the page has now been protected by an administrator your best bet would be to raise your concerns on the talk page of the article. TylerBurden (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sir as you are one of the administration of the page as it is shown in my msg box and you revert to the changes I made in the page. I m sorry but I have to take action against this. I already mentioned this to some of notable person and leader from the same community. Let see how this matter is lead to.thank you once again/ S Das0406 (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Let this serve as an example of what happens when you make legal threats on Wikipedia. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

TylerBurden,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you, same to you! --TylerBurden (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, TylerBurden!

Happy New Year!

Hi TylerBurden, Thank you very much!

Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism. 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 ~~~~}}.  Alexf^(talk) 18:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

This was a mistake, right? TylerBurden (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

My guess is this was an example of clicking the wrong thing. I have unblocked you. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Alexf? Widr (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Thanks. Yes I assume so as well, no hard feelings, we all make mistakes. It was just a bit amusing to be blocked for vandalism when my most recent activity was fighting vandalism. But yea Alex, no problem. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I can't assign pending changes reviewer permissions to you, TylerBurden. You have just been blocked for vandalism. ;)

Just kidding. Still digging through the backlog. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Widr, Yes, a mistake indeed. I was blocking someone that edited a same article as this user, but maliciously. Wrong button press. Apologies. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

How to get a draft to Article

My draft is Vanita Winnie Gupta. Please Help brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varchasva (EncycloBoys) Singh (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Varchasva (EncycloBoys) Singh: Take a look at this: WP:YFA, the whole process of creating the article should be covered there. Keep in mind though it needs to meet the Wikipedia notability requirements. Good luck. --TylerBurden (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for fast responese — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varchasva (EncycloBoys) Singh (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits

Who are you and what you doing on my ancestral village page of Wikipedia? Asghark7105 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Asghark7105: Why does it matter? Do you interrogate everyone that dares edit the page? I don't care about the article, I reverted a vandal there because it appeared on recent changes while I was patrolling it. I would suggest you don't go around and demand people telling you who they are just because they edited an article, you don't own any of it and everyone on Wikipedia has the same right to edit it as you. See WP:OWN if this is confusing to you because that is the impression I'm getting here. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits on Mick Schumacher

The titles for the championships, apart from Formula One, all contain numbers in number form in their official names with ADAC Formual Four being the only championship alongside Formula One with Formula in their official title and on every other drivers pages they are listed as such.

@Arbres: I meant the article talk page, so others working on the article can join in. Also please sign your messages. Anyways like I told you there's a manual of style on Wikipedia which should generally be followed, other articles being incorrect with the manual of style doesn't mean we should make the Mick Schumacher incorrect as well, if anything those should be fixed too. See for example the article on Formula Three and Formula Two. The numbers are written in words because that's the manual of style. What FIA may use on their official sites and whatnot doesn't really matter, because it's the same number just the way it is written is made to be in accordance with how things are done on Wikipedia. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Fernando Alonso

Hi there, I noticed your reversion of an edit to Kimi Räikkönen - the same editor has also made changes to Fernando Alonso. Would you mind reviewing that as well? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kiwipete: Hey, just reverted that as well. It had more or less the same issues as the edit on Räikkönen's article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --TylerBurden (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Kiwipete (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits Nico Rosberg

Hello Tyler; thank you for your message. Indeed I removed Nico Rosberg’s affiliation with the luxury hotel brand Kempinski which started in 2019 but ended in 2020 due to Covid. The Nico Rosberg ambassadorship is not mentioned on the Kempinski page or on the Kempinski website. Sorry, my bad, I forgot to add the appropriate note… still figuring it out thanks a lot for your understanding and help.

Sdups (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sdups: No worries, that makes perfect sense. Just remember to use edit summaries so people can easily understand the reasoning for your edits. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Raikkonen

This edit summary: you've made more reverts than I have. Nobody likes a hypocrite. SSSB (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB: You have been on Wikipedia for far longer than I have, you should know that during content disputes the stable version is kept until a new consensus is reached. You should also be familiar with WP:BLP, I'm more than happy to debate this on the talk page of the article but if you're only here for namecalling I got much better things to do. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"the stable version is kept until a new consensus is reached." - that's the recommendation, not the law, and it doesn't justify engaging in an edit war. We have equal responsibility to take it to the talk page if there is a disagreement. None of this addresses the fact that are as guily of edit warring as I am, and yet your summary put all the blame on me. I will take to Raikkonen's talk page in a moment. SSSB (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If you consider reverting BLP violations, which as you should know is a big no-no on Wikipedia edit warring then sure. I am honestly surprised to see you seemingly unaware of such a basic policy, but sure I'll join in on the discussion. If reliable sources exist for what you want to include on the article then it shouldn't be difficult to find them and if not then we shouldn't violate the BLP policy just because he's not driving at the moment. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't consider it a WP:BLP violation, as I have explained at the talk page. SSSB (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Icleand

By referring to World o meter, you can see the population of Iceland. The statistics I entered were correct Parsa Dalili (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Parsa Dalili: Please have a look at your own talk page for information on how to use sources properly on Wikipedia, keep in mind the sources also need to be reliable, which World o Meter does not appear to be because it is user generated. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Pings

Forgive me for buting in, but I thought it would be pertinent for me to point this out. A ping won't work unless you include a signature in the same edit, and it's a new comment (see WP:MENTION). (i.e. your ping of Parsa Dalili in your last edit on this page wasn't sent). SSSB (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB: No problem, thanks for letting me know. --TylerBurden (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Roald Dahl's nationality

Dahl is a well-known British writer, every single wikipedia page about him or his work states that. Dahl's parents were Norwegian but the man lived in England for most of his life, wrote in English and even served in RAF during WWII. He is a celebrated British children's novelist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destrothemachine (talk • contribs) 06:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Destrothemachine: First of all, please sign your messages. Second you should start this discussion on the article talk page so everyone involved with the article can join in and not just the two of us, third Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We can discuss this more at the talk page of the article. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to apologise to you

I saw you were clearly not a Scandinavian nationalist and I am sorry about that. I also saw that you have changed the Roald Dahl article to mutual satisfaction. Thank you for that. I had some experiances on Wikipedia with nationalists before and that left a bad taste in my mouth. I apologise and don't want any problems with anyone. Destrothemachine (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Destrothemachine: No worries, I accept your apology. Unfortunately it seems I made those edits at the same time as you posted on that editors talk page. But like I said, I don't want any problems either and I am happy that you agree with my solution. --TylerBurden (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

How to do a non-admin closure in ANI

Saw you weren't sure the templates to use for a non-admin closure in ANI. Make sure to read WP:NAC first so you know when it is or isn't appropriate for a non-admin closure. Here are the steps

1. At the top of the discussion, below the section head, use {{atop}} with the paramater |result={{nac}} Result of discussion ~~~~. (Note that this may be different for non-admin closures for other types of discussions.)
2. At the bottom of the discussion, use {{abot}}.

Simple as that. Singularity42 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Should add the {{nac}} template should be substituted (something I forget to do sometimes :P) Singularity42 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Singularity42: Thanks for taking the time to help out! I can see what I did wrong with the template now, so hopefully next time I'll be able to do it myself instead of asking others. Cheers. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello

https://www.canada.ca/en/security-intelligence-service.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BE06:4600:F842:65E3:1F1E:4542 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

What is this meant to tell me? That is not a source for the edit you made. TylerBurden (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

My father Paul was born in Cologne in 1936. Half my family lives in Germany. The hand of God, the North American deep state will protect and defend Germany from right wing nationalism. Happy new year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BE06:4600:3C78:5801:8BAA:68C0 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. TylerBurden (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

User Vaultralph

Vaultralph (talk · contribs) has continued to add unreferenced [1] [2] and poorly referenced BLP information [3]. You left this editor a final warning on March 2 [4] --Hipal (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal: Yea this editor has been persistent with these kinds of edits despite warnings, quite a clear POV pusher in my view. I notified an administrator that had issued them a warning as well, so hopefully that will lead to a longer block. I already reported this editor to ANI before but no action was taken, altough at this point the disruption is more obvious than it was before so that could also work. TylerBurden (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd guess WP:ARBEURO might apply. --Hipal (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Now blocked for one month by Ohnoitsjamie, but will probably be back again after the end of the block or even before as a sock given how persistent this individual is. TylerBurden (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That will help. I don't plan on adding any of those articles to my already-far-too-large watchlist. Are their active WikiProjects that might help? --Hipal (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I have a few articles they have come back to after being reverted on my watchlist, so I have a bit of a ″net″ to catch them in, but like you my watchlist is already too large for me to feel like adding more. In terms of Wikiprojects WP:EEUROPE might be able to help? Not sure about their activity level but it seems to fit the area that Vaultralph is active in. TylerBurden (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed the header on their page, seems inactive unfortunately. TylerBurden (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A lot of their edits have had to do with Ukranians though and WP:UKRAINE is quite active for obvious reasons. TylerBurden (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Khamzat Chimaev

Hey Tyler, how is it going? I saw you reverted my edit on Khamzat Chimaev, where I added the word "allegedly" to the statement "He won a bronze medal at the Junior Russian National Championships". The problem with this statement is it has no backup, it's just a claim. You'll find multiple sources where it says he won bronze at Jr. Russian Nationals, but you can't find the year of the tournament, nor can you find his name in any document in Russian wrestling websites (like wrestrus.ru or wrestdag.ru) regarding the tournament in the last years. I don't know where this claim originated from, but it's only that, a claim. Swedish websites started spreading it and when he got filled with hype the English-speaking websites also started reporting it, but outside of that, no proof and no way of check its veracity.

In my opinion, we should state that it's claimed, because it's not a fact, but a rumor with no backup evidence. Let me know what you think. PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@PabloLikesToWrestle: Hey Pablo quite well, hopefully the same for you. Yes when you made the edit I checked the sources and they said it as fact, not that it was in question so that's why I reverted to reflect that. But I can certainly understand your concerns, I had a look myself for other sources and there were plenty, but they were all MMA news sites and blogs, nothing super reliable. With this in mind I think your edit makes sense, at least until it can be fully verified. Thanks for the explanation mate, I'll self revert my undo. TylerBurden (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: Hey Tyler, thanks. Sorry for the delayed response, haven't been active recently. Thanks for understanding. Cheers m8. PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

8 April 2022

Explain to me why you removed the source that confirms the result of the Poland-Sweden match. Natapanedd (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to just add the source instead of irrelevant content about the Poland team, that belongs on the Poland national football team article. TylerBurden (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

But after all, such a source is acceptable, regardless of the language of the publication. I saw the statement without the source, and since I am Polish-speaking I added the source in Polish. This does not mean that someone in the future may add the source in Swedish or English. I absolutely do not understand editions withdrawn all the time. Natapanedd (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

How is Poland qualifying for the world cup in Qatar relevant to the Sweden article? Your edit is in good faith no doubt, and I never said the language is an issue, but you are adding content (and a duplicate link on Lewandowski but that is an MOS issue besides the main point) that is not relevant to the article about Poland. The article is called the Sweden national team, not the Poland national team. I think this conflict can be resolved by adding your source without other additions. TylerBurden (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

What addition? The text in Polish was just a trans-title. Of course, I can leave the trans-title, it is not the case for me. Natapanedd (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added a source in English (since it is EN wiki) for the result, I hope that solves the dispute. All the best to you. TylerBurden (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Now it's okay. All the best to you as well. Natapanedd (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Harsh?

Hi, TylerBurden! I'm guessing from your comment here that you didn't see Draft:Borås Zoo before it was deleted? I did, and in my opinion the warning I left was appropriate, if not moderate, in the circumstances. If you disagree, or indeed disagree with the block I've now handed him/her, then I'm happy to ask at AN for a review of my actions there (or anywhere) – or of course you can if you prefer. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Hey, no I didn't see the draft, only the edits made to Borås by that user which while certainly being worthy of being reverted since it had no sources, I don't think were vandalism. So that's why I felt it was harsh to give a level 4 warning since I assumed it was because of those edits since that's the article that was linked in the warning, but if you feel the draft that I didn't see in combination with their other behaviour is worthy a block I won't disagree with that because there is a lot of concerns with that user to say the least. I won't ask for any reviews, if they want to be unblocked they can do an unblock request. Cheers and thanks for the explanation! TylerBurden (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Noticed your efforts in counter-vandalism.. Keep it up! Volten001 ☎ 14:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Tyler. I just wanted to let you know that I got the notification thanking me for my edit in the Finland article. I just wanted to thank you back for it. Have you ever heard the joke "Why do Norwegian naval ships have barcodes on the sides"? with the answer "to Scandinavian"? I got that one since you are Scandinavian. Anyway, thanks again! Colman2000 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Colman2000: Good one! No worries, it was the least I could do because that edit was some impressive copyediting. I'm sure you (like most of us) edit because you enjoy contributing and not for validation, but it's still nice to give small tokens of thanks to the people contributing to the project. Thanks for the chuckle and happy editing my friend, nice to recieve a wholesome talk page message for once. :) TylerBurden (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem at all! Hey, have you ever heard of SpongeBob SquarePants? There is an episode called "DoodleBob" where Patrick yells "Finland!" Here is the link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7BiKZbKffk And here's another joke: If it's called "Finland" why aren't there "fins"? (not the alternate spelling, but it's just a joke). Colman2000 (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Colman2000: Of course, growing up I would watch it quite a bit, altough in these parts it's called ″Svampbob Fyrkant″ (strange thing that, growing up and thinking so many cartoons/movies were local due to translations and then finding out the majority of them were not) but I had not seen that before so thanks for sharing, I'll have to use it with some Finnish friends. TylerBurden (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with sockpuppets

If you suspect that two accounts are being operated by the same person, the best thing to do is to file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (WP:SPI). If you want to see what sockpuppet reports look like, have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjay Kumar Tiwari20/Archive#22 April 2022.

• One of the questions on the form, is: If you want to request checkuser, simply change the line above this comment to checkuser=yes
• If you are reporting two accounts that have both been used in past two months, the answer should be yes.

There is an article about checkuser; but in short, it is an admin tool to determine from Wikipedia's servers the IP addresses used by a Wikipedia user account, as well as other technical data stored by the server about a user account or IP address.

There is no need to tell the accounts you suspect that you have filed a report on them at WP:SPI. If they are innocent, they do not need to know that they were suspected. If they are guilty, let it be a nice surprise for them that they have been blocked.

Happy hunting.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I have filed a few successful reports at SPI. I'll keep it in mind to not mention suspicion in the future though, as clearly that is only something people will try to use against you. TylerBurden (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

More along the lines of an organization running a single account. The Impartial Truth (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Explain edit revert?

Hello Tyler Burden curious - I made grammar fixes on a page which you recently reverted, stating the edit caused errors. Can you help me understand what errors you're referring to on the PewDieDie page were? I certainly don't want to introduce any false information to any page, but I'm unclear as to how fixing grammar, punctuation and spelling did so? Or are your reverts based on a style preference for this particular article??? The Real Serena Joy^Talk 20:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@TheRealSerenaJoy: Hi there, sure thing I'll explain. I think what happened there might've been you forgot to look through the changes before you published? Because while there were some improvements, your edit also introduced several grammatical errors as well. An example would be: changing ″In 2019, following a public competition with Indian record label T-Series″ to ″In 2019, following a public competition the Indian record label T-Series″. Another would be: ″As of March 2022, his channel has over 111 million subscribers and has received 28.2 billion total views.″ to ″As of March 2022, his channel has over 111 million subscribers and receives 28.2 billion total views.″ Changing recieved to recieves here is a bit odd since it is the total number of views he has, not something he recieves daily or monthly/yearly etc. Changing his parents to past tense I also don't understand, since they are still his parents. Changing ″During his childhood″ to ″in childhood″ also seems like a sidegrade at best to be honest. Hope that helps you understand the reasoning for my revert, but it basically was because your edit seemed to accidentally do more harm than good. I am sure it was in good faith, but it was a rather unpolished edit, have you looked over it yourself? TylerBurden (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks TylerBurden for taking a quick minute - one of the most common things I see when editing is sentences/paragraphs where verb tenses are not aligned..... mixing past, present, future and words that add no value like "he has been" vs. "he was" if it's past or "he is" if it's present. Not quoting from this article particularly just in general. I did not go back after the edit reversions because the changes I made were so benign, but appreciate your feedback. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 15:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

Tyler I’m sorry I vandalized a bunch of stuff but go ahead and block my ip if you feel that i did wrong 2600:1009:B15F:EE54:6DC6:C9B2:9EB8:29F4 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Administrator changes

Colin M

David.Monniaux • Fribbler • Grue • Kpjas • West.andrew.g

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversighter changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Runes

Hi Tyler,

what do you think was wrong about the bit I added about Runes? The given dates are too early or too late? Re: the Meldorf fibula I linked to the page which has references. I can add references, but is this the only issue or do you think there is something wrong with the text itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ario1234 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ario1234: Hello there, the only issue I had really with the edit is that it was unsourced. Simply linking to another article isn't enough, see WP:NOTSOURCE. So if you could add references for it on the actual article, that would be good. If the text is supported by the references, then there would be no problem in my book. Cheers. TylerBurden (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Biography of a living person

Hi Tyler, regarding Marzia Kjellberg, I was just correcting the statement because if you follow the citation that is already in the current version of the article (https://nypost.com/2019/12/02/youtube-star-pewdiepie-and-wife-marzia-kjellberg-burglarized-in-home-invasion/) it's mentioning that their house in Brighton was broken into, not the one in Japan. So the citation is actually there already :) --Helios 15:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Helios: Hello Helios, I checked the source and you appear to be correct, so apologies for reverting that part. The issue with your edit though was mainly the fact that it added that they now live in Japan, which while true, you know how Wikipedia is, needs a source. I was going to update this later when I have some more time, but you can do it if you want as well as restore your correction of the burglary. There is a reference on the PewDiePie artice about the Japan move that should also include Marzia that you could probably use. Thanks for letting me know. TylerBurden (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Soapbox

Article talk pages are for discussing how to improve an article, not to tell us how biased we are or accuse us of pushing propaganda. Such commernts vioate wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

If bias is affecting the article and that is being called out, I do not see how that is something you have the right to censor. TylerBurden (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Because our rules say it's not what you do (per wp:npa). YOu either make a claim on the user talk page or report them to somewhere like wp:ani. After all I could just as easily call you biased and are trying to defend neo-nazi's, would you consider that an acceptable way to debate with you? Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven- Calling out bias is not a personal attack. The talk page is probably the best place to discuss such a matter. Willbb234 10:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

And caling it propaganda? All it did was to derail it. But OK allow it, but then others will make the counterargument. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Which is what should happen, counterargument and discussion, not silencing the people you disagree with. TylerBurden (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What kind of reach would it be to say I am ″trying to defend neo-nazi's″? Is that what you think I am doing by reverting your attempts to censor discussion? I am sure you disagree with the user entirely, but he's not throwing insults at you and making personal attacks, he raises a valid point about bias, one that should be able to be discussed not silenced by people in the opposite camp because they don't like hearing it. TylerBurden (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello there tyler my friend

Could you make more images and make more pages that looks new, you can show me later because i need to edit more pages, you first then me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkie257 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry. --TylerBurden (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent vandalism case Vaultrop, Mokshas case

Since my recent edits based on scholarly sources including Oxford and Israeli studies and they are being reverted as if the links are broken (but they are not), or a subject lacks evidence or proof (but it doesn't) it hints at some wikiadmins are at least biased re ethnic issues of foremer USSR. History of non-Russian ethnicities always was a taboo during Soviet reighn but Stalin had died. Soviet sources like Big Soviet Encyvclopedia are oudated and stuffed with ideologically biased and controversial info. Please advise where to apply to stop the biased Users (Stalin fans?)----Numulunj pilgae (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Numulunj pilgae: Well I believe you went to the correct venue for that by posting it on ANI, but you could have a look at WP:PNB and see if there are any other more appropriate ones for the situation. I agree that the Vaultralph editor is problematic, they have been making disruptive edits regarding ethnicities related to Russia for quite a while now, if they don't end up blocked by your thread, I'll let the administrator who issued the most recent block know on their talk page that Vaultralph has gone against what they were told, which was to stop edit warring and making unsourced changes about this subject. TylerBurden (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

DS/Alert Balkans or Eastern Europe

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind standard message. TylerBurden (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Kimi

Hi, what is the reason for reverting my edit? Thanks.

Ketlag (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ketlag: Hey Ketlag, I believe I explained that in my edit summary. But I suppose I will repeat it here as well. Basically, it was not an improvement in my opinion. The tests he performed himself are more relevant than Formula One teams finances, which would be more appropriate on their own articles. I don't see why you removed the mention of the tests to replace it with that trivia. You also used a Wikipedia article as a source which is generally a big no-no. See WP:NOTSOURCE for more info on that. TylerBurden (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

But I cited the original source too? You can take out the wiki source, which was more of a linkback. Also it's relevant bc Kimi got the seat they pulled sponsorship, his employment divided the board. Isn't that a noteworthy career moment for a rookie driver who almost didn't have a license? For a team to be fighting their future over him for? I didn't take out any test part, just added it the Red Bull sponsorship stuff. Ketlag (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ketlag: Look at the diff, you did remove content about the Jerez and Barcelona tests that he ran which impressed Sauber enough to sign him, despite the situation that you mentioned. If you want to add the content about the sponsorship, I don't really have an issue with that as long as it is a supplementary thing rather than a replacement for those very relevant tests that he completed. And yea, leave out the Wiki article as a source, it's not needed when you have an actual source. TylerBurden (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You got it boss. Thanks. Ketlag (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Kimi edit

The lede edit I made is a mistake. I was only restoring the order of NASCAR tables, my apologies. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 00:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@NASCARfan0548: No worries, all settled now. Not really involved with NASCAR much so that is why I was initially confused about the table order. Cheers. TylerBurden (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive POV tagging of the Azov article

This tag was first added by another editor very late in the day and just to make a point and subsequently you have decided to be equally pointy and reinsert (twice) a tag removed by consensus and then refused to engage as required by the process for dealing with tags, alleging that it is obvious and commonsense but unable to explain at all what the NPOV problem is and meanwhile throw insults at editors such as "you guys" and "team neo-Nazi" all the while insisting that this distorted view of things is right and everyone else is wrong. This is clearcut WP:IDHT, pure disruption. Selfstudier (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I am engaging on the talk page of the article, no idea why you decided to come to my talk page. Other than claim that you guys is an insult I suppose. Team neo-Nazi was just a jokeful way to refer to the people clinging onto NPOV violations on that article, sorry if you were offended I guess? TylerBurden (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I just realized how absurd that looks without context. So for anyone looking that is unaware, "team neo-Nazi" was used to refer to a group of editors insisting on labelling Azov Battalion neo-Nazi in Wikivoice in the lead of the article, despite it being disputed amongst different reliable sources. It is a shame that Wikipedia is so humorless that people will try to twist jokes into insults in attempts to get their "opponents" in trouble. TylerBurden (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have come to your talk page because I am required to do that by procedure.Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What procedure? Either way the tag is gone, point taken and lessons learned. I am not interested in that dispute any longer, because it doesn't exist. I apologize if you felt offended by those words. TylerBurden (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The same procedure that applies to all DS areas. I see that you have self reverted, thank you for that and there is is an end to it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Thank you as well for being an adult and ending things in a civil manner, that is not a luxury offered by everyone so I do appreciate it. Hopefully if we run into each other again it will be more pleasant for both of us. TylerBurden (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Administrator changes

Tamzin

Barek • Darkwind • Geometry guy • ProcseeBot • RoyBoy • Sean Whitton • Valereee • Visorstuff • WAvegetarian

Sn0wflake → VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news

• Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
• The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
• An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Leif Erikson - Given Name vs Patronymic

Hello! You recently (28 May 2022) made an edit to the Leif Erikson article in which you replaced his given name (Leif) with his patronymic (Erikson) for all subsequent references to him. In the edit summary you linked to MOS:SURNAME, as if to indicate it supported your changes. The MOS does the exact opposite, saying "where a person does not have a surname but a patronymic (like many Icelanders, some Mongols, and those historical persons who are known by names-and-patronymics instead of surnames), then the proper form of reference is usually the given name." I believe your changes should be undone, but can you provide an argument as to why the MOS concerning patronymics shouldn't be used in Leif's case? Thanks! --Beneathtimp (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beneathtimp: Hello, I looked at the MOS again and you're right, I didn't read the section in its entirety so that's a mistake and a miss on my part. Thanks for smartening me up on it, I'll undo my edit and try to make it consistent using the first name instead. TylerBurden (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! Beneathtimp (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TylerBurden. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Just thought you might not have email notification enabled. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 08:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI

You seem like a fundamentally competent editor, so I hope that you will eventually do what you should have done much earlier, namely: go read WP:AGF, recognize your total failure to abide by it (as, e.g., illustrated by [5]), and chill out. FMS apologized to you fairly promptly, everything after that point has been pointless and absurd. (To help convince yourself of this, reflect on the content of the link in DreamFocus's post -- it shows major overlap in editing interest, including dozens of cases where you edited an article they'd edited first and vice-versa, with nearly all examples coming from before this kerfuffle. But I shouldn't need to point this out because a basic assumption of good faith on your part would have sufficed.) --JBL (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I know that we have an overlap, that has never been much of a problem, it is only the two examples I gave in the report that are the problem. Someone hounding me is not good faith, and from their talk page it doesn't look like I am the first person they have done this with. I thank you for the compliment and I can only say the same for you, you are an experienced and competent editor, seen nothing but sense from you thus far, so to not even see you call out their violation of WP:NPA was disappointing to me. I feel hounded, and you think I'm wrong evidently. I will leave the rest to the ANI discussion where I have presented my case and will not input on further unless pinged. TylerBurden (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Two edits is not hounding. They had already apologized, and you had allegedly already accepted the apology, by the time I first came to the thread. Please go read WP:AGF and understand what it says. JBL (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

FMS, that is not helping. JBL (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

So making a personal attack right after being reminded of the policy because of a complete lack of self control is not an issue that seems to warrant anything further? I did accept the apology, because I can take the petty shit these types throw out, that doesn't make it ok and that other people can. If it's not hounding, it's incredibly petty nonetheless and the Haaland example in particular is blatant. Now they're coming to my talk page upset that I am talking about them on my own, despite them talking about me on theirs without interference from me. TylerBurden (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

As a simple Wikipedian bystander, I looked over your ANI discussions in regards to the conflict. You were clearly being hounded, and anyone else who says otherwise is either siding with the opposition or isn't the brightest of sorts. I've had this pesky fmsky character recently revert articles that he didn't agree with my edits on. It's nothing personal, seeing as they may or may not have been justified, but it doesn't serve as an excuse to follow another user from page to page. You have your user rights here on Wikipedia just as everyone else does. I'm aware it sucks when things don't go in your favor but my advice is to just let this one slide and if it happens again, you'll have a solid case on your hands. Perhaps you should've done that to begin with instead of provoking the argument further, but case in point my advice still stands, because doing so will make you look like the one in the wrong. So until then, try to enjoy your time here on the site a little more without having to worry about that nonsensical behavior. Maybe that Jbl guy's right, sometimes forgiving and forgetting's the best thing to do, and can certainly go a long way. After all, I am merely a fellow Wikipedian bystander. Have a good day. XXCochiseXx (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@XXCochiseXx: Thank you, that is very nice of you to say. I guess the obsession with WP:AGF trumps viewing obvious behavioural issues as what they are, and calling them what they are. And both you and JBL have a point, it is probably something that is just best to move on from. If they continue the same behaviour, it will only be more obvious next time, so if they want to supply more evidence of their obvious hounding behaviour they can feel free to do so. And if they actually follow their own words, and avoid me, then that is also fantastic. Win-win situation. Thanks once again for the support. TylerBurden (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Camaraderie and commiseration:

I, too, had this freak FMSky revert my edits just randomly out-of-the-blue. So you aren't alone, I guess lmaoooo

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Minnesota

Greetings. As I said, my concern has to do not with the state of Minnesota but the name. Yes, it might sound obvious to you who are well-known in the subject, but I think it should be as obvious to anyone reading the Wikipedia page (since most are not seniors in the information realm). With that said, my version obviously hasn't got to be the preferential one, but I'd still have my say in that for example Iowa's initial sentence ("Iowa is a state in the Midwestern region of the United States") would be more suitable for the Minnesota page, than the first sentence that currently exists there. Perhaps add ("upper Midwestern region of the United States") and obviously no overlink necessary on the United States. That is just my sincere suggestion. Thanks! --Danielsltt (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Danielsltt: Hey Daniel, thanks for initiating a discussion, though I should have clarified the article talk page since that is usually the best place for discussions about article content since other people working on the article can also weigh in. But that's fine, the immediate lead is not perfect so I see your concern, has a bit of a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue with the upper midwest also being linked right before. Best thing would probably be if it could be slightly rewritten to better seperate the links, and yea avoid the overlink as well so as to not create other MOS issues. I will be off Wiki for a little while, so you can have a go at it if you want or try another solution you think might work. And trust me I'm no expert on the subject (I am not even from the US), but I also see where you're coming from with wanting to be as clear as possible :). Cheers. --TylerBurden (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we're both Scandinavians I think! (I'm Swedish, you Norwegian?)

I will try one more time, and if it "fails", go at it in the talk page that you're referring to. Danielsltt (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Danielsltt: Är också från Sverige, men farsan är hälften norrbagge så helt ute och cyklar är du inte ;). Tycker det blev helt ok med din senaste redigering. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Tack! Ja, ett steg i rätt riktning (iaf) Danielsltt (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• FYI I tweaked it a little bit. The Upper Midwest is a subgroup of Midwest so there is no real need to link to both articles -- similar to linking Northern Europe and Scandinavia in an article. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dolotta: That's a sensible solution, eliminates the sea of blue issue as well. Thanks! --TylerBurden (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Unetice culture

Unetice extended into northern Germany and the text refers to Unetice as ancestral:

"The Nordic Bronze Age emerged about 1750 BC as a continuation of the Battle Axe culture (the Scandinavian Corded Ware variant which was a fusion of the Corded Ware and Funnelbeaker cultures) as well as from influence that came from Central Europe.[1] This influence most likely came from people similar to those of the Unetice culture, since they brought customs that were derived from Unetice or from local interpretations of the Unetice culture located in North Western Germany." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ario1234 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ario1234: I feel like if it is going to be in the infobox as a definitive predecessor it should be more established than ″most likely″. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Varangians from Sweden

Hi! I noticed your partial revert here. You've restored three links to the modern country Sweden, home of IKEA, Saab and ABBA. Not only do I think this qualifies as riding through the middle of the guideline major examples of ... countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian) and Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, ..., but just on aesthetic and usefulness to the reader grounds, doesn't seem that helpful to understanding the subject of the article. In the 9th century, there was no IKEA, Saab or ABBA, and the link to the modern country just seems to jar with the medieval vibe of the article. I saw you'd previously made a similar edit, so I think we're probably on the same side of this one really. Anyway, I'm well aware this is a fairly minor matter; it's an excellent and fascinating article and I enjoyed reading it and making a few trifling copyedits. Thanks for caring about this sort of thing, thanks for not just reverting, and take care of yourself. --Wubslin (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Wubslin: Hello, I would never wholesale revert significant copyedit efforts over a few links, so no worries about that. MOS:OVERLINK can be a tricky thing due to different opinions about what constitues ″major examples″, there are obviously some that can be more or less fully agreed upon like the examples given in the MOS, then there are others that are more subjective ones which I guess Sweden and other Nordic countries are part of, as well as other similarly sized countries. I generally think people enforce it too much, the MOS specifically states ″However, try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others.″ Wikipedia is meant to be an easily accessible general encyplopedia, I think it is unfair to assume general readers are going to be as familiar with geography and countries as the average editor that would work with links would be.

I don't think the link to Sweden does any harm, the article isn't all about ″ABBA, IKEA and Saab″, it covers the history of the nation as well including having a relevant Viking Age section, it's also the same area geographically discussed on the article. Russia is definetely an overlink, probably Ukraine too, Belarus could probably be linked. You may notice there are some other links you didn't remove, such as Denmark, Norway and Azerbaijan which I also have not removed as I don't consider them overlinks. As for MOS:DUPLINK, ″but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead″. I think it is useful to have one link in the lead and one at the first mention after, since some people only read the lead as it is a short summary and others dive into the full body for a longer read. That's my two cents on it at least, I see you have also made a similar edit on Vikings, so hopefully with this you better understand my reasoning for restoring the links. Thanks for reaching out as well as your solid copyediting work, have a nice weekend. :) --TylerBurden (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)