User talk:MylowattsIAm

November 2023

Hello, I'm That Tired Tarantula. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Robert Mulka seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Your recent editing history at Vietnam War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MS Estonia

You added the information, it is your responsibility to provide the reference. Rude and insulting attacks on other editors is totally unecessary Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, there's no reason why someone couldn't just find a reference to someone elses contribution if it is added without reference instead of just reverting it without even trying to look into it. Otherwise it doesn't bring anything to the site and is a pretty useless way of contributing and that's sad because that's not how collaboration works. If you wanna find it rude and insulting that I think it's a lazy thing to do then that is up to you. MylowattsIAm (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know where, or even if, you found a reference? As the contributing editor, it is your responsibility to provide the reference. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a Google search and find material that both states the same and is valid to be used as a reference. Which you can then add as a reference. MylowattsIAm (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why didn't you? I wasn't even sure how to add a reference as I hadn't ever done it before nor was I really sure which of the several sources is good enough to be accepted as a reliable source. Getting help from someone who is more competent than me would've been nice but I guess that's too much to ask. MylowattsIAm (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try asking? Did you read the Wikipedia guidelines on how to reference articles? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did but I still wasn't confident enough. Didn't ask because I didn't think other editors would act this way and just jump to removing straight away. I was naive and thought editors ate helping each other because Wikipedia keeps advertising itself as a collaborative website. MylowattsIAm (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Sinking of the MS Estonia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack anyone, simply stated that people should rather use their energy to helping other editors make their contributions worthy of inclusion instead of simply removing their contributions without even caring to look into it. MylowattsIAm (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the thing. "you could've not been a lazy, useless editor and instead of just reverting the edit before you could've actually added the source yourself. Stop with this horrendous laziness and blind reverting"--that is a personal attack. If you don't understand that, then maybe this collaborative project isn't for you. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know, the definition of lazy is "unwilling to work or use energy" which seemed to be the case here. Simply reverting other editors contributions without even looking into them is pretty useless as it brings nothing good to the site. Doesn't seem very collaborative to me. But whatever, after reading that other people have had all sorts of horrible or ridiculous experiences trying to contribute to Wikipedia, I've decided to quit. It's not worth it. MylowattsIAm (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Your recent editing history at Germany shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Dont get blocked over a name Moxy🍁 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MylowattsIAm reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you. Moxy🍁 12:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Germany. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamist insurgency in the Sahel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abdoulaye Maïga. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

It's disappointing that you've reverted to your additions on this page four times. One (4 June) is perhaps excusable, as you had opened a talk page discussion and recieved no reply, but the others ignored existing consensus and talk page discussion. For your most recent, you didn't even bother including an edit summary. I ask you (again) to undo the additions and seek a talk page consensus. EddieHugh (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Finnish language. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. On top of violating WP:CIVIL on my own talk page. TylerBurden (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are also now following me around reverting old edits of mine, I don't see how you ended up on Stone ship to revert me any other way other than WP:HOUNDING, the edit summary in particular making it seem more like you're out for "revenge" because someone dared reverting your unsourced edits. As for me "owning" the article, are you aware that there is a watchlist feature? Do you think I'm sitting there all day waiting for someone to make unsourced edits? The answer is no, the article is simply on my watchlist, so it pops up there when someone makes an edit, and if there are issues with it, I revert it just like any other article. On top of the fact that you can't seem to stop edit warring with multiple editors (which you have already recieved a block for), you're uncivil, and seemingly can't accept basic referencing standards like WP:VERIFY because you feel like because other articles are poorly sourced it's okay to pull language branches out of your pocket and insert them wherever you like. Seriously, enough. I see you at least added some references finally, which is good, because my next step was going to be reporting you, which I'm not at all opposed to doing if you're going to continue edit warring and violate behavioural policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

In an attempt to work with you, I'll try to add some brief context about the branches per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE when I get the time. TylerBurden (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pulling branches out of my pocket. We cant just leave out branches of a language family in a language infobox and it has nothing to do with whether theyre mentioned in the article itself or not. The fact that you brought up the infobox purpose thing only further proves this. And no, Im not following you around although you would probably like to believe you are special and thats what im doing. Your revert on stone ship was unnecessary especially after the person added an article. Also, aparrently being extremely straightforward and not beating around the bush counts as uncivil now. Interesting. Do you really not think a person can get pretty angry and frustrated when they try to explain something to someone who is tiresome and repeatedly refuses to listen what you are trying to say? I already told you about other language articles and how the branching in the infobox works there but you totally ignored that. Reason please? Maybe go to those articles and remove the branches not mentioned in the text there from the infobox sinvce youre so fierce about it. Thatd seem logical. Lets see what other editors will have to say about that. And yes, I am aware of the article watching thing and its ridiculous. Marking articles as ones you watch over all the time seems like one is fixated on a specific article and keeps lurking over it.MylowattsIAm (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should be more worried about your block than continuing to personally attack me, but you've demonstrated quite well here that the block was well earned. TylerBurden (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you continuously brought up all sorts of WPs and no matter what they told you, refused to listen. Also yes, if you were removing branches from one article because they "are not mentioned" but did not do that in other articles where the same thing is present then honestly that makes you seem dishonest and makes it seem like you want to have power over this one specific article for whatever reason that might be. It is pretty clear you have no clue how langauge family classifications work and you were not interested to even look into it so users like you are why I will personally never make an account. But of course you will claim that all others are in the wrong and you are right because yes. 86.50.70.58 (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange behaviour to continue doing the same thing months later under your IP adress, having difficulty moving on? TylerBurden (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You really are as unpleasant to interact with as I understood you are. What was the point of this smirky kind of response? I could figure out how to report you as uncivil but you do not deserve my time. I am not the same person, I am however someone who knows them personally after we both enrolled in the same linguistics course at the university and I was showed this as the reason why they will never come back to Wikipedia again. I tried to do some random editing myself but seems that really no one actually listens to what others say even if they are reasonable. If I went on an article about some other less obscure language than Finnish and randomly removed sub groups because "they are not mentioned" I would simply get reverted as a vandal. In your case though, you blindly inforce rules even when they go against common sense and doing it only on one specific article instead of seeking this out evrywhere and fighting this "problem" in general makes it seem like you only care about this article in particular. So yes, you are dishonest and from what Mylo told me and what I have seen people say on the internet, this joke of a website is full of those like you. People like you are why so many quit Wikipedia and this tumor of a website deserves all of its problems it asks me to donate for. Only in your dreams, Wikipedia. 86.50.70.58 (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see if the administrators find your story believable, given that you are displaying the exact same behaviour and bitterness I find it highly unlikely, but you've admitted to at the very least being a WP:MEATPUPPET either way. TylerBurden (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really could not care any less, the website really is as horrible as I had heard from both Mylo and another person who edits, as well as reading about it online. This is the last time I am ever doing anything in Wikipedia. And stop attacking the stone ship article. It is simply an item on a list and it has its own article. You are only being disruptive doing this and removing information for no reason. 86.50.70.58 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, see you in a few months. TylerBurden (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. 86.50.70.58 (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning: Finnish language

Your recent editing history at Finnish language shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]