User talk:Cypheroftyr

June 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Tanya DePass has been reverted. Your edit here to Tanya DePass was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/cypheroftyr) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

December 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Tanya DePass, you may be blocked from editing. Articles must have references so please stop removing sources & sourced content. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * YOU KEEP CHANGING MY PHOTO.
 * I asked someone to update my information as my "Early life" section has been changed to just say I grew up poor as that is not accurate and I asked them to make edits to accurately reflect my Early life section and for an updated photo. Stop changing my photo back and there will be link sources put back in, as Springleaf is updating that information, and putting reference links back. Give them a chance to finish the edit before you keep reverting it. That is the photo I want there and you keep changing it. STOP. Cypheroftyr (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the article in the Guardian, this is literally what you said: "we grew up really poor, food-stamps poor". So if you are claiming that is not true, I suppose we can edit that out of the article, but that begs the question then of whether all the other facts in the article are true. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop... just stop. I am not disputing that I said I grew up poor. It was the fact that the Early life section was changed to JUST SAY that part. There was more there before. I wanted more context but if you are going to keep insisting that a direct quote is there go for it. In fact just do whatever you all want since it's clear this is more about proving me wrong and twisting my request for some edits into something it's not. I know what I said in the Guardian article, it's right there in black and white. The issue for the last time is that my Early Life seciton was reduced just to I grew up poor. Not that I didn't say it.
 * So just do whatever you all want at this point. It's clear my wanting things to not be reduced to one line doesn't matter. Stop messaging me, make whatever edits you all want and go on with it. I'm going to bed and I quit trying to have any agency over a page about me. Cypheroftyr (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize that this process is frustrating since articles on living persons have strict guidelines on how they're edited and updated including requiring secondary sources. At times, the process of requiring sources for personal aspects of your life can seem extreme (see Emily St. John Mandel doing an interview with Slate today to correct her marital status so it could be updated on Wikipedia) but that mostly comes down to Wikipedia's requirements around verifiability & neutral point of view. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cypheroftyr. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Tanya DePass, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. You can follow the steps outlined at Edit requests or put a request up at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if you would like to request changes to the article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In case it wasn't clear. I did not edit my page myself, I know I can't. I simply asked for an updated bio after it was changed and minimized without my consent. Even if the text of the bio isn't fine, leave my photo ALONE. That shouldn't be an issue to update, should it? It's really irritating that I can't change anything myself, apparently I can't ask anyone to make edits even without it being suspect. I just wanted my PROPER BIO there, and an updated photo.
 * Leave my page alone. I am not trying to advertise, or promote. I am literally talking about things I have done, that's IT. Now let my page alone and let updated changes be made so the page is accurate to what I have done and accomplished. That's all I want. Cypheroftyr (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tanya, if you keep editing the article about you in the way you have been, you are likely to be blocked. Please use Talk:Tanya DePass to suggest improvements. For example, the content in the article about your childhood is sourced to an interview comment you made to The Guardian. If that's not true, you may want to state so at the talk page and explain the discrepancy. It might be worthwhile to push The Guardian to update or correct their piece on you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I CAN'T EDIT THE ARTICLE. What isn't clear about that. I simply undid changes I did not authorize like reverting my photo. Why is this so hard to understand? I cannot edit my own page, that was pointed out to me when I tried to make edits when the page was first created. I AM NOT EDITING MY OWN ARTICLE.
 * NO one explains anything, they just make changes without reaching out first. This makes no sense and I am not pleased to be warned and threatened as if I am the one making changes to my own page. WHICH I AM NOT. Someone unaffiliated to me apparently tried to make a change and was also warned. That I Didn't even ask to do anything. This is ridiculous and it makes no sense people have zero agency over a page about themselves. Cypheroftyr (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tanya, when you "undid changes", that still counted as an edit. Edits like those are the ones that may lead to a block. WP:AUTOPROB has some advice about handling problems in an article that's about you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's a useful article and likely just as impossible to understand and counter intuitive as the rest of this site. I've used the sandbox talk thing. Hopefully someoen will actually read and listen to me rather than talking at me. Cypheroftyr (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Your article
Hi there! I just wanted to let you know that I've restored the image you wanted in the Tanya DePass article. You mention above that the claim the article makes about growing up poor is inaccurate. I've had a look at the source cited for that claim, and it looks to be a direct quote from you in a Guardian article. Did the author misrepresent the situation?

With regards to the other changes, I would encourage you or the people you're asking to make changes to draft them in a sandbox, which would give you more time to get the references in place before publishing (and avoid the situation of people undoing your changes for lack of sourcing). WP:PLAINSIMPLECOI has some practical guidance on how to address the issue raised above around a conflict of interest. Autobiography has some additional info that might be helpful.

I also wanted to mention that by continuing to restore the changes in quick succession (which is called edit-warring, the editors involved risk being blocked from editing. Pinging so they're aware of this as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * THEN EXPLAIN HAT instead of just changing things back with no reason. All it looked like to me is jsut someone immediately reverting things back after a requested change was made. Cypheroftyr (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that the situation is frustrating - the reason things are getting changed back is because the edit was not just a change of photo but replacing content that had sources with content that did not. Wikipedia articles are meant to be based on reliable published sources, rather than what the subject says about themselves. That's why I suggested drafting in sandbox first to get more time to get references in place without having the changes undone right away. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not merely what "I say about myself"
 * ALSO I thought it was clear, the edit was still in progress and there was no chance for it to be finished before it was immediately reverted. I said that several times and no one is listening to me. I'm not just sitting here hitting UNDO for fun. On my end, it looks like some random person is just undoing a change without any notification.
 * I've used your "sandbox" talk thing. Hopefully that fixes it. Cypheroftyr (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't see this after my last change. I will work in a sandbox until I add the references. Thanks SpringLeaf17 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * NO one was paid to edit my page. Springleaf is a trusted friend that is all and I did not request that other person to make a change on my behalf. There's no COI "incident" If my there had been an explanation given, I would not have undone Sariel's changes. Cypheroftyr (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to add my apologies here; I was aware that this was a new profile picture of Tanya per her tweet about her photoshoot in October, and didn't realise I had inadvertently mucked about with other changes with my reversion. Truly sorry to have caused any misunderstanding or trouble for attempting to assist unasked. LaurenEMitchell (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries! Repeating a bit of what I said above, articles on living persons have strict guidelines especially around sourcing (see Emily St. John Mandel doing an interview with Slate to correct her marital status so it could be updated on Wikipedia). My reversions were focused on the fact that every source for the article was removed when ; each of my edit summaries flagged this along with the first notices I did on user talk pages (ex: ). Subsequent reversions by the three of you restored the version without sources so I flagged it at the noticeboard as a way to resolve the conflict since the multiple reversions were bringing us into "edit war" territory. Wikipedia has a hard rule known as the three-revert rule & I had reverted 3 times.
 * Thank you for stating in your edit summary that one of the edit goals was an updated image. I do want to flag to that by uploading the professional headshot to Wikimedia Commons the image is now licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)