User talk:Pyrite Pro/Archives/2021/November

July 2020
Hello, I'm Berrely. I noticed that in this edit to Digital zoom, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 19:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Berrely, thank you for your message. I understand that you might not have seen my edit summary. In this summary, I stated that the removed text was confusing, which is confirmed by the tag. As no changes to this text were made for quite a while and the copy-editing tag was added to the article, I find it to be appropriate to remove the regarding 'example', as it does not contribute to the article and only brings confusion. It was not a mistake. If you think it was not appropriate to remove, please let me know in a reply. I would love to discuss it with you. Pyrite Pro (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and often content may be considered confusing. The content in the article is information that is important and information that a reader would be interested in, so it is not a valid reason to remove it. Feel free to ask any more questions. 😁 — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 19:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , I do not doubt about the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, or that the Digital zoom article contains important and interesting information. I do however disagree with your statement that Wikipedia's content may often be considered confusing. Yes, sometimes information is difficult to perceive, but there is a confusing-tag for a good reason. In this case, the particular part of the non-deteriorated zoom limit section, several reasons can be found for the confusing nature, namely:
 * No clear story line. Somehow, VGA and video recording are introduced without any cause.
 * Repetition of table data. Not necessary, as it is already in the table above.
 * Not defining that an example is provided. Where does the example start? Where does it end?
 * Extremely technical. Wikipedia articles should not be data sheets.
 * These problems, combined with the little information provided by this portion and the small size of the removed portion, absolutely do give me valid reasons for removing the text altogether. If you can explain to me that these problems are not really problems, then sure, I agree to not remove the text. Otherwise, the text should be removed. Pyrite Pro (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please substitute your user warnings
If you don't do so, it can cause issues with the text changing and can be confusing for other editors - as documented on the UW template pages, you can do this by adding "subst:" to the start of the template name, like. Many thanks! Ed 6767   talk!  11:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for bringing it to my attention! I've read the corresponding template page again, and you're completely right. I'll use subst: from now on. Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks - and keep up the good work! Ed 6767   talk!  11:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh hey,, I see that my previously (faulty) edits to user pages have been corrected by a bot. Is there any need to go through all those pages to substitute the template? Or may I assume that the bot did its work? Thanks again, Pyrite Pro (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the bot should do its work on the previous pages so there's no major need, just ensure you're doing it in the future - once your account is 4 days old you can start using some tools that'll help you out loads too. Ed 6767    talk!  13:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet issue
Tell Binkster to stop accusing random people of being some phantom editor and reverting edits of everyone living in Oregon because he has a cock the size of a fruit fly's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.255.20 (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear IP 166.181.255.20, please refrain from using rude and inappropriate language. If you do not agree with actions of this particular user, you should discuss this in a proper manner. Have a civil discussion on the users talk page, or try to gain consensus on the article's talk page. Your current behavior is unacceptable, which led me to report you on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You might want to argue there why your behavior is justified. Pyrite Pro (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
You tagged my page for edit-warring, something I haven't done. If I see you do that again I will report. Govvy (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your friendly message. I would like to remind you to the changes and revert you've made on Jordan Henderson. You seem to have engaged in an edit war with Vaze50, in which multiple actions of both users are repeatedly reverted. If you do not agree, please argue, instead of threatening with reporting me. Thank you for your cooperation. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * To be clear, this issue emerged when claimed on the talk page for the Jordan Henderson that a "consensus" existed on whether or not to include runners-up positions within honours (he also deleted the inclusion of the FWA Footballer of the Year award). As has now become extremely clear on WT:FOOTBALL, no such consensus exists, in spite of Govvy's claims. Whilst I do not intend to edit war, I think it is fair to say that for Govvy to remove legitimate edits and claiming they are "completely against consensus" when no such consensus exists is not conducive to constructive and proper editing. Given all of this, I do not intend to engage on the point any further. Finally, may I briefly sympathise with your comments on his personal style - he also adopted needlessly aggressive and threatening language towards me, which is seriously disappointing. I think again a referral to WP:COOL would be beneficial...Vaze50 (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Vaze, stop pinging my name, this is tiresome and annoying. Govvy (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your messages. From what I read on your talk pages and WT:FOOTBALL page, I can see a discussion about whether consensus exists or not. Indeed, it seems that no consensus has been reached yet for all related articles, so I encourage you both to take this to the talk page of Jordan Henderson and try to get consensus for this particular page, or start dispute resolution. On a side note, I saw some pretty hostile language from on these pages, which is not very honoring to your fellow contributors. Your threatening and unconstructive message on my talk page and your unconstructive comment on Vazes comment confirms this. Please assume good faith when looking at the edits of other contributors and stay cool. Other contributors might have opinions with which you disagree, but they have equal value and should be given consideration. Thank you for your cooperation.  Pyrite Pro  (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your constructive comments here Pyrite Pro. Agree this should be discussed on the talk page going forward. Sadly, having looked through his contributions it is evident that Govvy frequently adopts a rude, aggressive and unpleasant approach in dealing with his fellow editors - we've seen plenty of evidence of that here today! I'd be grateful Pyrite Pro if you had any suggestions as to whether there were any steps I could take in future to address this, in case piles similar abuse on me again? No problem if not. Thanks. Vaze50 (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If you feel offended or violated, you might want to consult the conduct policies, for example the policy on dealing with incivility. Generally, these kind of disputes only end when one of the users involved ceases to comment and avoid any interactions, or an administrator is involved. Thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Diane Gujarti nomination
The addition I made with regard to Diane Gujuarti was completely accurate. The wikipedia article on her says that her nomination failed, which alone qualifies her as a failed nominee during the Obama Adninistration. But when renominated this year, the Judiciary Committee supported her unanimously. Obviously she generated no controversy. So I don't see what the problem was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD08:EC00:8829:6C6:2F09:15A (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message and your contribution to Wikipedia. All content should be verifiable, and therefore references are required. Feel free to add your contribution to the Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies page again, but take care of references. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way (yes it's the silliest thing), but pings don't actually work on IPs, so you have to go to their user talk page and add talkback to notify them. It used to be that way for registered users too until they fixed it, but decided not to do the same with unregistered IPs. Ed 6767   talk!  19:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have RedWarn, so you can make this easier for yourself through the "quick template" feature - you just need to install the talkback template pack by opening RedWarn preferences, selecting "Install Quick Template Pack" and pasting the following pack code when prompted:  Ed 6767    talk!  19:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's actually a neat template! Just figured out how it's working. Thanks for your help, as I did not really know how to ping users/get attention from IP users. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Edina Lekovic
The fact those events and appearances haven't been published in any sources that meet WP:RS criteria means that they're not particularly noteworthy. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be Curriculum Vitaes. The article has already been tagged to read like an advertisement for some time now. Please stop reintroducing the material. 73.247.181.71 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrite Pro  (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:BURDEN for more information about whose responsibility it is to demonstrate verifiability and seek consensus for inclusion. It's the editor who restores material. In other words, you. Good idea regarding seeking deletion. 2601:243:2200:60E:215C:6AAA:633B:4024 (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Body positivity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aerie. 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) 06:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Cappadocia
Newbie here. You reverted my very first edit... only a few minutes after i did it wow.

I removed that statement because 1. Demographic statistics (shared here on wiki) don't support the statement 2. I checked the given source and it doesn't support the statement

Is it more constructive now? :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devlet-i Kızılbaş (talk • contribs) 22:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your contribution, and welcome to Wikipedia! Maybe a bit of context why the edit was reverted (so fast). Some edits are picked out by the system to be high-risk for unconstructiveness/vandalism. Especially content removals are detected fairly quickly. A lot of community members are checking out these specific edits and revert them if necessary. This could sometimes be done within a minute or so.
 * In the case of your edit, I saw content removal without a clear reason. The summary edit did not say anything about the reference being not supportive, or statistics being contradicting. As a lot of unconstructive edits or vandalism do not need much review for deciding whether to revert them, I quickly assumed this was also the case for your edits.
 * Now, after your message, I checked again the sentence you removed, and indeed find the reference to be unsupportive of the statement. About those demographic statements, I cannot say anything about that, as I don't know where they are shared. But the lack of supportive references convinces me about the legitimacy your of edit. Nice catch!
 * To prevent this from happening again, you could mention these reasons shortly in the edit summary. Something like 'Removed claim that was not supported by its reference'. If the reasons are extensive, you could also add a section on the talk page. In this way, if your edit pops up in the system as high-risk, other users can quickly verify your edit to be legitimate.
 * If you have any questions or remarks, feel free to reply on this talk page. You can sign your messages by placing four tildes ('~') at the end of your message. Again, thank you for your contribution. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you :). I’m not very familiar with Wikipedia language yet but next time I’ll be sure to use “Removed claim that was not supported by its reference” for a similar edit!
 * ((Btw the demographic statistics I was talking about are shared on the pages Demographics of Turkey and Minorities in Turkey)) Devlet-i Kızılbaş (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Girth Summit  (blether) 14:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Tagging
Neither WP:DRIVEBY nor WP:CITENEED are policies. The first is an essay and the second is an information page. If you want to heavily tag an article, please describe your concerns on the article talk page. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for expressing your concerns. Fair point that neither are policies, but they describe aspects of constructive editing and WP:V, of which the last one is a policy. Furthermore, I did not 'heavily tag' an article. I made a reasonable request for verifiability on three claims with three separate inline tags. That is not 'heavy'. I have expressed some concerns about this article a while ago on the talk page, so no problem there. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for PROIV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PROIV. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Note this regarding an XfD that was raised almost immediately the one you participated in for the same article) Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Apology and request for pointers
Hi Pyrite Pro: Sorry if I stepped over any line by reducing the hatnotes on Body positivity (not the ones you added). I am having a hard time seeing where the gaps are though. The reason given - in 2020 - for originally adding the ref improve tag was "too many blogs as sources". But the blogs that I noticed are (probably) appropriate for a social science-related topic.

Maybe it's just me, but when there are hatnotes instead of inline tags, I find it very hard to improve the sourcing, especially when, as in this case, there appears - on the face of it - to be lots throughout the body of the page. Your ES said "too many unsupported claims and too many dodgy sources (blogs)", (not an exact quote!): Do you mind pointing them out to the semi-clueless, by appending some inline tags? I like to improve where I can, but I need some pointers to start me off.

I am adding my rough count of sources, and some material from research - hopefully RS - to the talk page, too. Thanks 49.177.107.107 (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Replied on IP users own talk page Pyrite Pro  (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)