User talk:Edgenut

If I am unblocked, I will not edit biographical articles of beople who have died before the Fall of Rome in 476. Edgenut (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you're working to move past this and make positive contributions to the encyclopedia. But it's not about the period of time you're editing in: we're not trying to discourage you from working on topics that are of interest to you. What we're trying to get you to do is to base your edits on reliable, third-party sources, such as published histories or reference works, rather than web sites and articles in other Wikis.

Not every biographical article benefits from an infobox: if everything that goes in the infobox is already contained in a very short article—say around one screen, or sometimes just in the lead—then the infobox is purely decorative, and adds nothing of substance or convenience to the article. Kind of like anachronistic flags: while I can see the temptation to use eye-catching symbols, they're not at all encyclopedic, which is why there's a policy against including them in most infoboxes.

When experienced editors try to explain something, it's usually a good idea to listen; for example why you can't draw certain inferences from limited biographical information, or why it's not necessary to keep repeating "BC" for every date that occurs after it's already established that the subject of the article lived in that era. Nobody's claiming that they're always right, but at the very least please consider what's being said. There are many ways to contribute positively to Wikipedia without adding dubious or redundant details. If you accept constructive criticism and learn from your mistakes, nobody's going to object to your working on articles from any particular era. P Aculeius (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the time range is not the root cause. Can you address Sandstein's concerns about your capacity to edit constructively? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

For context, I was contributing to articles in chronological order. As Ifly6 mentioned somewhere else, my contributions before 500 BC were good contributions. I did this since the time before 500 BC, there was very little writing about things so it didn't seem apropriate to add estimates. Around 350 BC, I started adding estimated dates since my thinking was that the amount of writing improved enough up to this point for estimated dates to be added. King Philip II lived around this time, and there is a lot of writing and sources about him. Some of the good contributions I made during this period were to the Antrea Net, Abishemu Obelisk, Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir, and Lucius Fabatus. These contributions directly contradict Sandstein's claims. Edgenut (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand, however, why those edits you linked (which are housekeeping at best) are different from the later edits? Ifly6 (talk) 03:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes since most of the estimates after 350 BC didn't have sources and should have been removed. The articles listed had sources for the dates. Edgenut (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I largely agree with P Aculeius, who in this post strikes a very reasonable cast. Non-disruptive quality editing can be learnt and we should encourage it. A topic ban is not sufficient: if no learning occurs, Edgenut will just insert falsehoods somewhere else and someone else will eventually have to waste time cleaning it up. The thing that irks me the most is the quantity of these fictions. Undoing the addition of these fictitious birth, death, and service dates over around 300 articles – I have not done and do not intend to do an in-depth count – took around eight hours. I do not have the time or patience to make a habit of following anyone over hundreds of articles fixing their mistakes (including typographical ones such as your absolute refusal to use n-dashes), whether or not they act in good faith and with the intent of bettering the encyclopaedia.

I doubt anyone else has that time either; and absolutely nobody has time to that after adding an article-by-article discussion over every reversion. If you intend, after being unblocked, to go and re-revert the hundreds of reverts that I made yesterday, I would call that both indistinguishable from vandalism and profoundly disruptive. I make no guarantee that my reverts were entirely accurate but I believe the overwhelming majority of them were proper.

I bring this up only because two days ago the reverts that I made were then immediately reverted by you, many times restoring unsourced content. One dispute about what to name a battle stays foremost in my mind since the name you gave was fictitious, not aligned with the article title, contrary to well-known conventions, and unjustified beyond [it] sounds a lot better. Wikipedia reflects the reliable sources, not personal preferences. Other reversions that threatened to become edit wars^[1] included your reverting (again) my manual revert of your capitalising Caesar's Civil War contrary to MOS:CAPS. If unblocking you means you will mass revert reversions which I made consistent with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc, I must dissent. Ifly6 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I originally reverted the Caesar's Civil War change since it is a proper noun. Proper nouns should be capitalized. Edgenut (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I already linked, and raised on the talk page, the relevant WP:MOS entry: MOS:CAPS. Evidently this does not matter for you; and you give no promises not to mass revert my removal of your problematic content. Ifly6 (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I won't revert the changes to the name of Caesar's civil war to Caesar's Civil War. I was explaining why I reverted it at the time. Edgenut (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

And another thing to mention. The manner in which you acceded to my feedback was not consistent with learning about guidelines or policies. There is a difference between I will stop adding unsourced information because I understand WP:VER and I will stop adding unsourced information in this article because someone objected in this instance. Nobody has the time to follow anyone else around double-checking everything they do, which is what the latter implies. For example, I objected to an infobox because it is of no value; your edit summary Ifly6 doesen't like the infobox ignores that reasoning and transforms it a seemingly baseless one-time personalist objection. It implies you did not understand the objection's substance. Nor are arguments such as StarTrekker has been here since 2017 (nb my account was created in 2009) or That's a question for PubliusPretoria at all meaningful: the former implies you consider my objection a matter of rank rather than reason; the latter is merely an elision of responsibility. None of these edit comments evince understanding of WP:VER. Ifly6 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I was being retarded and thought you started editing in 2022. Didnt scroll down to the bottom. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ifly6&action=history&dir=prev. Assumed we were both new wiki editors.

The Mithridates II article says that he died shortly after 46 BC. You were right in this case without us knowing it. Edgenut (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

These two responses, that (1) I'm older than you thought I was and (2) that the Mithridates II article says 46 BC, still illustrate my point that there is a lack of understanding as to why these edits were bad in the first place.

Re (1), it doesn't matter at all how old my account is; what matters is the quality of the contributions and arguments I make. Re (2), the death date for Mithridates II is also unsourced and not relevant: blaming a different editor is a complete nonsequitur especially when that editor didn't add the unsourced material – justify your 70 BC birth date and cite sources (my edit summary).

The matter revolves not about whether I was right about Mithridates II died – I don't care at all what year he died – but rather what the reliable sources justify. Ifly6 (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Here is where they entered the line about dying after 46 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mithridates_II_of_the_Bosporus&diff=1022579285&oldid=1020585625. You kept the 46 BC date in without any sources, with the possibility he died later than 46 BC.
2. I removed the 70 BC year here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mithridates_II_of_the_Bosporus&diff=1210515789&oldid=1210507621 since there were no sources.
3. Since you asked, this is why I chose 70 BC as a estimated birth year. He raised an army in 48 or 47 BC to help Caesar. It is likely that he was not a baby or young kid when he led the army. This gives us a minimum age of around 20. Add 20 to 48, you get 68 BC. The nearest multiple of 5 is 70 BC.

Edgenut (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• The CIR issues are so strong, this is a waste of time for the editors/admin here, and only gives false hope to the editor. Use UTRS if you want to appeal, but I would instead suggest finding a different hobby. Not everyone is cut out to be an editor here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dennis, I think your ending comments here were way unnecessary and unkind. Zanahary (talk) 05:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I am unclear in this instance as to whether WP:TPA is properly applied. I don't think the protests here are abusive uses of the talk page nor are there any issues with accusations or outing. Ifly6 (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with above comments, this is way too harsh in my opinion.★Trekker (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ok, I have restored talk page access, against my own better judgement. If you feel there is a chance that they can overcome the WP:CIR issues, we will see. I don't think so. The decline of unblock still stands because they don't fully understand why they were even blocked, demonstrated by their desire to continue editing the same, with only an arbitrary date cut-off. The fact that some people are not suited to edit in collaborative environment isn't "harsh". There are a great many individuals (some, quite brilliant, some not) who simply can't function within the rules of a collaborative project because they can't conform (or fully understand) the requirements. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Endorse Decline. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: maybe once you've had some time to cool off and learn how to apply the relevant policies—and most Wikipedia policies are not optional, although rare exceptions may be granted through consensus on an article's talk page—then you'll be in a position to ask to be unblocked and make another go of it. But I'd say you should wait at least a few weeks—if you keep appealing right away, nobody is going to think you've learned from your mistakes. And you will need to show that you understand the relevant policies, and why your edits were in contravention of them. P Aculeius (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

How is this image anachronistic? It looks more accurate than this image which has everyone in 1500s chothing. Edgenut (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's no more anachronistic than the lead image—less so if we take into account the historicity of the clothing. This image was in the article before you put it in an infobox, and I've replaced it in the same position it previously occupied. P Aculeius (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• What do you think about mass edits to articles? What kind of sources do you intend to use when editing? Ifly6 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Around 90% of the time, I will use the dates from the article. Around 10% of the time, I will use reliable sources I can find as I have done with Tullia. Edgenut (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer my first question about mass edits. I'm also not particularly comforted by sometimes I will use sources, which regardless doesn't answer my question, which is about what kind of sources you intend to use. Ifly6 (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Regarding the mass edits, I edited the articles from november 2023 to february 2024, which is a period of 4 months. I was going in chronological order.
2. The 10% of the time I add sources, I will add sources that are reliable, as in the case with Tullia. https://romanrepublic.ac.uk/person/3928/ This was by Kings College which in my opinion is reliable.

Edgenut (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Re DPRR, I think you should be citing the specific things that are themselves cited by DPRR. Eg Zmeskal 2009. But why do you think adding (or using?) sources is only necessary 10 pc of the time? Ifly6 (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

90% of the time, articles already have sources for the dates. Example. Edgenut (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you tell me how sources like the ones you gave as an example should be used? Ifly6 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources should be used to confirm something that is said in an article. Edgenut (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What sources should be used? Ifly6 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources that are reliable Edgenut (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Are there any other questions you have? Edgenut (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• You give examples of your "good" edits, but this shows you removing Finland and replacing it with Russia, but when the discovery was made, it WAS Finland, so I don't see that as a good edit (although it hasn't been reverted, yet). The second edit was tiny and ok (adding "circa"), the third was reverted because you added a "knowyourmeme dot com" external link, and the forth example was adding an infobox in an article that didn't benefit from it, thus it was reverted out. If these are the examples of your beneficial contributions, I still have concerns about WP:CIR, as stated above. But it isn't up to me, I'm just opining. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  1. When adding categories, the country of artefact discovery should be the one as of the present day. As an example, the Cirta steles are in the Algeria category despite being part of France in 1857. Another example is the Yehawmilk Stele, which is listed as being found in Lebanon, despite being in the Ottoman Empire in 1869.
  2. I did not add the knowyourmeme link. I added it back since it had a lot of info (as stated in my edit.). Remsense sent me a list of unreliable sources. WP:ELNO, see rule 12. Also, Remsense thanked me for an edit I made.
  3. The only bad things I had there were the service year and the image. I thought it was a diepiction of Lucius Roscius Fabatus. Should of also added the Battle of Forum Gallorum. I added a different article to the unblock request which should have less issues.

  Edgenut (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm thankful for everybody that tries to improve the wiki, even if it doesn't end up working out. I am not sure why it was being put forth as a good edit regardless. Generally, there's not much of a difference between adding and readding material to the wiki for our purposes. Remsense诉 17:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Here is the diff I was referring to: Edgenut (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why did you revert this? Edgenut (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  they weren't better Remsense诉 05:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also, though I am not disinterested since I was the person who selected the original theatre names, the names that were present there previously are not obviously anachronistic unlike France and Balkan Peninsula (which, if you go to Balkans, is also something apparently we say isn't a meaningful label: modern geographers reject the idea of a Balkan Peninsula, while historical scholars usually discuss the Balkans as a region). The regions given were consistent with standard transliteration of the Latin equivalents and are the divisions used in Goldsworthy Caesar (2006) chs 18–21. Reversion doesn't seem at all controversial to me and I am unsure as to why those additions could be defensible. Ifly6 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Ifly6 reverted my edit to Cynane, falsely claiming I added a "fictitious birth and/or death year", despite the fact that I didn't add any new dates, as can be seen here. The birth date even has a source! Even if we play devils advocate and assume the dates which were added previously were fictional, they are still present on the page. At best, this could have been a mistake, and at worst, a form of vandalism. Edgenut (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

You should not add astimated birth and death years to a person who is missing them without a source. This counts as original research wich is not allowed. Being allowed to add info without sources means that people could intentionally add false information. This would defeat the purpose of wikipedia in a way.
Dates of military service should only be put if their full service time is known. Adding a single date can be misleading to the reader.
Flags in person infoboxes are bad since they are a distraction for the reader, therefore not being encyclopedic.
Names should be spelt how they are in the title of the article. Caesar's civil war instead of Caesar's Civil War. Also the Battle of Nicopolis (48 BC) instead of the First Battle of Nicopolis.
I will not add birth and/or date esitmates without a source. Secondly, I wont add flags to the person infoboxes. Thirdly, I will only spell names of things based on how they are spelled in the title of the article. In the future, I will make contributions like the ones I made on the Antrea Net, Abishemu Obelisk, Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir, and Cornelia Metella.

Decline reason:

You seem to understand your specific mistakes, and that's good, but the main reason for your block is that you did not respond to warnings or otherwise communicate with others beforehand, which might have prevented the block in the first place. Please tell what steps you will take to better heed comments you are given and communicate with others. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

P Aculeius Zanahary; Did you guys read my request? Edgenut (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not an admin, I have no say in your unblocking. Zanahary (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

But I’ll say I support your unblock. Zanahary (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Also not an admin; I had nothing to do with blocking you. However, if you've learned from your mistakes, I have no objection to your block being lifted. To be clear, the reason for the block was not that you made mistakes in what you added to articles, but that you refused to listen or stop doing it when more experienced editors flagged the problems and tried to explain why they were problematic, and how to avoid similar issues in future. But if you've learned that lesson, then you can be a productive editor IMO. P Aculeius (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging ScottishFinnishRadish and CactusWriter since they are admins Edgenut (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Attempt 2: Cullen328, Rosguill Edgenut (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not ping admins to this page. Unblock requests are automatically added to a queue that is patrolled by administrators. Sending out repeated pings may be taken as an abuse of talk page privileges and lead to a loss of access here, again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I pinged admins so they can read my request Edgenut (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You're already on a list for admins to review, just wait, otherwise like Rosguill said it might be seen as abuse of talk page privileges.★Trekker (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

331dot For minor disputes, in wich someone reverted instead of removing the content they didn't like, I will add back my contribution and remove the content in question. This is what I did to Cornelia Metella. For more serious disputes, I will discuss it on my (or someone elses) talk page. If we are unable to reach a consensus, I will ask for a neutral editor to solve the disagreement. In addition to this, I will try to read more what is said on my talk page. Edgenut (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

331dot did you read my response? Edgenut (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I did, my last review puts an end to my involvement with this matter. Further requests will be reviewed by other admins. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

See the above reply

Decline reason:

Active sockpuppetry is not the way to get yourself unblocked. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@The Wordsmith Would my response to 331dot have gotten me unblocked? If it would have, I will only need to address the sockpuppet claim. Edgenut (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but it's a moot point now. Not only did you actively sockpuppet from the day after your block right up until today, your sockpuppet continued doing the exact thing you were blocked for. So all the claims to have understood what you did wrong and promises that you'll do better are meaningless, because you never intended to stop. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You're being quite kind here Wordsmith. Personally I will be very blunt towards Edgenut with my disappointment:

No Edgenut, that response does not show that you understand what was wrong with your edits, and as such I am certain it would have been denied.★Trekker (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed by what has ended up happening here. I had said in February this year:

The manner in which you acceded to my feedback was not consistent with learning about guidelines or policies. There is a difference between I will stop adding unsourced information because I understand WP:VER and I will stop adding unsourced information in this article because someone objected in this instance. Nobody has the time to follow anyone else around double-checking everything they do, which is what the latter implies.

It seems even when we were discussing this exact behaviour this was an accurate assessment of events, since the same activity was then actively recurring just in a topic where no one previously was looking. Wordsmith (in perhaps a less than fitting juxtaposition of name and message) is right: actions speak louder than words. Ifly6 (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)