Jump to content

User talk:Brlob

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Brlob, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.



Why can't I edit some particular pages?
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?
Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.
How do I create an article?
See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.
How do I create citations?
  1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
  2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
  3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
  4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
  5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
  6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
  7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Removing unsourced material

[edit]

Hi, can you please add the template citation needed rather than removing unsourced information unless you have a source that contradicts the information. At least this give a chance to other editors to improve the article. You took out alot of the information from Sudan article which can be easily fixed. As the article about these regions are normally not well sourced, I really fear that your approach will result in removing the little that we have. I don’t have any policy to pack up my request, but the policy about unsourced material state If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template [citation needed] ([citation needed] will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information. I hope you can be a force for enriching these articles rather than making a bad coverage worse. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I tried to clean up a bit, but the unsourced information is pretty detailed, and trivia, anyway I'm working on some copyediting for a better summary. Brlob (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brlob thanks for your work. Do you think we can collaborate on some of the articles about Sudan?
I am not sure if you are aware about the geographical bias in Wikipedia but you can surely help. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm eager to collaborate on any subject. Brlob (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@thanks alot. Can we start with Draft:Tigray genocide. I have placed alot of tags and slowly started to fix things. The article in general is salvageable. Let me know what you think FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC) You continoued to remove stuff even when very very experienced editors told you to stop, you reverted thier edits and just continued without regard to thier words. I take my offer back, it will be tough to work with you on anything until you start to listen and adjust your style especially when you are targeting articles that sometime have not been edited for ages, and need work not mass deletion. What you deleted was not "trivia"! I truly hope you go an play your game of mass deletion in eurocentric articles and see what response you are going to recieve! Good luck FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop!

[edit]

@Brlob Please stop removing contents in pages. Your account is 9 days old as of today and it is very strange of you. If possible, try to drop "citation needed" template, among other reference related templates. If you keep doing this, someone might request a Check User on you for such strange acts. Otherwise, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks. Good day. Tumbuka Arch★★★ 17:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just removing vast chunks of unreferenced material is not very constructive, and that is all you seem to have done so far. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also edit the tone and minor fixes, majority is reducing verbiage and sentences structuring. Removing unreferenced material is per WP:V. Brlob (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brlob You should listen to others. We are trying to advise you here but the best thing you have been doing so far is covering your ears and singing "La la la la, can't hear y'all".
You should be adding the template Template:Proveit (citation needed) rather than removing unsourced information unless you have a source that contradicts the information you are removing. This is because someone will add the very same information that you have removed because they won't know if it was already there and was removed due to reference. But if you leave a template behind, you are encouraging editors to find sources to support the content you are about to remove. Also, I would invite Dan, Rickin, Ymblanter, and Mz7 to help us understand or advise us if what is being done is accepted.
Thanks. Tumbuka Arch★★★ 09:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brlob, you backed your actions with WP:V but the very same page states "...In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.". See:Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations for proof. -- Tumbuka Arch★★★ 09:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced information has remained in these pages for quite long and no source is provided. Cite tags are necessary only if the editor adding the cite tags believe this will help adding source to the information, but in this case, I think the unsourced information is pretty trivia and isn't needed to be retained there anyway. You can easily return the removed information with actual sources. If you can, please do so, and no one will revert you. Brlob (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am giving you a final warning: stop removing massive amounts of text just because that text is unsourced, as you unconstructively did here. If you continue to do so, you may be reported to the administrator's noticeboard. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of texts is due to the text lacking verification, which is a valid editing right per WP:VERIFIABILITY. You might well argue against the policy there if you object to the removal of unsourced information. At least from now on I will add [citation needed] tags before the unsourced content and will remove the unverifiable content after 3 days after each tag is added if no source is found, per the policy which state the onus to provide citations lies on the editor who object to the removal of unsourced content. Brlob (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This section blanking is completely wrong, and your WP:IDHT behavior is not helping. You've blanked countless relevant sections (some of which are sourced) because you either disagree that they're sourced properly or because you think unsourced content shouldn't exist at all, instead of finding sources yourself. Nobody is required to add sources under the threat of articles being blanked. If you disagree and continue down this path, we can see what the others think. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is just simply an editor right to remove any content that is not verified. As said, all content must be verifiable. If you object, you are the one that have to find the source, it's said clearly in the policy (#responsibility to provide citations - section), don't you read? I don't have the obligation to find source, but I do have the right to remove unsourced content. Brlob (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod, @Nythar, @FuzzyMagma please check. Tumbuka Arch★★★ 08:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brlob I hope you don’t mind, put I will revert most of your edits that relates to Sudan but will immediately add a source or a tag so I can come later and fix it. I really think you should listen to other editors especially experienced editors. Listening is an integral part of building a community FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most unsourced content are of bad quality. I don't think it's worth to bring back. Better to leave space for new and better content. Brlob (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of sourced content is of bad quality too. "Leaving space" is not an issue here. Several editors have complained about your edits, but you won't listen. You are now at ANI; time to change your tune. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't listen, I wouldn't have reply to anything here. I based my edits on policy, particularly the verifiability policy, not out of nothing. Brlob (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTIFICATION

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tumbuka Arch★★★ 07:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute. If you have problems with my edits, then use the dispute resolution request, not the administrator notice board which is a waste of other users' time. As a reminder, all you have done in the past few days is watching my talk page and nitpicking my edits. Please discuss on the Wikipedia's dispute resolution page or do something more useful. Brlob (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brlob An admin mentioned WP:PRESERVE maybe that is something to consider. I really do not want you to have the feeling that you are being attacked and I don’t think it helps in anyway to receive more criticism for your work which is mostly excellent and helpful. Stay safe, and sorry if you have felt you are being cornered.
@Tumbuka Arch I think a WP:3O is also a good way to settle things FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, ANI is where you are, as several people warned you above you soon would be. This is a behaviour issue rather than a content one. Johnbod (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma Sometimes supporting something that is not recommended is not really a good idea. This user is not being attacked, nor is he attacking anyone. You were the first to contact him before we all did concerning the very same issue, and because he ignored what you were trying to say, he kept on removing contents in pages, and that's when it came to our (everybody's) attention. You and I suggested that he should be leaving tags behind which is similar to preserve. This has never been followed. Tumbuka Arch★★★ 12:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From now on, it will be simple as this: I will add [citation needed] tags to content that does not have source. If after 3 days and source is not founded, such content will be removed; if founded, content will stay. Content must be verifiable or be removed, per WP:VERIFIABILITY. WP:PRESERVE is an advice, not a mandate, and I don't have the obligation to always find source for unsourced content. Brlob (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You absolutely not obligated . But please do where you can. You had made some good calls in Sudan and hopefully in the future you will adopt a more WP:inclusionist approach rather than a WP:deletionist. And please do not make deadlines, WP:There are no deadlines .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC) I am out of this conversation. Just listen please FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three days is far too short a time to expect results. Just add the tags and wait. Ideally, you should do something useful and try to find sources, or better content, yourself. Others will correct your English, with luck. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tumbuka Arch I just think there are far better ways to have a discussion. Your section was titled is “Stop” which is really not nice and put people in a defensive position. You may be right to complain but I really want to assume good faith and I see nothing from @Brlob behaviour that warrants intentionality. I just Blrlob's edit history, I really cannot assume good faith without being stupid. I think you should write an article or two, your only positive contribution was for replying and that is it!
that is my approach or what I am trying to do, as it’s really hard sometimes not to feel like you are being cornered FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma "Stop" was a subject and the message was clear with no hard feelings, with end remarks "Otherwise, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks. Good day.." ; and as far as you are begging the user on case to collaborate with you on a draft related to Tigray, which I don't know if he will even contribute to it as he only tends to remove content (pertaining to his edits), wishing you good editing.
Also, you @Brlob don't give deadline to editors on Wikipedia for the tag you have posed. Some articles even have tags of as old as 2019, and you are saying 3 days deadline as if it is a game. This is not a game. You are also responsible to provide sources. This is a collaborative project, which means anyone can take responsibility to it, including you. Read:this. Or better, try to create an article and start working on it. You will discover there is more to it including time and efforts. Tumbuka Arch★★★ 15:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brlop, this is the specific discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting behavior of User:Brlop. You don't have to respond there but I suggest you at least check it out. You may or may not want to give your side of the story. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. don't get discouraged. The idea to leave a [citation needed] tag and move on is a good one. It alert readers to be wary of the tagged contents. It flags editors of a need for work. It also meets the need to PRESERVE. This is the way I handle unsourced content that's not obviously bogus.
For more info, see Wikipedia:Citation needed. That template feeds tagged articles to this maintenance category: Category:All articles with unsourced statements
We need more eyes on our 6+ million articles; we need you! --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brlop, I am concerned you may lose your editing privileges. I strongly encourage you to join the discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Collegiality is important- it's the only way we can keep this place going. Is there a way you can reassure the other editors you will work with them collegially?
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to discuss this at a dispute resolution request, since this is more about the content. Brlob (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Albertpda per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
-- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brlob&oldid=1159070962"