User talk:Dylanvt

Welcome!

Hello, Dylanvt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Bagumba (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dylanvt. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/799156607

Care to explain this edit you made to the Hurricane Irma article? You're a long-term user, so I was surprised to see you make a vandal-like edit. Master of Time (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. I simply moved a preposition over a few words to make the sentence grammatical.Dylanvt (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit: It is possible that I mistakenly changed the name of Christopher Landseal (who appears in a citation) to Spaghettiopher Landseal, which may have been caused by this Chrome extension that I have, which turns the word "Jesus" into "Jeffy" and the word "Christ" into "Spaghetti" every time either one appears on my browser. The inspiration for this extension is this tweet. As both the word "Christ" and the word "Spaghetti" appear to me as "Spaghetti", I can't verify that this did in fact happen, but it certainly seems possible. If so, I'll be sure to beware such changes in the future.Dylanvt (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Just click on "Show changes" and you can see if any weird browser-caused text modifications are trying to slip through. That's probably what happened. It's nice to have an explanation. Master of Time (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dylanvt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dylanvt. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Indiana moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of municipalities in Indiana, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 04:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Longhornsg (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Tone tag

Could you perhaps clarify what specific issues you had with the prose that led you to place this tag? Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems that section, as well as much of the "Accident" section, are written much more like a long-form journalism piece or memoir than an encyclopedic article, what you normally see on Wikipedia. Dylanvt (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, you only tagged the one section. Do you have any specific things (more specific than "seems like") you could point to that led to that tag? Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The heavy quotation, especially of opinions, and the way quotes are incorporated into the prose, in both this section and the Accident section. E.g.: Parkways such as the Taconic, and winding roads like Commerce, once represented the county's rural charm, the possibility of living in the country yet close to the city, but while they were still charming they were now, with the area so heavily developed, "treacherous" with traffic. "[L]ife 'in the country' increasingly replicates the ills of the city left behind." Dylanvt (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I see your point there and I will address it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I see what I had been trying to do there ... paraphrase more (as there are some editors for whom the less we quote directly, the better), but now it makes sense to use the direct quote if I couldn't paraphrase without inadvertently picking up Tanenbaum's tone. Daniel Case (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Another user, Epicgenius, made some edits to that section in response to the tag, and then removed it. I also took a look at the accident section, and realized what you were talking about there—some paragraphs that, indeed, were needlessly dependent on quotes that really didn't tell us anything prose couldn't (Something that made sense in the earlier days of the article, when the disaster was fresher in everyone's minds). So I took most of them out (I would insist, however, on keeping that Rick Hope quote as it describes something no one else did—Brody's death, which his account leads up to—and I think quoting him recalling its sudden finality reminds us that human beings were involved here) and that tightened up those sections of the article quite a bit (at least 1K, which tells me of course that there was at least some fat we could lose). I now feel more confident in the article as a future FA candidate for next year's 10th anniversary date. (oops, forgot to separately sign this last night). Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think it reads better now. I'll support the candidacy then if I see it or get pinged about it. Dylanvt (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, will be a little while ... there's some things that came up in peer review I have to take some time to fix first, and I'm not ready timewise to do that yet. Give it a couple of months. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

So ...

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For a passing tagging which triggered necessary improvements to an article. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

🥲 Dylanvt (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Nardog (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary when proposing deletion

Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary which clearly mentions the term "prod" when proposing a page for uncontroversial deletion, such as on Formal case. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {{proposed deletion}} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Shadow311 (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

👍 Dylanvt (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Warning about 1RR

Per this AE report, you are warned to mind 1RR in the ARBPIA topic area, and remedy any violations as soon as possible when they are pointed out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Dylanvt, looks like you moved the article Tel al-Sultan airstrikes three times within a short period today (May 27, 2024) at 15:23, 15:37, and 15:41. Looks like a violation of 1RR, so I'm posting it under a previous warning related to the same issue.

• 15:23, 27 May 2024‎ [1]
• 15:37, 27 May 2024 [2]
• 15:41, 27 May 2024‎ [3]

I noticed you received a previous warning about this. I will have to ask you to self-revert. Thank you,. HaOfa (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

These were reversions of obvious violations of policy despite repeated warnings, thus not covered by 1RR. Dylanvt (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The exceptions to 1RR are listed at WP:3RRNO; that isn’t one of them. I suggest you self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There’s currently a discussion going to move the article from the current title. The move review for Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus specifically found that prior to initiating a move proposal, the article should have been moved back to the original title. If I self-reverted here, someone else would just have to move it back yet again to the original title. Overall just a major waste of time and energy for the sake of “adhering to policies”, even though my moves were done specifically to… adhere to policies, and the reverts by John Adams were done specifically against those policies.Dylanvt (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you've been made aware of your 1RR violation and are refusing to remedy it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Am I really supposed to move the article back to a title it objectively should not have (based on Wikipedia policies!), just so someone else can then move it right back to where it currently is, as it is required to be based on WP:TITLECHANGES?? Is that what you’re telling me? Dylanvt (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

1RR is a bright line rule; it doesn’t matter how right you believe your edits are or how wrong you believe the edits you are reverting are.

If you are confident that someone else will reinstate your edit then I encourage you to self-revert and let them do that. BilledMammal (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No one edit wars thinking that the weight of policy is against them. 1RR only has an exception for obvious vandalism, not disagreeing on the application of policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

So I should go in now, during an active move proposal, and move the article again?

Also, I can’t help but notice that none of this has been brought up to JohnAdams1800, despite the fact that he initiated this whole thing by being the first to make two reversions. Dylanvt (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Their talk page wasn't on my watchlist, and they haven't recently been warned at AE about 1rr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The article has now been extended confirmed protected at the title that I moved it to, that JohnAdams1800 reverted from multiple times. Dylanvt (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

That in no way prevents you from self-reverting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me understand this arbitration. The status quo was "Tel al-Sultan massacre". JohnAdams1800 violated 1RR (and WP:TITLECHANGES) in order to change the status quo to "Tel al-Sultan airstrikes". Now you're saying I should go back and change the title back to "Tel al-Sultan airstrikes" simply because I happened to make the most recent revert? Whereas if JohnAdams1800 had made the most recent revert you'd be telling him to self-revert back "Tel al-Sultan massacre"? And in either case, that this should be done despite protection at the title with "massacre" and an active move discussion based on that title? Where is the sense in all this? Dylanvt (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hard disagree with everyone that that told Dylanvt to self-revert. Yes, Dylanvt should not have performed the moves in the first place, but by the time Dylanvt performed the self-revert, we were already deep in a move discussion. When that discussion started, the move from title had the word massacre and the proposed title had the word attack. Editors !voted oppose because they wanted the status quo to remain and the word massacre to be in the title, editors !voted support because they felt that term is inappropriate. Now the status quo title is something totally different, and neither the status quo title nor the proposed title contain the word massacre, the main point of contention the discussion is about. It's no longer obvious what editors are supporting and what editors are opposing. This sudden title change mid-discussion has thrown such a wrench into the RfC that it's now far more likely this discussion will be fruitless and we'll need a second one. To everyone who told Dylanvt to move the page back after the move request was initiated: @האופה:, @BilledMammal:, @ScottishFinnishRadish: you could see that large "A request that this article title be changed to Tel al-Sultan attack is under discussion. Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed. banner at the top of the article, right? Why would you specifically instruct Dylanvt to do something that no editor should ever do? You all should know better.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you see the large WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES ... You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) on the talk page, or You are subject to additional rules when you edit this article. ... You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) when editing the article. No one should have been edit warring over the title, especially editors who have recently been warned for violating 1RR in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

At the time, I considered the page move to be one of the limited circumstances where it was acceptable, seeing as I was undoing JohnAdams1800's edit warring where he accused me of "move vandalism", ignored my edit summaries, and ignored what I eventually wrote on the talk page until after his third second revert. He was acting in clear contravention of WP:TITLECHANGES, I was acting in order to facilitate a constructive move discussion and to undo the damage he was doing.

Regardless, this response fails to address in any way what Vanilla Wizard has pointed out; namely that you still ordered me to move the article back to a different title in the middle of a move discussion, thereby ruining the entire discussion and causing an enormous mess for everybody involved. But hey, at least I self-reverted, so you ought to be happy with this outcome. Dylanvt (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll also point out that a separate admin, Amakuru, was forced to come in and move the article right back to what I initially moved it to – which you told me to move it away from during an ongoing discussion – on exactly the basis that I cited for the initial move, a basis that you paid no mind to throughout this entire massive time- and energy-wasting process. Three cheers for bureaucracy!!! Dylanvt (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Nuseirat refugee camp massacre indexing

Hi Dylanvt, I have noticed that the article you created "Nuseirat refugee camp massacre" is served with "noindex" and "nofollow" html meta tags, whereas the article "Nuseirat rescue operation" is not.

The result of this is that the former article does not appear in any search results, even if searched for explicitly i.e. "Nuseirat refugee camp massacre wikipedia".

This is leading to speculation about suppression of the details of these casualties in social media with screenshots like the following: [4]https://www.instagram.com/p/C8C-8uLua40/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

I opened a Talk topic on the article but it was promptly deleted by @Kentucky Rain24 because I am not a privileged user.

Could you either shed some light on why this is the case, or use your privilege to start the conversation on the Talk page?

Thank you,

Jamie Macdonald Sidequestboy (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jamie,

It appears to be because Nuseirat refugee camp massacre has not yet been patrolled, whereas Nuseirat rescue operation has been. From what I've seen new articles typically get patrolled within a few days. If it still hasn't been after a couple more days I'll see if I can get any more info. Dylanvt (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It's now been patrolled and does show up in Google search results. Dylanvt (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)