Jump to content

User talk:Edgenut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Edgenut, 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.

Bad edits

[edit]
  • DON'T run infoboxes straight into text!
  • DON'T make up dates by averaging.

I'll give you 24 hours to fix these bad edits, or I'll revert the lot. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was using the visual editor. Edgenut (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, seems you're doing the average date thing again, please try to refeain from that. And please don't use unusual versions of names like "Marcus Uticensis" for Cato the Younger.★Trekker (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was his first an last name. Edgenut (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. Read the article on Roman naming conventions. Ifly6 (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead doesent say. Is there a tl;dr? Edgenut (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/114213/1/SalwayJRS1994.pdf. Ifly6 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-4329#acrefore-9780199381135-e-4329. Ifly6 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad edits again

[edit]

Thanks for the infobox change but:

  • Please don't make up dates by approximating them, as you did at Siberian Ice Maiden. They must be supported in article text
  • Please don't average the age. Use the age or age range given in the text

Merytat3n (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Edgenut (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman articles

[edit]

Some comments on your recent edits to the family of Cato the Elder: it's generally a bad idea to delete the nomina of figures from Roman history. While it's common to give someone's full name once, and then refer to him by cognomen for short, and while some historical writing simply omits everything but the cognomen, it's more helpful to readers if they can see the full name, at least on its first occurrence in an article. Deleting nomina leaves the reader without useful context.

You might also want to look up the essay on "disinfoboxes" or "disinformation boxes". It's not necessary for all biographical articles to have an infobox. This is especially the case for very short articles that contain all of the information that would go in an infobox in the span of three or four paragraphs, or sometimes just in the lead. If the infobox is simply repeating what the reader would find by skimming the article, or perhaps just the lead, then it serves no useful purpose, and becomes mere ornamentation that pretends to be something of value to the reader.

There are some repetitive items that likewise do little to help readers. While some editors like to use the "circa" template, the meaning of "circa" in a set of dates isn't likely to be confusing, and little is lost if it's not there. If it is there, it doesn't need to be repeated throughout an article that gives approximate dates on multiple occasions. Similarly, unless someone lived in the late first century BC or early first century, it's not helpful to keep repeating "BC" or "AD" every few lines. In a short article that clearly places a person in say, the second century BC, you may assume that the reader will understand most or all other dates to be BC unless otherwise indicated. My rule of thumb is usually to give the era no more than once per paragraph, unless there's a reason why omitting it would be confusing (for instance, referring to something that happened in a later era). And in some cases, it isn't even necessary to do it in every paragraph.

I'm going to assume good faith, and that you're going to learn this stuff on your own as you go along. It would take too long to go through all of your edits looking for things to correct. As long as you're aware of stuff like this going forward, I'm sure you can become a good contributor to WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. P Aculeius (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aculeius makes very good points here, most of your recent edits on Roman persons have major issues.★Trekker (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes, etc, etc

[edit]

Flag icons

[edit]

Flag icons should not be used in infoboxes. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. The mass addition of some imaginary Roman empire flag is not consistent with Roman custom. Nor should imaginary death locations such as Italia, Roman Republic be added. These are both anachronisms. Ifly6 (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was rome called at the time then? Edgenut (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should put a location, like a city. If someone died in Rome, say Rome as the location of death. As with everything else, if you want to assert that someone died in Rome, you must have a source saying where that person died. Italia doesn't exist for most of this period; Roman Republic is a form of government and not a territorial state. Ifly6 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eg I can say that User:Ifly6/Publius Clodius Pulcher died near Bovillae because Tatum in Patrician tribune says so, because sources actually say where he died. When someone falls off the historical record and was a Roman, that does not give you leave to say they died at Rome. Ifly6 (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, re keep the banners since they look cool. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG—

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. A number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) have explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.

Ifly6 (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of a two-element infobox?

[edit]

After removing all unsourced material, this infobox now contains exactly two things: a probably-false statement that he served in 51 BC – these are not modern soldiers with tours of duty; they are warrior-aristocrats that would have "served" their whole lives – and a single mention of a battle he was at. Ifly6 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it for asthetic reasons. I can remove it if you don't like it. Edgenut (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that he served just in 51 BC is almost certainly nonsense given that all these Gallic men are warrior-aristocrats. Their place in society was rooted in their martial abilities (or at least the appearance thereof). To say he fought only at one battle in 51 BC is profoundly misleading about the culture of the period. Ifly6 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
51 BC is the only year we know for sure he fought againstthe romans. Edgenut (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why it was there Edgenut (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why we have infoboxes is to summarise articles in tabular form. It is not possible to summarise The only time we are aware he fought was in 51 BC but it is more than likely he engaged in undocumented fighting elsewhere due to his social position in Gallic society of the time as a Battle record. We can make battle records for men like Caesar or Alexander because of how well-documented their lives are. These obscure figures do not enjoy such memories. Ifly6 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it Edgenut (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death years generally

[edit]

You must provide an actual source for your birth and death years. I had reverted one of your edits incorrectly because Brills' New Pauly actually gave a real birth year, which Caeciliusinhorto noticed. That is my error and I must own it. But many of these birth and death years you are rapidly putting into Wikipedia are not only unsourced, but obviously erroneous or imputed. Just because a person was last mentioned in 42 does not mean you can just assume they died shortly thereafter. Just because someone might not be continued to be attested after 46 BC does not mean you can just assume he died the next year, especially when there is a modern source that conjecturally identifies him with another name in the literary sources that postdates your imputed death date! Some of your imputed birth dates are fantastically erroneous – Hortensia and C Claudius Glaber – and defy biology or known Roman legal realities. You must provide a reliable source as to when these people were born or died. Making up years is not enough. Ifly6 (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the dates you dont like instead of reverting them. Will make my life easier. Edgenut (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep reverting my removals! Ifly6 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the years from the infoboxes Edgenut (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When reverting, i was removing all the estimated dates that didn't have sources. I can see how it could look like I was reverting them. If you look at my past reverts, all the dates you took issue with were removed soon after you pointed them out. I was not trying to be disruptive. Edgenut (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not all made up. When I can, I take the dates from wikis in other languages. Edgenut (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. Ifly6 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source ... Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly. WP:CIRCULAR. Ifly6 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a justifiable date. First, WP:BLUE is an essay: This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Second, the death date of an obscure ancient monarch is absolute not something which is common knowledge. I can look out my window and see the sky. I cannot look out my window and see the death date of Hiempsal II. You need a source. Ifly6 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that nearly all monarchs stay as kings and queens until they die. Knowing this, there is a good chance that he died around 60 BC. Edgenut (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things which can be guessed with some accuracy. Wikipedia is not a place for educated guesses. Ifly6 (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RANGE says to use an en-dash and not a hyphen between two years. There are various ways to type an en-dash; if you are not on a Mac, it may be easiest just to use {{ndash}}. Ifly6 (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have that key on my keyboard afaik Edgenut (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can type {{ndash}} or alternatively on Mac ⌥ Opt+-. Ifly6 (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Circa

[edit]

MOS:CIRCA says that a non-breaking space should be used between c. and some date. The template {{circa}} does this automatically for parameters. Please stop un-parameterising years by moving them out of the parameter passed to {{circa}}. Ifly6 (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know this. I thought it would be easier to read and clearer when in source edit mode. Edgenut (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread

[edit]

Hi, you are discussed here: WP:AN#Invented_dates_of_birth_and_death_by_Edgenut. Sandstein 13:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing despite many warnings.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 13:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that me and Ifly6 were working together on the articles. I didn't intend to be adversarial. Edgenut (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I have to say that I find this indefinite block pretty harsh, but you need to 1) understand that what you were doing is 100% not ok on Wikipedia and 2) promise to not do it again, if you do those two things you will most likely be welcome back to editing.★Trekker (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thank you! Edgenut (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quantity of articles that now have fictitious birth and death years is frankly astounding. Parsing out the sometimes meaningful copyedits from the fictions told in the infoboxes is exceptionally time consuming. Even just finding all the infoboxes added with the fictitious birth and death years is very time consuming. This really cannot be done again. Ifly6 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was helping you fix them Edgenut (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every single article needs an infobox. In many of these cases the infoboxes you're putting in contain literally a picture and a single entry. There are other errors, such as Gaius Antonius (brother of Mark Antony) with the wrong photograph, anachronistic images plastered about in other infoboxes, as well as near-edit-wars where you insist in including a flag contra MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. It is not a decent use of anyone's time to follow you around fixing all the problems left in articles – or more likely because those fixes are immediately reverted – asking you to fix them over and over again when a competent editor would be able to understand the editorial guidelines repeatedly linked over and over a period of weeks. Ifly6 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. The image said Gaius Antonius so I thought it was him.
When did I edit war over flags?
When I reverted your edits, I was removing the birth and/or death dates. See Examples 1 and 2. Edgenut (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, not every infobox needs a "years of service" which is guessed at, especially when almost every person discussed is a citizen soldier that would have "served" intermittently over a substantial period of time. The assumption that a person only served in the years they are mentioned is misleading and incompatible with the culture of these peoples (whether Greek, Roman, and Gallic). Guesses are not enough. Unless the "guess" is a WP:CALC from numbers given in reliable sources (Polybius says Marcus Chadius Maximus served for 35 years before he died in 156 BC or something), these periods of service are also unverified original research. Ifly6 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The years I had listed just included when we know someone has served. Like if someone served in a battle in 52 BC, I put 52 BC as a service year since we know they served in 52 BC. They almost certainly served longer though. Edgenut (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like your problematic edits have a common thread of trying to mask a historical uncertainty by just collapsing it into a single value that does not indicate uncertainty. Generally, it's good to reveal uncertainty and controversy, not to conceal them from readers. Infoboxes are not good for presenting complicated information, and uncertainty is necessarily complicated. The article body is a better place to reflect and explain historical uncertainties. Zanahary (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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))

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 intentional information. This would defeat the purpose of wikipedia in a way. For these reasons, I will no longer add estimated birth and death years without sources. I will also continue to go back and remove the unsourced years that I added previously.

Decline reason:

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.

In my view, because of the WP:CIR issues evident from the discussions above, we cannot trust Edgenut to reliably contribute to Wikipedia, and this unblock request should be declined. See also the AN discussion linked to above. Sandstein 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compromize proposal

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Various cases seemed to be close to edit wars if I had insisted on reverting your reverts; I generally do not do so. In some cases I did revert your reverts before undoing my own reverts because I thought they might be close to WP:3RR.

February 2024

[edit]
Stop icon
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with above comments, this is way too harsh in my opinion.★Trekker (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Endorse Decline. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Anachronistic image

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
90% of the time, articles already have sources for the dates. Example. Edgenut (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sources should be used to confirm something that is said in an article. Edgenut (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources should be used? Ifly6 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that are reliable Edgenut (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other questions you have? Edgenut (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give examples of your "good" edits, but this [1] 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 [2] was reverted because you added a "knowyourmeme dot com" external link, and the forth example [3] 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)[reply]
    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.[4]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Here is the diff I was referring to:[5] Edgenut (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you revert this? Edgenut (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they weren't better Remsense诉 05:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

False claims

[edit]

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)[reply]

Unblock request, 17 March 2024

[edit]
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))

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I’m not an admin, I have no say in your unblocking. Zanahary (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I’ll say I support your unblock. Zanahary (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Pinging ScottishFinnishRadish and CactusWriter since they are admins Edgenut (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt 2: Cullen328, Rosguill Edgenut (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I pinged admins so they can read my request Edgenut (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Request reason:

See the above reply

Decline reason:

Active sockpuppetry is not the way to get yourself unblocked. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edgenut. 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 for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The WordsmithTalk to me 22:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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 WordsmithTalk to me 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edgenut&oldid=1239637319"