User talk:Taramalan

Welcome!

Hi Taramalan! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Woodroar (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of instrumental bands

Hello. Your recent edit to List of instrumental bands appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has an existing article, but it is on the German Wiki. Taramalan (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taramalan! While a lot of people think that "Wikipedia" is just one site, each language has its own policies and guidelines. The standard here is that the subject should have its own article on the English Wikipedia before it should be added to lists. Part of that is because we have much higher notability requirements for articles than other languages, meaning that subjects must have been covered in depth by reliable, independent sources. Looking at the German article, I can guarantee that it wouldn't meet those requirements. It does look like someone created the article at one point, but it was deleted for lack of coverage in 2007. If you're aware of better sourcing now and would like to create the article, I'd suggest reading Help:Your first article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hi Taramalan! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Transgender youth several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Transgender youth, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring does not apply Taramalan (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(here) Taramalan (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just perused my edit history and typing "trans girl" was a complete brain fart. I meant to type "trans boy" for accuracy. I'm sorry, I'm really tired; I've been browsing the wikipedia for like 5 hours Taramalan (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation then is to go take a break, have a nap, or go to sleep. We all edit at our best when we're not tired :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i will. night Taramalan (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Routine alert re the discretionary sanctions applying to gender disputes

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Woman. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Taramalan (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breaching the WP:3RR rule is a form of edit warring, but it is not the only way an editor can be in an edit war. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable." I did not repeatedly restore my preferred version. I wrote it and then I restored it once. Taramalan (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to redirect here. Taramalan (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is generally how an edit war starts. Someone makes a change, it gets reverted, and then they restore it back again without discussion on the article talk page. In any case, it is now being discussed at the article talk page instead of further reverts which is a good thing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's the way it starts, but I know the rules and was not going to break them - and yes, it is a good thing that it is being discussed now. Taramalan (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taramalan, on the edits at transgender, while the lead of that report does say “reported”, the report later uses “encountered”. While either would probably be fine for the article, you should discuss after being reverted the first time. The problem with edit warring is that it’s disruptive even if you’re right. I’ve seen multiple articles where someone could make a case for their edit, but because they edit warred instead of discussing, the article was worse off. Politanvm ^talk 05:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Taramalan (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but you know as well as anyone that the wording "reported" is the truth, i.e. what the source's source said, since their scientific method was questioning trans people about their experiences. Phrasing it as an absolute statement is just wrong. Taramalan (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Taramalan, you say that you know the rules about edit warring and (were) not going to break them. Have you previously edited Wikipedia using a different account? Because that is not something one would expect an editor to know, when they have as few edits as you currently do. Newimpartial (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not used a different account, but I have done a few edits as an IP. It was alleged once before that I engaged in "edit warring" (on this account) and I therefore further familiarized myself with the rules. Taramalan (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you are not the person who previously edited as TaylanUB? Newimpartial (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Taramalan (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taramalan, just walk away from the article-in-question. Because you're not going to get a consensus for what you want. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In German we have the saying: "Der Klügere gibt nach". I live by the revised version thereof: "Wenn der Klügere immer nachgibt, regieren die Dummen die Welt". Taramalan (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, the 19 June 2022 notification above means you can be quickly blocked if disruption at gender-based articles occurs. If reverted, you must calmly discuss your proposal on article talk and wait for consensus before repeating a disputed edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find that rule anywhere. (that rule=If reverted...) Taramalan (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The advice you're looking for is at WP:AC/DS § Guidance for editors: Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia. Editors who are persistently disruptive or fail to work towards consensus (especially in highly controversial subject areas) may be restricted from editing those subject areas, or blocked. This is what Johnuniq is warning you of.

When proposed changes are reverted (especially highly controversial ones), the constructive and careful thing to do is to discuss them on the talk page, per the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Re-introducing a reverted edit with no further justification (even just once) is a form of edit warring, and is disruptive to the project. Now an editor has to revert again, when they could have spent that time discussing and building consensus.

Understand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and editors are expected to adhere to the principle of policies like Wikipedia:Edit warring and guidelines like MOS:GENDERID, rather than treating them as a binaristic legal code which can be flouted by technicality (this is often called Wikilawyering or WP:Gaming the system). Emphasize that I am not accusing you of doing so, only that this is something you should keep in mind. Above all, try your best to edit in the spirit of the Wikipedia:Five Pillars.

Best wishes, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 05:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no rule for "Re-introducing a reverted edit with no further justification (even just once) is a form of edit warring, ...". I think it is a figment of your imagination. Maybe some sort of Mandela-Effect. Why are you guys so keen on providing me with information about the rules rather than discussing the content that caused the discussion? I know it is some sort of intimidation tactic, but in the words of our beloved elder: "C'mon, man!", that's not very productive. Taramalan (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKILAWYER should show that arguing about exactly what the "rules" say is not a winning strategy at Wikipedia. I was trying to be gentle before but let me spell it out. I am an administrator. I will indefinitely topic ban you if there is a continuation of an aggressive attitude regarding gender topics. It's alright to offer unfounded opinions and vent on your talk, but you need to listen and ask questions if contributing in a gender topic. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be it as it may, oh mighty administrator, please have grace with one ignorant peasant. hope you get off to the power, bro Taramalan (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Taramalan. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I was trying to be gentle before but let me spell it out. I am an administrator. I will indefinitely topic ban you if there is a continuation of an aggressive attitude regarding gender topics" isn't good faith though. And a possible breach of rules as well. Taramalan (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clear statement about the consequences of your actions should you continue them made by an excellent and respected Administrator. Would you rather not be warned, just blocked or topic banned out of the blue? And it is definitely not a breach of rules. I guess I should add that if you continue I might topic ban or block you also. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are so cool and powerful! why don't you just suck each other off and the one who does a better job gets to ban me. touch grass Taramalan (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 08:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Your recent editing history at Transgender shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

3RR is a bright-line rule, not a personal quota. Newimpartial (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taramalan! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I didn't know that. Taramalan (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 15:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whose sock are you, please? Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
nobody's and you have no proof at all for anything (because there is nothing to have prove for). Gonna appeal. Taramalan (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really? Well, take your time. Bishonen | tålk 19:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

February 2023

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for "not being here to build a wikipedia". This allegation is inconsistent with my year-long history in the German wikipedia, e.g. contributing significantly to the German Esperanto wikipedia page and creating the German Mundolinco wikipedia page. I have also contributed on a number of English wikipedia articles, although not as significantly as on the German wikipeda. My block is rooted in disagreements with several wikipedia users, especially on controversial topics, ultimately and most significantly with the user Bishonen accusing me of sockpuppetry and then banning me for "clearly" not being here to build a wikipedia. As I have pointed out in the beginning, this allegation is not at all fitting and I hereby request being unbanned so I can continue contributing to a project I love and have donated money to in the past. Thank you.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. You'll need to demonstrate awareness of how your behavior led to your block, and explain why that won't be an issue in the future if you wish to be unblocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2023 (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.

the block was unjustified. I am clearly here to build a wikipedia. I do not have to demonstrate awareness if the block was unjustified as clearly stated in the guide to appealing blocks. Taramalan (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that I have clearly provided evidence supporting my claim that I am, or rather disproving the claim that I am not here to build a wikipedia, such as referring to my (year-long) history of contribution. WP:NOTTHEM clearly not applying as I merely stated what happened in few words mentioning the blocking admin but mostly explaining why the block is not judtified. Taramalan (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for "not being here to build a wikipedia". This allegation is inconsistent with my year-long history in the German wikipedia, e.g. contributing significantly to the German Esperanto wikipedia page and creating the German Mundolinco wikipedia page. I have also contributed on a number of English wikipedia articles, although not as significantly as on the German wikipeda. Therefore I request being unblocked so I can continue contributing to a project I love and have donated money to in the past. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You're continuing to not address any of the behavior that led to your block. For instance, above you have written You guys are so cool and powerful! why don't you just suck each other off and the one who does a better job gets to ban me. touch grass and Be it as it may, oh mighty administrator, please have grace with one ignorant peasant. hope you get off to the power, bro above. You reacted with hostility to every legitimate warning you received. You'll have to address your behavior before there will be any chance of an unblock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2023 (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.

Taramalan (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ScottishFinnishRadish, please take a look at the reason I was blocked. Clearly not being here to build a wikipedia. Please also take a look at what "not being here to build a wikipedia is not" in the respective wikipedia page. A short quote: "A number of users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to conduct norms such as collaborative editing, avoiding personal attacks, or even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits. [...] Failure to adapt to a norm is not – by itself – evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively." Please consider my arguments of a rather long history of productive contributions (especially in the German wikipedia) when evaluating wheter or not I am here to build a wikipedia. Taramalan (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I see fewer than 100 total edits to de.wiki with only 13 in the past year. You also claimed above to have creat[ed] the German Mundolinco wikipedia page, which appears to be untrue, as it was created here, by Almafeta. Did you edit under that account in the past? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look into it. I requested the English wikipedia page to be cloned to my user space, then translated and reworked a few parts and then released it as the German Mundolinco wikipedia page. I also did some, especially smaller typo corrections and obvious grammatical error edits as an IP. Taramalan (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]