User talk:Tytrox

Welcome!

Hello, Tytrox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Joe Jklin 06:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giveupalready

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Jonel | Speak 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Chaos AfD

Don't add comment to an Articles for Deletion discussion that's been closed already. If you've got complaints about the way it was handled, take them over to Wikipedia:Deletion review. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League of Angels II

I've cut and pasted its contents into a section at League of Angels if you would like to change it into a redirect and retract the deletion discussion. That way instead of having 2 separate conversations we can just discuss whether to merge LoA into Youzu. I can only do the first step of the merge because I am not permitted to make redirects. I haven't seen any opposition to your proposal to merge and as the page creator I agree it's fine, to just have 1 article about the LoA series rather than separate for 1 and 2.

As for the Youzu merger, I'm wondering if we could hold off on that and see how much coverage we can get for the games. In looking for sources I found 2 other games and I'd like to build articles for them too. Once we find out how much size we're dealing with, we can get a better idea as to whether it would clutter the Youzu article to describe all the games there collectively in sections. Ranze (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tytrox. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tytrox. 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)[reply]

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Rush

IC need to back up the whole sentence or they are useless. Here's a good talk page discussion[1] on this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I just wanted to provide better phrasing on the reason, as the information that was there kinda didn't make contextual sense, and felt the other sources still supported it. Tytrox (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects

A Wikipedia:WikiProject is a group of editors. If you're interested in video games, then you might find some wiki-friends over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Just put the page on your watchlist or spend a while hanging out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Late apologies

Hello Tytrox, I just wanted to issue an apology for previous edits I made on the Kim Jong Un talk page many months back. While the issue is over, I still wanted to issue a formal apology as I continue editing. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, It took me a few moments to think of who you are, as I hadn't seen your name before, but realised you've had a name change. Apology accepted. The debate was certainly contentious, but the nature of the debate in context of what was happening is a double-edged sword. I can't say that I'm innocent (I've learnt the hard way too in times past), but what's most important is that we've all learnt something from it all. -- Tytrox (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Your recent editing history at Mike Pence 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. -- Calidum 04:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Calidum: Please note that I had already generated a discussion about it on the talk page. I'm happy to stand down, but the onus should be on those who reverted my edits with no explanation despite my best effort to explain everything to negate a warrant for revert. I had been considering raising a request for elevating edit restrictions as well, or otherwise comment to those other Users' Talk pages to expand on their rationale, but didn't think it'd get this far. -- Tytrox (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz: Your posting of this seems to be a direct duplication of what Calidum already posted above. -- Tytrox (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

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.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for adding to the spam... DS bureaucracy requires it. I dished the alert to all recent contributors on the article who weren't already aware fwiw. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Acknowledged. Thanks. -- Tytrox (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox convention

As you may know from the titanic struggle over the Noel Coward article the infobox can be a big controversy. I noticed that you removed a Member of Parliament's "Shadow Ministry" from that article's infobox here is there an editor's consensus you can point to on that? I wasn't aware of one. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I cannot recall exactly where I found out about it, but if you see this edit from @ITBF on James Paterson's page back in June 2022, they might be able to help shed some light on this, as I'm not the only one doing it. I'll see if I can track down how I found out about the rule, but for now all I can say is that Shadow ministry that are not leader roles are considered not important as they are not appointed by the Governor General nor do they have their own dedicated wikipedia article. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tytrox I absolutely see the argument. Shadow ministry is all hierarchy and no power. Would be good to get some consensus on this over in Auspol. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MB

Yeah I know it's not a place for a forum type discussion (or politics for that matter). I'm just... frustrated. Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]