Hi STARB0YY! I noticed your contributions to Erling Haaland 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! Mattythewhite (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TheFrog001. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Manveer Heir, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TheFrog001 - Talk to me! 11:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I am new to editing and will be more careful with sources in the future. TylerBurden (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2021 (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 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.

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.

Woodroar (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION begins.... The Attica Prison Rebellion, also known as the Attica Prison Massacre, Attica Uprising or Attica Prison Riot, was the bloodiest prison riot in United States history

I found this sentence not true. Its mentioning several events that happened over 3 days as one incident There was the Initial Riot on Sep 9 1971 which was a rebellion then there was the massacre and bloodshed 2 days later on men with sticks trapped in a cage vs US Law enforcers who has guns and gas and sticks and unlimited bullets, but the sentence you want to keep is FALSE

To claim " the Attica Prison riot was "the bloodiest prison riot in United States history" is FALSE!. One could say " the Attica Prison riot resulted in the bloodiest prison riot quell in United States history" as TRUTH!

It was the bloodiest prison takeback after a riot 2 days earlier.. This is the FACT The police killed 21 year old man L.D. Barkley who just talked to the press and was only in prison for driving without a license, and was due to be released in 30 days! He just made a passionate speech about injustice to the press, and was murdered at the end when they were rounding the prisoners up and they asked his name.

The riot led to the bloodshed. BUT THE TWO are NOT the SAME EVENT

The sentence you are defending is grammatically and factually WRONG!

In the sentence "The Attica Prison Rebellion, also known as the Attica Prison Massacre, Attica Uprising or Attica Prison Riot, was the bloodiest prison riot in United States history"

I changed the word "bloodiest prison riot" to bloodiest prison takeback? maybe it would be better to be more detailed in this TWISTED FALSEHOOD OF A SENTANCE!

How about change it to "was the bloodiest mass murder of prison inmates and guards by law enforcement in United States history, which was a direct retaliation for the prison riot 2 days earlier. On Sep 11 1971 law enforcement entered Attica after Gassing the inmates and guards and then proceeded to murder 39 men and with 3,000 rounds injured 89 others physically and mentally terrorised irreparably the initial 2,200 men placed in prison there. Two prisoners were convicted of killing guard William Quinn, but no police officer was convicted for the killings of 39 people -29 prisoners or the 10 guards"

I wont bother trying to contribute again, maybe you should change what you think or whitewash the facts as you see fit as clearly if wikipedia is MANNED by people like you I cant trust ANYTHING HERE ANYMORE!! Im DONE WITH WIKIPEDIAS TWISTED FACTS Never donating another penny! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElaenaM (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because 'prison take back' is not an actual term, you are making a lot of assumptions, accusations and being incredibly hostile based on that. There is no reason to be this hostile, and this isn't the way to go about things on Wikipedia at all. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasnt my intention to be "Hostile" Its just that after I just saw a documentary about Attica I am outraged and I always go to Wikipedia to check more facts and was upset to see what I felt was not true reporting.

Agreed Prison Takeback is not a good term, but I feel it was better than what was before as it implied there was a bloodbath in the riot.. When the riot was 2 days earlier.

So what do you think about changing was the bloodiest mass murder of 'prison riot/take back' to was the bloodiest mass murder of prison inmates and guards by law enforcement in United States history, which was a direct retaliation for the prison riot 2 days earlier. On Sep 11 1971 law enforcement entered Attica after Gassing the inmates and guards and then proceeded to murder 39 men and with 3,000 rounds injured 89 others physically and mentally terrorised irreparably the initial 2,200 men placed in prison there. Two prisoners were convicted of killing guard William Quinn, but no police officer was convicted for the killings of 39 people -29 prisoners or the 10 guard ????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElaenaM (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article covers the full event between September 9–13, 1971, and your numbers differ from the ones already in the article, you didn't add a reference for the change of said numbers hence the second revert. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The information I stated is within the articles citations. I am finding you incredibly obnoxious and offensive and hostile!

You removed ONE word telling me its not real English when it actually is you state "I reverted your edit because 'prison take back' is not an actual term "

prison take back is REAL ENGLISH! I am English you are NOT so how can you tell me how to speak English,? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElaenaM (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information you added differs from the numbers already in the article, and you did not add any reference to support your own numbers. How do you know I am not English? Not that it matters, you don't need to be English to be aware of English terms. Prison take back is not a real term, and you admitted yourself it is not good for the article. You should have a look at Wikipedias Five Pillars because you are not being respectful nor civil, and both are cores of this site. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for my change I knew it was wrong when I did so I took it down. I won't change anything anymore. bobvaderguy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobvaderguy (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, just make sure that you do so constructively. It is good that you realize what you did was wrong. :) --TylerBurden (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You erased my comment for not being "neutral", which is a very hypocritical argument, since everyone knows the New York Times is not a neutral source. They´ve always been biased, and brainwash people to make them think everything that comes from Russia, China, Middle East is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.17.105 (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is considered a reliable source, so your addition of 'according to western russophobic media' did not appear particularly constructive or neutral hence the revert. Additionally, you did not support your claim with any sources of your own. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TylerBurden! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Adding that a reference is in a different language, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TylerBurden. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY 03:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way were the edits disruptive? 96.59.49.49 (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of discussing in relevant talk pages after having your content removal challenged, you simply reverted the restoration. See the the notice on your talk page and try to reach a consensus instead of heading into an edit war. --TylerBurden (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a fact out from a Wikipedia page that I edited Bathshua (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to verify if something is a fact if you don't support your edits with any sources, see the note I left you on your talk page. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are deleting what I am fixing about myself on Jonathan Mitchell. I am a pipeliner from splendora, tx and that’s a fact. I am a Freemason, there is not a “self proclaimed” mason, either you are or you’re not. Jmitchell454 (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing the article without providing any source to support your edits, that is the only reason I reverted. I left links on your talk page on how to add references to an article. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's been repeated disruptive editing of verified content (the sources have been in the public domain for years) in the article Solomon Souza by IP 69.113.154.88, could you please rollback the changes made by the IP on 29 November 2021 and issue a warning message to the IP? (I don't have extended confirmed rights or rollback rights.) Thanks in advance for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.31.31 (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit to sussex and you deleted it but you shouldn't have because that's what it's actually called its not vandalism Theloggisinthebinnnnn (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Sussex "Sus Sex" on its Wikipedia page is hardly appropriate, the only sources I could find calling it that are meme pages which are hardly reliable sources. Articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you removed my edit due to lacking source. My source is already cited in the sentence I edited.

Regards 80.213.188.181 (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was not from an IP editor, either way, assuming you mean the "hollywoodnews.com" reference there was nothing in that source describing anything as "highly controversial". So unless you mean a different source that claim is unsourced. --TylerBurden (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyler, this ipv6 has been continuously vandalizing pages in wikipedia. Should I report him to Administrators' noticeboard?Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 07:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for helping with that. I saw that you had reported them to WP:AIV but since that hasn't worked yet, you could try that if you wish. --TylerBurden (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:A8DD:1194:1F88:AF62#December_2021 --2603:7000:2143:8500:A8DD:1194:1F88:AF62 (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mistake, you did not adequately explain your content removal. Frankly the edit summary was a mess. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote in your edit summary: "Unexplained content removal." But you were not correct.

Your assertion that it was "unexplained" was certainly a mistake. The content removal was explained. With an edit summary. Which was "d as not quite that clear it says quite that."

Frankly, the rollback tool should be used with care. Or not at all. And rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.

Now you give a different reason. Instead of "unexplained" - which you asserted, you now say that in your view it was not "adequately" explained. That's different.

And since you apparently need a longer explanation, which I thought would be apparent, there are two sources. They do not say what the text says. They do not support it. One is the NY Post, btw, which is not an RS for political matters. The other obviously does not say what the text says - it precedes the election vote itself. Is that clear? --2603:7000:2143:8500:A8DD:1194:1F88:AF62 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a different reason, unexplained content removal in the summary is just the standard RW summary and gets the point across, as in not adequately explained. Which is the notice I left you on your talk page. Instead of explaining it here, explain it on the article, which is what you should have done in the first place. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also did not use rollback, so you're incorrect on that front as well. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a different reason.

Don't use a tool that says "unexplained" when your position is you did not understand the explanation. You are sending an incorrect message. Using tools.

BTW - what tool did you use here, to effect rollback? I thought it was RedWarn. Which is only available as a functionality for users with rollback permissions.

And I'm discussing this here, because you left me a message, asking that I discuss my comments on this here.[1] It's simply weird for you to now say I should be, and should have been, discussing it elsewhere.2603:7000:2143:8500:A8DD:1194:1F88:AF62 (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm suggesting you actually make the change you wanted, with the proper explanation, as once again you should have done in the first place instead of whatever that mess of an edit summary was. The tool was RedWarn and it was not used improperly, you did not explain your content removal in a good, clear way. Hence the edit was unexplained. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please write one comment at a time, it's difficult to respond when you keep adding things. No, RedWarn is not rollback exclusive. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the tool is for rollback users, as indicated here,[2] I think the admonition that I pointed to above is applicable. But maybe I'm wrong - user:Fastily may have a view.

Redwarn also indicates that some behaviour is "strongly discouraged", including but not limited to Consistently misusing UW templates, and "Overuse of a single quick rollback reason, which may discourage newer editors." I think that your using a template that is clearly incorrect, because you feel it "gets the point across", is not the best approach, especially keeping in mind its effect on editors and newer editors, as Redwarn suggests is important. [3]2603:7000:2143:8500:A8DD:1194:1F88:AF62 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See above, it's not a Rollback permissions tool, and unexplained content removal fits the bill for the revert of your edit. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my above comments. Including my link to RedWarn, being for Rollback users.

• What? Now you've reverted my edit again??[4] After I left an edit summary there pointing to this discussion for explanation of the rationale? Asserting that my edit was "unconstructive"?? Seriously? 2603:7000:2143:8500:A8DD:1194:1F88:AF62 (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I told you why on your talk page. And no, it's not for Rollback users, you can drop that already because you're objectively wrong.--TylerBurden (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you still seem confused, the actual Wikipedia Rollback feature is different from RedWarn rollback. I specifically used RedWarn for your edit because I assumed good faith, not vandalism. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I should make it clear first that I'm no longer involved in the RedWarn project, however it's been discussed a few times that even if rollback was used, as RedWarn and other tools add an appropriate edit summary it's not a breach of rollback guidelines. RedWarn can use both rollback and undo for reverting edits, if an edit summary is added, policy wise there is no difference. However, @TylerBurden, don't use canned edit summaries (quick rollback) on changes that they won't apply to or in cases were dispute resolution may be necessary. Using a tool does not change whether you're assuming good faith or not, it's down to your edit summary. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel ”Unexplained content removal” as a summary applies in this particular case given the state of the edit summary, but of course in hindsight I would have been more clear. I hope that clears this up. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I reverted back to an earlier version to undo two bad changes at the same time that you undid the most recent one (which was clear vandalism). The changes to south-east/south-west/whatever were also incorrect, and the older version had it correct. So it looks from the history like I undid your changes, but I really didn't. Sorry about that. JGriffithSV (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I figured as much that the other edit was also subtle vandalism but didn't wanna touch it since I wasn't completely sure. Thanks for sorting it out. --TylerBurden (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you edit warring to restore User talk:Ragnock57? Please stop.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a vandal removing their warnings and block notice. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can remove warnings and block notices from their page. See WP:BLANKING.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you're still doing it despite clear notice to stop.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was clear, you just said stop. But wasn't aware of that, thanks for letting me know. Doesn't seem particularly constructive since it enables vandals to create the illusion they haven't been warned before to avoid higher level warnings. But I'll let them blank their page then. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone placing warnings should be looking at the history of an account rather than just placing whatever warning comes next in their twinkle/red warn/huggle MMORG. And any admin worth the mop is going to check an editor's history before evaluating whether to block/unblock. Anyway, it would be a pretty crappy way to earn a WP:3RR block. Back to building an encyclopedia! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am sure all admins do check that. I usually place whatever template level fits the situation, but you're right it's not like it takes ages to open a history tab. Thanks again for making me aware of this! --TylerBurden (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Np.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello, I'm TylerBurden. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Minimum wage in the United States, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page." Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

What would you consider a reliable source, if not a member of Stanford's Hoover institution, and one of the most published economists of the modern era? Please reconsider, given that (as best I can recall) I literally refer to his book "Basic Economics" in the section "Economists" in the original write-up.

You're welcome to join my thread on the talk page and discuss your proposed addition to gain consensus for its inclusion. I note that you seriously misrepresented a reference in your proposed edit - the Federal Reserve paper you cited does not support the claim, and in fact says the effect of the minimum wage was minor. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted not because your choice of source, but because you didn't cite it correctly. Since I can see that your contribution has been opposed anyway I'd bring it to the talk page of the article as NorthBySouthBaranof suggested. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am a beginner and will check out how to do that. 73.104.99.112 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[5]. Please assume good faith next time.--Eastern Geek (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith at first, which is why I came to ask what you were doing on your talk page. You explained it was a mistake which I understand, we all make them, and that was that, until you seemingly started doing the same thing again. At that point surely you can understand if I start questioning your intentions. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Former" is the more common method than "retired". Look at "Valentino Rossi". I didn't edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chami46 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can refer me to discussions on Wikipedia where consensus has been reach to use former rather than retired, I'd be more than happy to have a look at it. Right now one page isn't strong legs to stand on. You could bring it up on the article talk pages as well. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]