User talk:4TheWynne/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
How are Facts Disruptive? And worthy of denying?
How do you come to that conclusion?
Why is discussing the fact according to Australian Anti Discrimination laws the AFL discriminates against trans females disruptive? Because its a fact you dont want discussed?
The quality, level and skill of the competition and its players is disruptive? Theres no problem on wiki stating this in other areas! Why is the AFL Womens league an exclusion? I would like to know.
Tho I get the feeling you will not have any answer!--Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Cynthia BrownSmyth, as a matter of fact, I do: you are using a talk page as a forum, which is disruptive (and I noticed you had already been warned about it before). I reverted your "facts" because you appeared to just be making explosive claims/talking about things that weren't relevant to the AFL Women's article and being unhelpful in general, rather than suggesting ways to improve the article (which is what the talk page is for). For example, how is "Australian Female AFL team beaten by boys High School Team! – Shouldnt this momentous match be recorded here?" in any way helpful, and why would you say "How is the skill level/quality of players and the standard of the competition not relevant?" in response to my revert when that's got nothing to do with what you said or why I reverted you? Hannah Mouncey not being allowed to enter into the 2018 draft is mentioned at the Australian Football League article (see this section), but "according to Australian Anti Discrimination laws the AFL discriminates against trans females" is unsourced, and therefore makes it appear like you're using the talk page as a forum. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Suggesting adding important facts "is a forum" (I bet thats a throw away line you like to use!) Ah NO! The fact they discriminate and break Australian laws is not relevant? I guess to a bigot it would not be, but to people who oppose discrimination and law breaking might see it differently. "but "according to Australian Anti Discrimination laws the AFL discriminates against trans females" is unsourced" well here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_Australia! So now you are ok to state the fact they illegally discriminate? Do you agree the fact they do illegally discriminate should be in the article? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/aflw-trans-players/10911114. BTW want me to remove everything on that page that is not sourced? :) Double standard kicks in again?
So on to the much lower standard, do you think this important fact should be in the article? (Every other sporting articles talks about how good players/teams are or arnt). Why shouldnt this competition be treated the same?Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Daisy Pearce
Review
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Daisy Pearce you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
On hold
The article Daisy Pearce you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Daisy Pearce for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Passed
The article Daisy Pearce you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Daisy Pearce for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Casliber, Hawkeye7 and Teratix, did you guys perhaps want to have a look at the article in your own time and make your own assessments as well? Would love to try and get it to FA status at some point, but I'd be keen to get an idea of how far away that might be, if at all. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of West Coast Club Champion (AFL Women's) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Coast Club Champion (AFL Women's) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
|
Editor of the Week | |
| Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your work relative to women's sports. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Hawkeye7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
- I nominate 4TheWynne to be this weeks Editor of the Week for his work on pages related to women's sports, particularly the AFL Women's competition. He has taken several articles to GA status and Kim Clijsters and Erin Phillips to featured. 69% of his 25000 edits are to Mainspace. His range of interest extends from the Fast & Furious action film franchise and Australian rules football to page protection and vandal intervention. His commitment to Wikipedia is appreciated by all.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
|
|
|
| 4TheWynne |
| Editor of the Week for the week beginning May 23, 2021 |
| Does extensive work on pages related to women's sports. 69% of his 25000 edits are to Mainspace. Commitment to Wikipedia is appreciated by all. |
| Recognized for |
| Notable work(s) |
| AFL Women's competition, Daisy Pearce |
| Submit a nomination |
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Firstly, Hawkeye7, thanks for the nomination, and Buster7, thanks for the award. I actually haven't made a single edit to Kim Clijsters' article and only made four edits to Erin Phillips', but I feel as if I have no choice but to accept the award; I've therefore amended the infobox and will otherwise finish by saying that I appreciate the recognition. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Significant statistics
For the "Led the league for the home-and-away season only" and similar parameters, (which I recently edited on Tom Mitchell (Australian footballer)) wouldn't it be easier to add all the H&A season records now, while the statistics are current, then when finals has ended, update those which need updating? I don't know of any source that has a ranking at the end of the H&A season, then also after finals. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- DiamondIIIXX, while I understand where you're coming from, you can just leave a hidden note in those situations (see my latest edit at Mitchell's article) for each statistic, as they aren't really meant to be added until the whole season is over (hence "...home-and-away season only"). Your second point is correct, though – unfortunately, with these ones, we just have to be all over it and do it ourselves. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- 4TheWynne: I have screenshotted the relevant statistics in AFL StatsPro, so I have a record of the post H&A leaders. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
mate that boak photo is terrible, why would you want a photo that has terrible lighting
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For your awesome contributions to the DragonForce article; thank you! TijlBogaerts (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC) |
Essendon Football Club
Hey - I've blocked Saucenuts as well, thanks for pointing them out to me. I've also semi-protected Essendon Football Club for a couple of days, hopefully it helps.. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 08:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Rollback granted
I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 08:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- TheresNoTime, thanks so much! Glad I made a good impression – appreciate the added trust. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 08:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Pearl Jam
Hi Joshua - hope you are well. I see the COVID situation in Australia seems to be getting worse. Thanks for your update to the PJ article. I thought I recognised the new pic! Can't believe it's nearly 10 years since I did those shows in Europe. Fingers crossed for a return to normality sooner rather than later. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, that's all good – no worries at all. Thanks; it's definitely coming and going (or in NSW's case, coming and coming), but things are pretty good for the most part in my state, so I'm doing OK – hope you're doing well as well. I did recognise that it was yours (and thought it worked slightly better than the other one); that must have been an amazing time – would be great to go back to some form of normality soon, like you said. Thanks for reaching out! 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Machine Head
@4TheWynne Hello there, I’m correcting the Wikipedia information to what appears on the band’s official website, therefore I thoroughly refute your assertion that I’m am being disruptive. The information currently displayed is incorrect, so I’d argue that is more disruptive than me changing the information to the correct version of events. Please check the citation that I provided. Thanks for your message and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Ernest Victory (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ernest Victory, no, you're not "correcting" anything. If you read my edit summary, my main issue with your edit is that you're using language that isn't encyclopaedic and doesn't belong on Wikipedia; we also rely on secondary sources instead of prioritising primary ones like the band's website, as the language used isn't always neutral – you've removed information that cited an issue of Revolver and replaced it with information from the band's website that really needs to cite a secondary source anyway. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, is there anyway we can resolve this? The page is showing incorrect information and I would like to see it put right. I have provided, what is in my opinion, a solid citation in the official website but that has been countered with an article from Revolver magazine but why is that being considered a more credible source of information? What if the journalist simply used the incorrect information from here as their source? Thanks for taking the time to read and I look forward to your reply. Ernest Victory (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@4TheWynne Hi, I was just wondering if you've had a chance to read my previous message to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernest Victory (talk • contribs) 08:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ernest Victory, apologies for the delay. As I've said, you're using language that isn't encyclopaedic (you don't say things like "brainchild", "officially became more than a concept" and "help bring his vision to life" on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it's worded that way in the primary source); the only thing you're really changing is removing the part about the gang fight because it wasn't mentioned on the band's website, and insinuating that the information is wrong as a result. I think the article is fine how it is. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 08:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@4TheWynne: Thanks for the reply. It's not the gang fight I was looking to change primarily, it is the subject of who actually formed the band. The Wiki article incorrectly states on here that the band was formed by Robb Flynn and Adam Duce, when in fact it was Robb Flynn's idea, concept and band, and he recruited Adam Duce, it was never a joint enterprise. If I can explain this in a more encyclopaedic fashion, would you allow the correction to stand? Thanks for taking the time to read and reply.
Listing a current touring member as current touring member is "disruptive"?
Please explain how correctly listing James LoMenzo as:
Curent touring members
- James LoMenzo – bass, backing vocals (2006–2010, 2021–present)
is "disruptive"? What is it "disrupting" exactly? The expression of factual information? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to give the facts not suppress them? Besides this is standard for every band article to list touring members in a separate section. A few examples Quiet Riot#Members, Vixen (band)#Band members, Korn#Band members, Judas Priest#Band members, Metallica#Band members etc. It's also worth noting some of these pages you're a regular editor for so why is it one rule for Megadeth and another rule for every other band? I would appreciate an apology for your unnecessary and inflammatory allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.204.74 (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- At the moment, due to the high level of disruption around that section – and I'm now inclined to think that most of it is by you – we are only listing the current full-time members, as all of the other members (including current touring members) are listed at the members page. And no, it was not listed correctly – he has only been a touring member since this year, so 2006–2010 should not be included, and you know exactly why. I'm only a regular editor at one of those articles that you listed, and don't remember ever editing any of the others, so you're wrong about that, too.
- Daniel Case, I think that this is another attempt at block evasion by JugulatorJJ, given the IP also edits this article as JugulatorJJ did, and has also chosen to single me out despite being reverted by another editor as well; if so, might be time to extend the block to indefinite – I think they've had enough chances. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Templates For Discussion - AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates
A new discussion has begun regarding the AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates. Please add your thoughts there. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Why are you reversing my edits?
Hello, 4TheWynne. Apparently you have disputed my edits on DragonForce. First off, Steve WAS in DragonForce. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jXO1gbhY8 . According to Herman Li, Steve was there triangle player. Even if he was added as a joke, HE WAS STILL ADDED. Please end your dispute and return my edits. Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaybeItIsNotReal (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- MaybeItIsNotReal, no, I will not be adding back your edits. Both sections (lead and members section) clearly say at the top not to add Terreberry, as we was never a permanent member of the band (bass, triangle or otherwise). If you want to dispute this, discuss on the talk page, but I don't see this consensus changing. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- You have a spelling error to begin with here. Do you see it though as insconsequential?Justanother2 (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Fine. If the page has decided this, I’ll leave it alone. I did not know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaybeItIsNotReal (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Ditto
Were I to prove you are in error, will you listen?Justanother2 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
You have a problem seemingly in listening. You didn't reply to my question. I made a typo and was fixing it. You seem to be a odd duck; you go around reversing people's edits and won't pay attention. Now, reply?Justanother2 (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Justanother2, no, you are the one who is failing to listen and "in error". You are making unnecessary changes to grammar/punctuation and style (the addition of the serial comma perhaps being the most controversial), which is disruptive. Take your edits at the Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith article, for example:
- "...step-uncle and -aunt" is short for "step-uncle and step-aunt"; if you remove the hyphen, it reads "step-uncle and aunt", which could be interpreted as step-uncle and actual aunt – if you disagree with shortening to "-aunt", you can always just keep it as "step-aunt" instead of removing the hyphen.
- We don't use past tense to describe events that happen in the film – "Obi-Wan and Anakin battle the Sith Lord Count Dooku, whom Anakin overpowers and decapitates at Palpatine's urging" is correct; "Obi-Wan and Anakin battled the Sith Lord Count Dooku and Anakin overpowered and decapitated at Palpatine's urging" is not.
- Please refrain from continuing to make these edits. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |