User talk:Dylan Fourie

Welcome!

Hi Dylan Fourie! 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! --🐦DrWho42👻 20:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Marlene van Staden

On 9 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marlene van Staden, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 06:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in edit summary

Hi @Dylan Fourie. Regarding your edit summary at South Africa, please note that edits of every user on Wikipedia is treated equally. Your country of citizenship or residence doesn't give more weight to your edits. Making these comments are against wiki policies. Also add references to your edits. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Changes made to articles without proper reasoning in edit summary and/or cited references will be reverted. Dhruv edits (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

maybe don't edit pages of a topic you have no knowledge about Dylan Fourie (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

You need to read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 24

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; read about 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. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, you have been warned, one more revet and I report you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Generalrelative (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Survivor 44. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You do not get to unilaterally decide that a particular contestant's photo doesn't belong just because you don't like him. Take it to the talk page if you want to open a discussion as to whose photos should and should not be acceptable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about South African general elections

Hi, Dylan Fourie. I hereby invite you to a discussion about the election template that should be used on the articles about the post-Apartheid South African general elections. I hope you could present your arguments there on why you are against the new election template (example). RyanW1995 (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring incident

Your recent editing history at 2019 South African general election 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; read about 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..

Note: This is a warning. If you continue to engage in an edit war without discussion for consensus, you might be reported to WP:AN/3. Please discuss here instead of engaging in an edit war if you are unsatisfied. RyanW1995 (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing it back to what it SHOULD be. YOU are changing it to what YOU think it should be. Don't know why you foreigners are changing how South Africans want their election pages to look like. Focus on your own election pages.

There is no consensus on the Talk Page of the 2024 Election page, and therefore the edits will remain what they currently are (with the pictures) until a consensus is reached. Any changes to the current edits mean you are going against South African wishes, as well as edit waring. You can also be blocked for edit waring. This is your warning to stop your edit war against the current form of the post-apartheid election pages. Dylan Fourie (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss rather than reverting, especially while there is discussion going on. You are very fortunate that I decided to protect the articles for a couple of days instead of simply blocking you from article space. Please also stop shouting at and impugning the motives of people who disagree with you; this is a collaborative project, and we need to treat each other as well-intentioned colleagues, even when we think they're wrongheaded. Valereee (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Xenophobic comments in South African elections. Thank you. Borgenland (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Personal attacks, disruptive editing, and edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}.

After making this edit, I think you'll need to explain why it's against our policies and what you're going to do different when faced with a content dispute. Warnings and temporary blocks don't seem to be having any effect on your editing, so you'll have to make a unblock request if you want to return to editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there's a pervasive double standard at play here. Why is it that in heated disputes over edits, those opposing changes are often disregarded, while proponents of the edit in question assert its superiority? Shouldn't edits under dispute default back to their original state until a consensus is reached? It's glaringly evident that there was no consensus regarding the removal of the longstanding template from those pages, yet suddenly there's uproar because only the major parties are represented, not all parliamentary parties. This pattern mirrors past occurrences on Wikipedia, where significant edits tend to be accepted regardless of dissenting voices. Why am I required to justify my stance while those initiating the significant edits are not? The burden of explanation should fall on them. It's evident that only the six major parties should be showcased on the primary template for election pages, with all other parties relegated to a secondary position beneath the results. Considering that no party beyond the top six will likely be part of the forthcoming government, it's entirely appropriate for the template to reflect this reality on the 2024 page and for the six major parties template to be reinstated on all post-apartheid election pages, akin to how it's displayed for pre-democracy elections. Dylan Fourie (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here in an administrative capacity, which means I'm not offering an opinion one way or the other about which template should be used. All I know is that not only have you edit warred, but also you have stated that you will continue to edit war if page protection is listed. For those reasons, you must remain blocked until you demonstrate that you understand why edit warring is unacceptable and that you will refrain from doing it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Shouldn't edits under dispute default back to their original state until a consensus is reached? It's glaringly evident that there was no consensus regarding the removal of the longstanding template from those pages" Dylan Fourie (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When one person's version is being repeatedly reverted by more than one other editor, we view that as an indication there is no consensus for that version. So, no, not "glaringly evident".

The answer in any case when your preferred version is reverted is to open a section at the talk page and try to persuade others that your preferred version is better. The answer is not to edit war because you believe you're right. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am not the one proposing a major change to multiple articles though. I don't need to explain my POV. There were plenty of people opposed to the idea of changing templates, yet we are completely ignored and villainized by those who want the opposing template. I reverted the edits back to the way it has been for years BECAUSE no consensus was reached. Just because 2 people kept reverting my edits back to the proposed change, does not mean its not glaringly evident that there is opposition to their proposed idea. Dylan Fourie (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. We don't assume every article is perfect just as it is. We assume that when someone makes a change, and someone else objects, the change will be discussed, and both those in favor of and those in opposition to that change will explain their POV. In the meantime, we expect people not to edit war in favor of their preferred version. And certainly not when they haven't even bothered to join the discussion. Valereee (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"haven't even bothered to join the discussion"

Not sure how much more I need to join that discussion as I have very explicitly explained why it should not be changed in that discussion thread Dylan Fourie (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This to me is demonstrating an unwillingness to learn how we work here. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so because I dont want the template changed, I aint getting unblocked, but those that constantly change my edits are not blocked for edit waring? Sound hypocritical of you. Dylan Fourie (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why should I need to change my mind on the change of the template, but the others do not?

I can name so much more. Dylan Fourie (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to have been edit-warring.

You make a change
I revert you (1 revert)
A third editor comes in and reverts me (1 revert)
I revert Editor 3 (2nd revert)
You revert me (1 revert)
I revert you (3rd revert)
Editor 3 reverts me (2nd revert)
I revert Editor 3 (4th revert = undeniably over the line)

I am over-the-line into undeniable edit-warring, per WP:3RR You and Editor 3 are not, although best practices is always go discuss instead of reverting, and that's what everyone should generally use as a default setting. There is almost nothing worth edit-warring over. There's no urgency to this except in very rare cases. Let discussion work it out. Valereee (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

since there is no consensus reached on South Africa's election template, but the changes are somehow approved by admins, I hope you guys personally edit every single election that uses the template with the photos. Might need to start with the British elections as there are 57 elections that need major editing. And please ignore those that are opposed to it as was done to those that opposed the changes to the South African elections. Dylan Fourie (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't get into content; once we do, we're no longer admins at that article but simply editors, same as every other editor. We don't approve changes. When I protected those articles, I was doing it to prevent ongoing disruption from edit-warring, not to signal approval or disapproval of any change. When NinjaRobotPirate blocked you, ditto. They probably didn't even look at the edits in question, and neither did I. I have zero opinion on which infobox to use in that article or any other article about an election.

As an aside, though, we don't generally require consistency from article to article. We leave that up to the editors editing in a particular space. In theory an article about the 2024 South African election could contain a different infobox than all the other South African election articles. It's probably not likely, as there are editors in that area who clearly care which infobox is used, but it's not something that I or any other admin would have an opinion on. Valereee (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate clearly looked at the edits as he changed them ALL back, thus choosing which edit the admins approve. Dylan Fourie (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, it's not unusual to set it back to a version that looks like it was before the edit-warring. I was looking for the version I could revert to without causing harm -- that is, the one that was before the edit-warring, but kept as many intervening small edits that no one was edit-warring over as possible. I literally only looked at the history page, didn't even look at any of the diffs except to check that the version I was reverting to wasn't broken or something.

If NRP had an opinion, they would have gone into the article or talk and started editing and arguing that opinion, turning themselves into an editor. They would absolutely not revert to their preferred version and block you. That would be quite likely to get them desysopped. Valereee (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they literally did change it back to the disputed edit and block me Dylan Fourie (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be conflating...I reverted and protected the articles. NRP blocked you. They've never even edited any page you've edited except this one, your own user talk. I was the person who reverted to the least-harmful pre-edit war version. Again, without even reading the article, or any diffs except to make sure the version I was reverting to didn't look like it was broken. Valereee (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who had their Admin rights removed? Doug Weller talk 06:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed Number57 had his admin rights revoked as he has vandalized numerous election pages, and is very much not neutral. I was told admins are neutral when it comes to editing and choosing sides to conflict. 41.13.192.57 (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea to edit logged out. In any case you have continued your personal attacks after being blocked for personal attacks so I am removing access to your talk page as well as some of the text above linking to off-wiki sites attacking an editor. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Doug Weller talk 11:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #89804

is declined. User will have UTRS access revoked if they continue with that nonsense. --Yamla (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]