Jump to content

User talk:TylerBurden/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Your edit on list of wars invovlving Sweden

You've recently removed the white and red finns from the Invasion of Åland entry on the list. Could you provide your point of view for removing them so that i could have a better understanding of your point of view?

- Dencoolast33 (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I did, the point is that they are political factions and not main belligerents. Therefore their involement is better covered on a more specific article, not one about every war Sweden has been involved in. It's the type of excess redundant detail the article has suffered from for years already. TylerBurden (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Though, they were not necessarily political factions, but rather diffrent governments engaged in warfare with eachother. Both deployed soldiers to Åland and put together, they lost around 50 people on Åland. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, they are still not main belligerents. TylerBurden (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for sharing your views with me, and i wont revert your edit. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Human wave attack Russo-Ukrainian war section

Hello, the reason why I added that tag in my edit is because that section is currently bias towards one side Salfanto (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

And you still don't appear to grasp WP:DUE, despite being told about it several times. That is rather concerning. TylerBurden (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
It's concerning that that section of the article is currently ignoring WP:NPOV Salfanto (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Your idea of "neutrality" is adding fringe views and WP:OR. You're not interested in neutrality. TylerBurden (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm interesting in not breaking the rules of Wikipedia and making sure that articles aren't bias. Wikipedia's purpose is to teach people about a variety of topic, not propagate one side's claims. Hence why WP:NPOV not only exists, but is a one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. Salfanto (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy of WP:DUE weight, which you can't seem to comprehend, on top of basic WP:VERIFY standards which you also constantly violate. TylerBurden (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: Omega group page

I know not all sources are seen as reliable enough for Wikipedia, and that’s a good thing. But this war is so dynamic and social media-based, there are barely any news articles from “reliable” sources about this stuff. If you want to remove all information about military units that came from (their own) social media, be my guest, but most pages would end up being about 3 sentences long.

Also, you now removing the whole structure section frankly feels like you’re being passive-aggressive because someone dared to disagree with you. The source is a documentary posted on the group’s official YouTube channel. I’m sorry there’s not a New York Times article about the composition of a Ukrainian special forces unit, but realistically their own channel is as reliable as it’s gonna get. If you restore that section, I’ll call it even. ciaoneef (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ciaoneef Damn, WP:AGF? I didn't even realize that section's only reference was a YouTube video, I noticed it when you edited it. I created the article, so I'm more than happy to see it expanded, but Wikipedia has strict referencing policies and for good reason.
I have been trying to play ball with you after you amongst other things, moved the article without any discussion whatsoever, but this is getting rather tiring. If you can't accept the referencing standards of Wikipedia, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. I hope you instead learn to accept those standards and produce good content with the sources available. TylerBurden (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Your edit on Hel Norse goddess

Hi I am kind of new to this so just looking for some clarification on the edit you made removing the tv show the almighty Johnson’s about the character Hel/Eva. I understood the previous edit asking for reference (I thought before that it was okay to just link to the Wikipedia page in the addition using the link tool) and I thought I had corrected that. I provided more detail and provided 5 links to pages which verify the information I posted. I cited to both the IMDb page, Amazon’s page and the wiki fan page plus linked in the writing to the Wikipedia pages for both the show and actors. I am just confused as to why these were not considered good enough as I felt they were pretty robust sources and sources which are accepted in college level English classes. I also checked Wikipedia which said web pages are acceptable for these type of additions. I used Wikipedia’s cite tool to make sure it was all cited correctly. Can you help me out with what was wrong with the sources? Also why did it get me a red warn? Like I said I am new to this haven’t made a lot of edits before so just trying to figure it out. Thanks AB101216 Ab101216 (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Ab101216, there are a couple of things to keep in mind when adding such content. The first thing is that the references you use shouldn't be things like IMDb and Fandom, as like Wikipedia they are user generated and not considered reliable enough. The second is notability, if the appearance had a meaningful impact on the topic, then it will most likely have been covered by a reliable secondary source. We can't include every appearance in media, it would make articles like Thor little other than a list of everything it has appeared in, however for example appearances that have recieved coverage by reliable secondary sources such as the comics about Thor are generally fair game. See MOS:POPCULT. TylerBurden (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi TylerBurden :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

re:July 2024

Good afternoon. You left a message on my talk page regarding my recent edit to Bladee being unsourced. I don't believe this to be the case. My source for the image meets verifiability guidelines and sources like these are typically how signatures are added to articles. If you believe more consensus is needed before the edit can be published then we can do that, however the supposed issue with verifiability is not the problem at hand. 333fortheain (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, a fan's social media post is not a valid WP:RS to include on a WP:BLP. You should use Talk:Bladee. TylerBurden (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
You seem to be unfamiliar with how signatures are sourced on Wikipedia. This is a common way of sourcing signatures to the site (see [1], [2]), and it absolutely meets WP:RS. I will create the topic on Talk:Bladee and you can offer you input. 333fortheain (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1232626846

Per Time in Kazakhstan, the entire Kazakhstan uses UTC+5, please undo your revert. 132.234.229.150 (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS, please provide a reliable source for your change. TylerBurden (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a source about it within that article. 132.234.228.15 (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
If there is a source supporting your change there, then add it to the article you wish to edit. TylerBurden (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I had already said that there is a source in that article. I have reported this case in WP:ANI. 132.234.228.187 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

reverts

i need to add a source when changing COL to Colonel? gotte be kidding me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:A023:E91E:C9DF:1E05:607D:1952 (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Russian invasion of Ukraine has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Also on War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please don't add copyirght material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Diannaa, could you give me some feedback on what particularly got these edits deleteed? I tried to use my own wording as to not copy straight from the source but also remain faithful to its wording, as I normally do, and this is the first time I have had my added content deleted based on copyright. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
In one of your edits, some of the content was a match for material in this article. An another edit, some appeared to be copied from here. Some of the content was removed by another editor for reasons other than copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev has an RfC

Nina Dobrev has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Anthony Whitaker (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

why?

why did you turn the direct link to the actual article into a redirect? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swede&diff=1239693041&oldid=1239543845 67.220.13.43 (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I misunderstood your edit. I'll self revert. TylerBurden (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.43 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

WSH

Hi, it is regarding this. It is not unsourced per se. It is sourced in the article body in the respective section(s). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I tried to look again but couldn't find anywhere the article body actually said what the content said, so while it may be in references included on the article, it still needs to be established in the article body per WP:LEAD. I wouldn't be opposed to restoring the content to the lead if that could be done, if it's considered significant enough that is. TylerBurden (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi

why you remove This it's reliable source by Lazaridis 5.211.31.39 (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

if this can be on article (The modern population of Europe can largely be modeled as a mixture of WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer), EEF and WSH. According to a 2024 study, WSH ancestry peaks in Ireland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), then this can be to. Steppe EMBA is close to Northeast Caucasian 5.211.31.39 (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Source :Lazaridis et al. 2017
Extended Data Figure 7. FST between Bronze Age and present-day West Eurasian populations.
It's must be in Lead section. It's about genetic distance between Steppe populations and present-day West Eurasian populations. 5.211.31.39 (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I explained why in the edit summary. The WP:LEAD is meant to summarize the most important content of the article body, this content is not established in the article body so please add it there first. TylerBurden (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
  • A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You reverted my contribution with the reason that there were not a reliable source. All sources linked to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Norway on wikipedia. If say that they are not reliable, you are saying that wikipedia is not reliable. Please help me understand what was wrong. Theonlyruneyouknow (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I understood from reading more about wikipedia and sources. I improved the sources and links. Theonlyruneyouknow (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Danelaw

Could you please tell me why my addition, that detailed the Danelaw falling to England in 954, was inappropriate? The link was to the king at the time, the closest thing to an article on the subject that didn't link to the Danelaw article itself.

In my opinion the infobox is incomplete, and makes a casual glance seem as though the Danelaw was an independent entity for all the time that it existed. This is obviously not the case. Alooulla (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

In fact, having read the infobox purpose you linked to me, it seems that the salient fact I added is in fact appropriate for the infobox. Was it an issue with the specific link? Alooulla (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@Alooulla You should start a discussion on the article talk page so that other people editing the article can participate, though I suggest you look through both WP:EASTEREGG and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, both of which I linked in my edit summary. Linking a "conquest" to a person is not appropriate and this "Anglo-Saxon conquest" is not described or labelled as such in the article body. TylerBurden (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
As you wish. I will add it as a discussion topic, and hopefully someone else more versed in editing will take it from there.
In regards to the casual nature of various descriptors you also pulled me up on, it was the removal of language I felt was not educational in tone; E.G, 'in short order' (howso?) and William being 'the descendant of Vikings' really minimises the impact of his Frankish ancestry for poetry. Alooulla (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi @TylerBurden. Piggybacking on this. I had changed the above description to "the descendant of a Viking". Indeed Rollo is the only known Viking among William's ancestors and the plural could mislead into thinking otherwise. Please explain what you meant by "That's not how being a descendant works, even if it is only from one side of the family, it's still not a single person you're a descendant of." The sentence is not referring to a whole side of his family but to a single one of his 32 3rd-great-grandparents. Jouvencel (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Milchakov

Regarding this edit summary,[3] statements about the numbers of members of organisations are to be avoided when they are exaggerated and made for publicity. If Milchakov stated that the Rusich are "several dozen" he is not exaggerating at all, on the contrary, in the following sentence he tries to justify this small number by saying that "a lot of people come and they have to be weeded out".[4] Mhorg (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mhorg No, he is not a remotely reliable source and it's ridiculous to pretend that he is. Like other POV pushers your inconsistency is more than clear. TylerBurden (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Meänkieli

‘Meänkieli’ is the autoglotonym, as ‘suomi’ is to Finnish in its own language. Tornedalian is the name it receives in the English language, as noted in the cited source (which, even if you did not agree with the use of the English glotonym, it was not wise to delete). Guarandu (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Guarandu So why is the article title Meänkieli on the English Wikipedia? This would be best brought up on the article talk page rather than my own either way so that others editing the article can weigh in. TylerBurden (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

155th Brigade

The ISW source does say this, spend more time to read the ISW article. You should not have reverted the change. Currently wiki is miss representing the ISW as claiming this is true, however the ISW is passing on Russian Milblogger comments from telegram. Here is the ISW extract.

"The milbloggers called on Russian forces to cut Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) into Vuhledar both with strikes against rear GLOCs and by encircling the settlement for a multi-vector attack, but implied that Russian forces are unable to implement these suggestions due to munitions shortages and the failure to take many settlements surrounding Vuhledar.[11] Russian forces are unable to sustain any significant rate of advance anywhere on the front line using these human-wave style attacks, and the Vuhledar area once held informational significance to Russian milbloggers during the offensive for Pavlivka in in late October and early November 2022.[12] The Russian 155th Naval Infantry Brigade has been destroyed and reconstituted as many as eight times since the start of the war in large... Liger404 (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope, it says "The Russian 155th Naval Infantry Brigade has been destroyed and reconstituted as many as eight times since the start of the war in large part due losses sustained during the prolonged effort against Vuhledar." The fact that it has been destroyed and reconstituted eight times is not attributed to Russian bloggers, check the source yourself. The portion connected to the bloggers are the manner in which the unit suffered high casualties (human wave attacks).
The sources listed by ISW for the destroyed eight times claim is also not Telegram bloggers, so either you're looking at something else or just making false claims. TylerBurden (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Sorry Tyler Does this sound better at the article? I use original research here and I used an old source. But they do not know who Rurik of Dorestads father is and he is literally described as king. Hence the king of Sweden. Erik Björnsson.

Erik and Rörik could be like Anund and Emund similar names that Norse people did no distinction between. Just like Olof von Dalin claims. Gostomysl is a character that according to Vasily Tatishchev was the proteginator of Rurik and supported by the Russian empires imperial efforts. The Swedish Empire on the other hand meant Rurik was Erik Björnsson a son of Björn Ironside. And that Oleg of Kiev was a son of Olof (Swedish king 852) according to traditional Swedish historiography Germanic tradition of Coregency. According to traditional Swedish histiriography Erik and Rorik of Dorestad were the same person. According to Dalins norse sources Eric/Rerik Björn Ironsides son left to Friesland and took over and let his son Björn at Haugi rule Sweden instead. Then after returning to Sweden Rörik/Eric decided to go to Russia and Sweden to meet his son Björn again. According to Swedish traditional historiography Sweden and Denmark were allies at the time and Swedish king Erik and the Danish king were good friends since their fathers were both sons or Ragnar Lodbrok and Eric or Rörik found Friesland more exciting than being a king of Sweden so the Danish king gave it to him as a gift. Later he decided to become king of Russia after his uncle Hvitserk died and like his father Björn liked adventure so did Eric. Rurik and Eric is similar like the names Emund and Anund so much as Norsemen did no distinction according to traditional Swedish history according to Dalin. Since Eric is described as Rörik in french sources and as king Eric in older Norse sources earlier Swedish historians used. Probably lost from the fire at Tre Kronor (castle) were the primary Norse sources he used were lost when the royal library burnt down and the national archive. But that he has Norse sources that confirms Erik Björnsson and Rorik of Dorestadt were the same person but that Rurik and Rorik of dorestadt is the same person is a guess from his side.Gostomysl is a character that according to Vasily Tatishchev wa the proteginator of Rurik and supported by the Russian empires imperial effort. The Swedish Empire on the other hand meant Rurik was Erik Björnsson a son of Björn Ironside. And that Oleg of Kiev was a son of Olof (Swedish king 852) according to traditional Swedish historiography Germanic tradition of Coregency. According to traditional Swedish histiriography Erik and Rorik of Dorestad were the same person. According to Dalins norse sources Eric/Rerik Björn Ironsides son left to Friesland and took over and let his son Björn at Haugi rule Sweden instead. Then after returning to Sweden Rörik/Eric decided to go to Russia and Sweden to meet his son Björn again. According to Swedish traditional historiography Sweden and Denmark were allies at the time and Swedish king Erik and the Danish king were good friends since their fathers were both sons or Ragnar Lodbrok and Eric or Rörik found Friesland more exciting than being a king of Sweden so the Danish king gave it to him as a gift. Later he decided to become king of Russia after his uncle Hvitserk died and like his father Björn liked adventure so did Eric. Rurik and Eric is similar like the names Emund and Anund so much as Norsemen did no distinction according to traditional Swedish history according to Dalin. Since Eric is described as Rörik in french sources and as king Eric in older Norse sources earlier Swedish historians used. Probably lost from the fire at Tre Kronor (castle) were the primary Norse sources he used were lost when the royal library burnt down and the national archive. But that he has Norse sources that confirms Erik Björnsson and Rorik of Dorestadt were the same person but that Rurik and Rorik of dorestadt is the same person is a guess from his side.

[1] [2]


[3] [4] 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:7B5:D60E:958D:8695:7A35:FB5D (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The Swedish national archive burnt down 1697 so giving more weight to older sources is something I like. If the italian wiki use Russian imperial sources. Why cant the English wiki use imperial Swedish sources? At least the Swedish version is much more easy to believe. Since Frankish sources literally states Rurik of Dorestadt was a king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:7B5:D60E:958D:8695:7A35:FB5D (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to the article talk page. TylerBurden (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://sv.wikisource.org/wiki/Svea_Rikes_historia/F%C3%B6rsta_delen/Kapitel_18
  2. ^ https://sv.wikisource.org/wiki/Svea_Rikes_historia/F%C3%B6rsta_delen/Kapitel_18
  3. ^ https://sv.wikisource.org/wiki/Svea_Rikes_historia/F%C3%B6rsta_delen/Kapitel_18
  4. ^ https://sv.wikisource.org/wiki/Svea_Rikes_historia/F%C3%B6rsta_delen/Kapitel_18

Kievan rus

Hi! My edit was recently reverted by another user, so I want to ask you to review if there anything wrong with my changes [5]. So if there isn't, I can safely restore them. Shahray (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shahray Hello, I don't really have the expertise or time to proofread your edit, if you want to be safe it's best to clearly establish a consensus on the talk page first. If you think the discussion is stuck you could try something like WP:DRR/3 to ask for a third uninvolved opinion. TylerBurden (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. Shahray (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TylerBurden/Archive_5&oldid=1255193268"