Jump to content

User talk:TylerBurden/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Your edit summary on Jake Paul

Hey, Tyler. I read your edit summary on Jake Paul, and I wanted to clear the air on a couple of things: First, per WP:TPO, you are correct to say that you cannot edit other people's comments without their permission, but "fixing format errors" is allowed per the guidelines; and second, I added that "reftalk" template to prevent WP:REFCLUTTER at the bottom of the page. Thank you. L33tm4n (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@L33tm4n: Hello, sorry about that, it was a complete blunder of mine. Let's just say that day there had been some drinks involved, and I genuienely can't remember making that edit, nor why I thought going on Wikipedia in that state was a good idea but rest assured it was a mistake. From looking at it I guess I got confused since you had made some talk page edits at the same time, and so for some reason thought you had altered someones talk comment, but then I reverted you on the actual article so I am as confused about it as you probably were. At least it was quickly reverted. Needless to say not one of my finest moments, again sorry for the inconvenience. Next time I get home from a night out it'll be a self imposed temporary ban haha. TylerBurden (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Also, yeah, definitely lay off on Drunkipedia, lol. L33tm4n (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


Removing Post-Colonialism in Anglo-Scandinavian

I don't think you can remove the explanation of hybridity and post-colonialism on the Anglo-Scandinavian page, it's an absolutely critical theoretical point underlying the entire article (which I intend to expand in the near future when I have a spare moment). What was your justification for removing it?Faust.TSFL (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Faust.TSFL: I thought I made that pretty clear in the edit summary, you can't just add that to the immediate lead without including a reference. --TylerBurden (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
That link provided doesnt include any comments at all that I can see. Hybridisation is a pretty basic, fundametal element of post-colonialism, and is much better explained in the linked pages on the topic and Bhabha. Faust.TSFL (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Faust.TSFL: I am not sure how familiar you are with Wikipedia policy, but see WP:VERIFY. Any content you add needs to be supported by added references to the article, which you did not add for your edit. That's why I removed it. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Erling Haaland

Hi, I noticed your revert here and wanted to point out that as it's now 1 July in the UK it should be fine for the article to be updated. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey there, yea, I misremembered UK time and thought it was in line with UTC for a sec. Either way it is now also 1 July UTC so all good to go. TylerBurden (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You're the one edit warring, and as I say, there're already specific links of places within the country. And your points of Sweden being an unknown country and that we must keep things as currently are just because are laughable. The only reason I'll no revert again right away is that MoS isn't policy, just a guideline. But it's clear you're not neutral when discussing Sweden.... Urbanoc (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess WP:CIVIL (a policy, not a guideline) went out of the window here? You should follow WP:BRD and start a discussion next time you make a bold edit and are reverted, not just restore it. You're now making strong accusations that I am somehow biased, with no proof to provide for it. If this is how you handle minor disputes about a link, I don't even wanna know what you're like otherwise. Yikes. I would have thought you had stopped edit warring to you know, not edit war and instead discuss the matter like adults, but instead you came here with whatever this is meant to be. If you plan on continuing to edit war, we can go to for a visit to WP:AN/3 if that's how you want things to go. Rather not though and I'm still open for civil discussion to hear out actual arguments rather than snarky comments and baseless accusations. TylerBurden (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what edit summary you read, but I'm also not saying anything "must be kept as they currently are". I asked you to not edit war and gain consensus for your removal to a link of a country smaller than several states in the US. How you are twisting that into this hostility and assumptions of being biased somehow, is truly beyond me. TylerBurden (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Large cities

Before I revert you I thought I would inform you about this discussion. Iterresise (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. TylerBurden (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Hi Tyler, please explain what was non-constructive here [1]? Thanks. Fish+Karate 10:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Hey, I do not believe that the nationality of Manchester City and Borussia Dortmund is something that is so relevant that it needs to be specified on Erling Haalands article. If people are really interested in that, they can hover over the links or press on them. Why do you think they need to have their nationalities specified on that article? --TylerBurden (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Nick Yarris

Your entirely appropriate enforcement of WP:BLP standards on 29 May 2022 against IP user 195.92.38.22 has been undone by the same unregistered user, without articulated reason or justification, much less any response to your well-stated reasons. What can be done to prevent an endless cycle of "edit warring" here? I see no good faith justification for their elimination of properly sourced relevant aspects of what makes Nick Yarris notable, in favor of unsourced personal details of no legitimate importance, whether or not accurate. (I have no proof, given the editor's anonymity, but it smells like a WP:COI violation also.) PDGPA (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@PDGPA: Hello, thanks for letting me know, I reverted them again, and also gave them a ″final warning″ notice on their talk page. If they make such edits again, feel free to revert it yourself and report the IP to either WP:AIV (given that these are serious BLP violations, they might be blocked on the spot there) or WP:AN/I. They seem to be editing from the same IP address continuously so if it is blocked the disruption might stop. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks much. I see the same user has been the subject of repeated warnings related to unconstructive edits on a half dozen different articles, including this one, for two years now, without ever having responded in any way, much less appropriately. Yet the issue continues. Your imposition of a Red Warning at this point seems entirely justified. PDGPA (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The unconstructive, WP:BLP violating, WP:COI suspect, WP:RS disregarding edits by a persistent IP user, who has never engaged with the patiently-explained reversions of their "edits" -- which you undid just a week or two ago, with a Red Warning -- have been reinstated, for at least the third time. It is certainly time for a block on this vandal or other strong measures. I will attempt a report. PDGPA (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
My report to WP:AIV, as you suggested, appears to have resulted in a prompt block of the IP addresses. Thanks for the guidance. PDGPA (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of drafts

Just to let you know: you recently proposed a draft for deletion, but the proposed deletion process is inappropriate for drafts. If you want to delete one of your own drafts, and nobody else has been working on them, you can just put {{db-author}} onto the page and it will be deleted immediately (rather than needing to wait seven days, like you would with a proposed deletion). For drafts by other people, it's rare to nominate them for deletion (even if they have no chance as an article) because they'll be deleted anyway after six months (although drafts that are very problematic, such as copyright violations and attack pages, can be deleted right away using the speedy deletion process).

Because you were trying to delete your own draft, I converted your proposed-deletion tag into a deletion-by-author-request tag, so it should be deleted by an administrator soon (without needing a seven-day delay). --ais523 05:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ais523: I see, thank you for the information! TylerBurden (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thirty Years War

Hello Tyler. Sorry to bother you but i just wanted to know why you reverted my edits since many of the figures are usually referred by shortened names such as Turenne, Richelieu, Grand Condé and Mazarin. I believe that shortening the names makes it more navigable for readers. For example Louis XIV of France can be simply referred to as Louis XIV among others.

Thanks
Crecy1346 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Crecy1346: No worries and not a bother, of course you have the right to discuss. I just had another look at it, comparing the different revisions and I can see your point because your version makes the infobox less cluttered. I'll self revert for now, though the version with full names has been long standing so it is possible long time editors of the article would object, but if they do that is something that can be discussed on the article talk page. Thanks for reaching out and happy editing. TylerBurden (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Om infoboxen

Hejsan, min första reaktion var också att Sverige borde stå som första land i infoboxen, både för att det är här svenska språket uppstod (eller snarare utvecklades från fornnordiska) och för att de flesta som talar svenska bor i Sverige. Kollade ändå några andra infoboxar och såg att de alltid sätter länderna i bokstavsordning, t.ex. kommer Frankrike efter Belgien, Benin, Canada osv., liksom Tyskland kommer efter Österrike, Spanien kommer efter de flesta länder i Latinamerika. Om det inte finns någon orsak att särbehandla svenskan (och jag kommer inte på någon) så är det sannolikt bäst att använda samma format som för andra infoboxar för språk. Jeppiz (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz Hallå där! Ja, jag tänkte lite i efterhand att det kanske hade med bokstavsordning att göra, men tänkte samtidigt att isåfall borde väl EU och NC också flyttas om? Dock så är ju dom inte länder, så kanske är mer logiskt att ha dom längst ner trots bokstavsordning. Du har helt rätt i att andra språk verkar köra med bokstavsordning också, och det är alltid bra med likheter bland artiklarna så ändringen var mer logisk än vad jag först trodde (tänkte nästan någon Finne ville jävlas lite haha). Tack för meddelandet och förklaringen Jeppiz, vi får leva med att Finland är ovan oss. :p TylerBurden (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Jo precis :-) Det är lite bakvänt på ett sätt, men knappast mer än att t.ex. Benin kommer Frankrike för franska språket ;-) Om WP någon dag ändrar policyn till att alltid sätta 'urspungslandet' först så är jag helt för det, men under tiden får vi väl bara följa praxis. Jeppiz (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR and other talk page messages

Hello TylerBurden. I have been editing Wikipedia for 17 years, so I am quite familiar with WP:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN. From my reading of F1-related articles, most of them appear to have been written using UK rather than US English (likely due to the relative lack of popularity of F1 in the US as opposed to other countries), so the use of US spellings in the Keke Rosberg article struck me as unusual and out-of-place.

I also notice that you have been using a software tool to place warning messages on the user talk pages of many editors, many of which appear to be over-zealous (especially when targeted at experienced editors, or flagging minor rephrasings of article text as "non-constructive", which is not synonymous with "unnecessary"). I will use the benefit of my experience to suggest that you show some restraint when using such tools, as it can get irritating. Regards, --RFBailey (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@RFBailey Well like the guideline says, if there is not a national tie to the topic then MOS:RETAIN applies, it doesn't really matter if Formula One is less popular in America. Notices such as the one about national varieties of English I placed on your talk page are not "warnings", they are reminders and are even classified as such by the software itself since they do not even have different levels. So don't take it was a warning. Many people on Wikipedia make these needless changes, espescially to change national variety to the one that they personally use, so the standardized message about it is highly useful and in your case I even manually entered extra text on it to not take it as disrespect which you still appear to have done, but at the end of the day you went against the MOS with your change from American to British English. Do you have any examples of my "overzealous" warnings? That is not a complaint I have gotten much, yesterday an editor of three months got upset because I posted a reminder on their talk page about the use of minor edits, and now you, but generally people take good faith reminders well as that is exactly what they are meant to be, reminders. Experience is all well and good but ego on the other hand is not, if I make a mistake and someone validly templates me I do not get upset about it, because it's fair enough, the same way I generally do not discriminate when letting others know of their own mistakes. Either way from what I can see there is no consensus that all Formula One articles should be in British English, if you are aware of such then let me know. TylerBurden (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I will take your advice with the redwarn "non-constructive" default revert to heart though, as you're right that it is not synonymous with "unnecessary". TylerBurden (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Vikings

Hi. Just wanted to inform you that the user you are addressing, indirect, in your comment about vikings got a topic ban about vikings 2-3 weeks ago. Very much of the same reason you wrote about. best regards, Adville (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Adville I see, hadn't come across that so thanks for letting me know. Judging by that thread, that is probably for the best. Ha en trevlig måndagskväll! TylerBurden (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Detsamma. Du fick mig att börja redigera artikeln på svenska nu, då den är lite vinklad där med av samma användare, och jag har även tagit upp det på bybrunnen nyligen. MVH Adville (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Erling Haaland perfect hattrick v Nottingham Forrest

My edit to Erling Haaland's wikipedia page has been removed due to seeming 'less neutral'. My edit was to include the fact the hattrick Haaland scored was a perfect hattrick. I included that he scored a perfect Hattrick, because he scored a perfect hattrick, which is a very difficult and rare thing to accomplish. I request you allow me to add the fact that haaland scored a perfect hattrick against Nottingham Forrest. Moleoz (talk) 05:35 PM, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Moleoz: Ah, so you meant the actual term. The problem with that is that it is not included in the cited reference, so you would need to add a new source stating it was a perfect hattrick. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I will remove the WP:NPOV notice I posted on your talk page though, since I misunderstood your edit. TylerBurden (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding Moleoz (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Moleoz And thank you for adding a reference for the perfect hattrick, happy editing mate. TylerBurden (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Cheers mate Moleoz (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Mehmed pasha Sokolovic

Hello Tyler, can you please warn user Shadow4ya to stop persistently removing my recent edits from the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha article. It is about his origin in which I wrote: "There is great dispute among historians about his origins. According to some historians, he was of Bosniak origin, while others claim that he was of Serbian origin" (sources were listed)

Since there are different opinions among historians about its origin, I have presented both theories, of course quoting from several sources. He thinks "consensus must be reached before any new change can be applied", but again the article talks about one side of the story while ignoring the other. There will never be any consensus on its origin because everyone has their own opinion that should be respected. For example, in the article about Rustem Pasha Opuković, all three theories about his origin are presented, since only one cannot be taken. Please revert my recent edits. Thank you in advance. I hope neglecting someones origin and an ethnic group isn't the purpose of wikipedia. Mrjazz123 (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mrjazz123: Hey there Mrjazz, sorry for the slow response as I've been busy. I had a quick look at the article you're talking about and I am quite certain that the editor you mentioned is asking you to gain consensus on the article talk page, which is Talk:Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. Per WP:ONUS since you were reverted, your next step should be to raise the issue on the talk page and explain why you think the content should be added. If you can't reach an agreement with the editor there, there is WP:DISPUTE you can have a look at as well. If there are sources supporting your edits, which you say there are, people might agree with you on adding the material.
(Just saw the talk page) Since Shadow4ya dismissed your attempt to communicate with them as vandalism, which is wrong by the way, and I just noticed did not respond to your comment on the article talk page after reverting you, consider starting a WP:RFC for more input. TylerBurden (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank You for your help Tyler. I am glad someone takes this matter seriously. I also asked Jingiby for help but he dismissed my suggestions saying: "I don't think there is any serious dispute about it. Bosnian national identity crystallized in the second half of the 20th century", which is completely false. Even tho i explained to him, he ignores me. Mrjazz123 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Warning IP for an edit they were already warned for

Hey Tyler! I noticed that you warned the IP 2600:1017:B80D:DF3:CC4C:D5B4:270:85C6 for using Talk:Norway as a forum.. however I had already warned them for that 9 hours ago and they hadn't made another edit since. What was the reason for the second warning? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Blaze Wolf, I explained it in the edit summary here. TylerBurden (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
just saw that, however I disagree with your addition of a second warning or a level 2 warning. Yes it is blatant talk page trolling, however the user hadn't made any other edits of similar nature prior to that, so maybe they had just mistook Wikipedia for something akin to Reddit (I doubt it but still). If they had made other disruptive edits in the past or other edits of a similar nature then I would agree a level 2 warning. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf That's why I also think a level 2 is best, since the feature of it is from what I understand to be meant for edits where you're not sure about the intention, whereas 1 and 3 are more gentle and stern respectively. I suppose we disagree on the level of warning system, but a level 2 is still more appropriate for the edit in question in my opinion. Either way like you said they do not appear to have edited since, so it doesn't seem to be an issue at the moment. TylerBurden (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from. Feel free to remove my Level 1 warning if you so choose. Otherwise I'd suggest removing your level 2 warning so as to not possibly confuse the user for being warned twice for one edit. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: Yea, thanks for understanding. I don't like directly overriding peoples warnings, so that's why I tend to just add my own if I feel someone may have recieved a bit of a soft warning compared to what their edit was. But that could of course be somewhat confusing to recieve two messages, since you handled it first, I'll just let you decide what do. It's not like the edit was extreme so while I would prefer the level 2 personally, if you want to go with your initial instinct that is fine by me. Good on cathing the edit itself quite early as well, hate when stuff like that just lingers on talk pages lol. TylerBurden (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Alright sounds good. I'll go ahead and remove your warning (Really if you had given them a level 2 warning before I did, I would've disagreed but left it alone, I only removed it because then it would be a duplicate warning). Thanks for explaining! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Cosmetic edits

Just a note, edits like Special:Diff/1109127887 that don't affect the rendered page in any way are considered cosmetic edits and are generally discouraged. There isn't a point to reverting that edit either, of course; just wanted to let you know for the future. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Elli: Hello and thanks for the heads up. I'm (somewhat) familiar with cosmetic edits, I have made a few such edits recently to the short descriptions since capital ″S″ seems to be more uniform and standard amongst articles. But of course it is a very minor thing and certainly not something I'm looking to annoy people over, I actually debated marking it as minor edits or not but opted not to in case someone objects such edits, which ironically pops it up on the watchlist for more people (the ones brave enough to trust that people actually use the feature properly). But I'll keep it in mind for the future. TylerBurden (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I would suggest not changing the capitalization of the short description template. There is no point to standardization here (and if there was, it would be better to get consensus for such a task and use a bot to do it). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Page reversion.

How would I go about citing a weapon in a video game? I was under the impression screenshots from video games weren't allowed, so if you have any bright ideas on what constitutes a "reliable source" by all means let me know. V92 (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lucky9Two If you can't cite something, then don't add it, because it then doesn't meet the notability criteria. That's Wikipedia 101. If there is an article from a good source mentioning the weapon, then that's a reliable source, that's how such content is usually added. TylerBurden (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Also whatever you posted on my talk page I can't seem to view, as the page is completely blank. It says there was an edit, but it doesn't show up. V92 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lucky9Two Shows up fine for me, it was simply a notice about making unsourced edits. TylerBurden (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"not notable" could be argued for the other entries as well, so I don't understand the distinction in why one is okay, but another isn't. Regardless, I don't care enough to fix it because this entire exchange has been a waste of time for a triviality. V92 (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lucky9Two The other popular culture entries have sources verifying them, so not sure why you'd reach that conclusion. You added something without a source in a section full of sourced content, not sure why you're so surprised it got removed either. Maybe see WP:VERIFY if you don't know how this stuff works. Maybe your video game simply doesn't meet the criteria, which is ok because not everything has to be on this site. TylerBurden (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Haaland edit

apologies JCJC777 JCJC777 (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit

You closed edit part roald dahl topic.you should take me a unprotection form.i will request for a edit.the wikipedia example form isnt working.pls take a another one. Trex3212 (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You should stop trying to evade your block, @Ert141. TylerBurden (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Northern Europe categories

Hi TylerBurden, just out of curiosity why did you remove Northern Europe from the category "Regions of Europe"? Ingwina (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ingwina Hey Ingwina. I removed it because the article is already part of the "Northern Europe" category, which itself is a subcategory of "Regions of Europe". So it is my understanding that when two categories are connected like that, WP:CATSPECIFIC says the more specific category should be used. Hope that clears it up. TylerBurden (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah nice makes sense. Thanks for all your great work! Ingwina (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ingwina Same to you. TylerBurden (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Hello! I thought first that they are needed in those cases as well. But then, see Talk:Americans#RfC about the hatnote. Privybst (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Spiderr moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Spiderr, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Now many generations?

I do not understand why you did this. Please respond on the article's talk page. If you mean that anyone is a Swedish American with only third, fourth or more generation Swedish ancestry, or anyone with a Swedish surname is, or anyone who grew up in an American community dominated by Swedish immigrants is, or only people who descend from pre-1916 immigrants are (all of them ?!), we're going to have problems with that POV of yours. If you can gain consensus on that talk page that an American with no more that one Swedish grandparent is a Swedish American, I'll give up. Seems flabbergasting to me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Relax and participate. TylerBurden (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 (2)

This is a clear violation of several of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. We do not make changes to article text while that particular text is being discussed on the article's talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing Give me links to policies that say exactly that, and I'll believe you, if you can't tell I am trying to solve the dispute here. And I would appreciate some WP:GOODFAITH. TylerBurden (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Edit warring to start with. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any edit war. TylerBurden (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you actually contending that you never heard of any Wikipedia rule not to change article text without consensus while that text is being discussed? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, show me where this "rule" is written, it should be easy to do if you're not making it up. If you have a problem with the edit you can revert it back to the stable version, I have every right to be WP:BOLD in finding a solution. TylerBurden (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Please read the guideline about article-talk-page behavior again, especially the bold type which you apparently refuse to be guided by. It's one of our most useful guidelines to help us avoid personal disputes on the talk pages of articles. We are all supposed to follow it, including you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing Would you mind specifically saying how I am allegedly violating guidelines? TylerBurden (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I've already quoted the guidline on that article's talk page. If you don't want to read it, that's up to you. "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing And I responded to that, I am not talking about you as a person, I am talking about your edits. Why are you assuming bad faith about my actions here? It would be more helpful and fruitful for our discussion if we could discuss without these accusations, because I'm trying to do the right thing and I'm pretty sure you are too. TylerBurden (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Read it again. You're obviously focusing on me. Anyone can see that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
No, everyone cannot see that. Svenskbygderna (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing I can't stop you from making yourself feel like a victim, but you're not, I am fully focused on the content, and pointing out that you are engaging in WP:OR is not a personal attack, that is you violating policy. TylerBurden (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Finnic languages

Hi. You previously deleted 3 Löwi's tags on the article because they were not engaging on the talk page. They are now blanking the article without engaging on talk. — kwami (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. Austronesier got it. I just didn't want to get into an edit war. — kwami (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami Sorry, have not been online today until now, but glad that was solved. TylerBurden (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Your recent edits to User talk:2001:44C8:4748:AD87:9315:F077:1C72:C628

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:2001:44C8:4748:AD87:9315:F077:1C72:C628. 2001:44C8:4748:AD87:9315:F077:1C72:C628 (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok good to know, would you please stop misusing templates and making nonsensical reverts like you did here? TylerBurden (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
FYI, the IP is now rangeblocked. Feel free to report on sight if you see them again. They're definitely not here to build an encyclopaedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@Mako001 Noted, thanks. TylerBurden (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind standard message. TylerBurden (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Church of Norway

Hi, Tyler. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so excuse me if I am asking an obvious question. I notice you have been editing the "Theology" heading for the Church of Norway. It's currently set as "Confessional Lutheranism". I don't know if you set that, or it was someone else. I read the "Confessional Lutheranism" article, and I'm pretty sure that's the wrong category, and that it should be "Lutheranism". Before I simply alter it, I wonder if you have a comment? Best wishes! PeterNimmo (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@PeterNimmo Hello PeterNimmo, I have that article on my watchlist because it is one of the articles targeted by a person who persistenly makes unexplained changes and removals to articles related to Nordic religion. I briefly looked into it and you appear to be correct, feel free to edit the article. Consider including a WP:REF if you have one, you can read within that link on how to add a citation. Cheers. TylerBurden (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a feeling something like that was going on. I'll make the change. Best regards, Peter PeterNimmo (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Fin(n)ishing articles

Hello! The reason why I un-linked the word "Finland" in the article Aimo Koivunen is because it's the styling custom used in Wikipedia. Please read this. I kindly suggest reading the basic principles of editing Wikipedia in general before abruptly reverting helpful changes. Anyways, happy editing! –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 15:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I am well aware of MOS:OVERLINK, and if you think Finland is a major example of a country everyone is familiar with, then that is your personal interpretation and I strongly disagree with it. So instead of being hostile, follow WP:BRD and gain consensus for the removal if you insist on it. TylerBurden (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@Sullay "Username checks out, I see". This is not a good response to being reverted, maybe you should read WP:BATTLEGROUND. TylerBurden (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Who on earth would not be familiar with Finland? Do you sincerely believe that only countries with more than 100 million inhabitants are generally known? That was not a rhetorical question. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 15:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@Sullay Not everyone recieves the same education you do, plenty of people don't even know that Finland exists. Stop edit warring. TylerBurden (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
What is your personal interpretation of the rule that countries shouldn't be linked? Only the top 10 largest countries by population shouldn't be linked? Once again, that was not a rhetorical question. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 16:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
A country with a 5 million population is not a major country. But this is something you should discuss on the article talk page, not here. TylerBurden (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I did as you asked

here Great Mercian (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Great Mercian Thanks for opening the discussion. TylerBurden (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Norseman, Western Australia ‎- your reversion of edits

The use of the population of Norseman as 562 is referenced earlier in the article (in the Infobox), and already appears as the first item in the article's list of references. I hope you're not suggesting that every time the population of Norseman is mentioned in the article that a duplicate inline citation be provided. I refer you to MOS:LEADCITE. ".... it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead" Regards 27.33.185.183 (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I missed that reference, apologies and thank you for the update. TylerBurden (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Galtung

Hello! You keep deleting important Norwegian history, that of the Galtung family. The Galtung family has claimed to be descendants of the older Galte family for generations, just as the larger old clan Mel has debunked that claim since the name was given to the people at Torsnes in 1648. Since, the clan Mel has worked with historians to fix the history that was falsified to once again be correct. Please stop destroying the real history in favour of errors that has been long debunked. It is disrespectful to clan Mel (Melsætten), and not the least wrong.

Best wishes, Silja998 (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Galtung (noble family) if you need further explanation Silja998 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@Silja998 So now after using numerous different IP's you've created an account, I will have a very close look at your edits on the page and if the references do not check out I will once again revert it to the long standing version from before you started making numerous unsourced changes to it. TylerBurden (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I've had an account for years, I've just not usually been made to log in and source whilst deleting false claims. That said, there haven't been false claims by this nature on other pages to fix. The problem with the article, is that it has been stating things that have not been true, that were not sourced properly and disrespectful to clan Mel that they are supposedly long dead. Norwegian history before the Reformation is a mess, due to Denmark taking all our historical papers to Copenhagen where most of it burned up. This has made the effort of uncovering the true story a hunt in the archives and collections.
As for the beef with Denmark and old Norwegian artifacts –
They still don't want to return the stolen goods, such as that which shows the last original coat of arms of the original Galt family – https://www.nettavisen.no/norsk-debatt/kongshornet-og-lesbiske-inuitter/o/5-95-297487 see: Norges historie som koloni – "Norway's history as a colony"
Det norske Kongehorn, som Nasjonalmuseet i København omtaler det som, er antagelig det flotteste og best bevarte kongesymbolet fra middelalderen. Et gigantisk drikkehorn forgylt med riksvåpenet i sølv, antagelig laget i Bergen rett før svartedauden, og eid av kong Håkon den 6., som var vår siste konge før vi ble underlagt danskene.
meaning –
The Norwegian king's horn, as the national museum in Copenhagen calls it, is probably the greatest and best preserved symbol of the king from medieval times. A gigantic drinking horn gilded with the state arms in silver, probably made in Bergen just before the black plage (1349), owned by king Håkon VI, our (Norway's) last king before we were subdued to the Danes."
So, as you see, this age old family feud of Denmark vs. Norway of who's stuff it really is, is still going on. A local politician was visiting Copenhagen a couple of years back asking about the horn, and the danes were really not pleased, finding himself surprised of how unwilling the Danes were of even discussing the horn being brought back to its rightful homeland where it's history matters much more than a museum in Denmark where the history of the horn isn't even stated correctly on the label. (I've been, it has no proper explanation as for its origin, so is also the status of the rest of the Norwegian artifacts exhibited)
This Copenhagenish Schrødingers cat' phenomena of not knowing what Copenhagen knows or doesn't know, was what has made it possible for the people at Torsnes to make the Galtung claim for so long, and it was finally debunked when Norwegian professor Lars Hamre found the real Torsnes-linage papers in Copenhagen archives in 1950. People locally in Hardanger knew the truth all along, passing it down as a historical injustice; an injustice that was remembered as a collective trauma, as the Barony of Rosendal (Mowat/Rosenkrantz family were relatives of the Torsnespeople) effectively made the locals slaves/unpaid labour at the mercy of foreign (Danish-scottish) overlords throughout the 17nth, 18nth and somewhat 19nth century. Meaning, if Lars Hamre told the people in 1950 that the Torsnespeople lied about being Galts, the locals would be looking at him like, No shit, you say so? It's only what we've been saying all along. Welcome after. But thank you for finally proving it, with paper and all.
The original article was written by the younger Galtungs (as well as the "talk" asking for Torsnes to be mentioned with the old Galts was signed Dysvik AKA Galtung), hence the old article was strongly in favor of an ambiguous way of saying the old Galte were from Torsnes, something that has been proven false quite a few times. If you do not know Danish-Norwegian history, it's the less told tale of how England treated Ireland. There are sources, but they are in Norwegian, so I took the trouble of translating them for you.
Dysvik=Døsvig= married w/ Galtung: https://www.geni.com/people/Anders-Pedersen/6000000011644128841
As for numerous IPs, they are 2 computers on the same desk. As for your own account/IP/name, you're specifically a character that is anonymous, "set forth to dissolve societal programming, attack consumerism, and upset the established social order". I'm just trying to be honest about the social order and its history. Silja is my real name and as the rest of the name implies I'm born in 1998.
I do appreciate the need for sourcing, but in this case, the original "sourced" text was wrong as the sources given didn't actually back up the claims but misled the reader, and should not have been allowed to pass as truthful from the start. That is why I saw the need to source everything with quotations now, so you can see that word-by-word, I'm not making this shit up. I hope you are as well, as alive and kicking as the old Clan Mel (Galts) of Hardanger whom did not go extinct in either 1412 nor 1413, were not from Torsnes and are only distantly related to the largely danish-descending Torsnes people. :)
Norway is still fixing its history, and we are not caving in for Danish theft of neither names nor artifacts:
https://asletoje.no/haakonshornet/ (16.11.2021, Asle Toje's personal page)
Det ville være gildt om våre danske venner ga oss Kongshornet i innflytningsgave.
Jeg sier i gave, fordi krav vil trolig ikke ville føre noe steds hen. Restitusjon av historiske objekter er et omstridt tema. Europas museer er breddfulle av gods fra fremmede kulturer. Alle er tilbakeholdne med å tilbakeføre objekter. (...) Til alt hell er fortiden mindre betent i Norden. Danmark har alt gitt tilbake en rekke fornminner, mest nevneverdig fikk Island sine sagaer tilbake. Det er umulig å ikke røres av bildene da nesten hele øyas befolkning møtte opp på kaien i Reykjavik for å ta imot nasjonalskattene i 1971. Og slik er det også med Haakonshornet; det er en bit av fortellingen om Norge, en påminnelse om hva vi var, hva vi mistet og hva som gjenoppstod. Jeg vil nok ikke stå alene på kaien ved Nasjonalmuseet den dag Det norske Kongshornet atter vender tilbake.
Meaning –
It would be very nice if our Danish friends gave us the King's Horn as a house warming gift (for the new museum)
I say a gift, because a demand probably wouldn't lead anywhere. Restitution of historical objects is a much debated theme. European museums are packed with goods belonging to foreign cultures. All are trying to withhold the objects as far as possible, as opposed to having to give them back. (... about objects from Africa ...) To all luck, the past of the North is less infected. Denmark has already given back many artifacts, namely Iceland got their sagas back. It is impossible not to be touched by the pictures of when almost the entire island of Iceland met at the dock/harbour in Reykjavik to see the national heirlooms be brought home in 1971. And this is also how it is with the Håkonshorn; it is a piece of the tale about Norway, a reminder of what we are, what we lost and what was reborn. I will probably not be the only one at the harbor of the National Museum (of Oslo) the day the Norwegian king's horn returns once again.
Best wishes from the west coast of Norway : ) Silja998 (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Silja998 I am part Norwegian myself so I certainly have no interest in twisting Norwegian history, nor any other history. What I am trying to make sure is that the article upholds Wikipedia standards, it's a rather obscure article on the English Wikipedia and the work being done on it and the attitude in approach was coming across more like an angry alleged member of the family trying to "right the great wrongs" rather than someone actually aware of Wikipedia policy, such as WP:COI. Anyway as long as the work is sourced, corrections are fine. TylerBurden (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TylerBurden/Archive_2&oldid=1136966211"