User talk:TylerBurden/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:TylerBurden. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
A pie for you!
|
Thank you for your contribution in Human safari (terror campaign) article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
Norwegians
Just letting you know, it's not like everyone is Christian. How is it complicated? Well it is already in the lead article info. So honestly it probably was fine the way it was. But just letting you know if you question religion as unnecessary, religion status is the most important fact about an ethnic group by far Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Servite et contribuere Are you planning on stopping to edit this post every few minutes so that I can actually reply to it? TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. I couldn’t make up my mind on what to say Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry No! I misread. I thought you said are you planning on stopping editing Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, for further help on Religion and Ethnicity, is there perhaps a book you suggest for me to read? Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Servite et contribuere I don't have any particular suggestions on that, but I would recommend looking through things like WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and the manual of style (WP:MOS) in general as it will give you a better idea of how Wikipedia articles are structured.
- Yes. I couldn’t make up my mind on what to say Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand you think religion is important related to ethnic groups, and it often is, but for example adding blanket statements like "traditionally" etc to infoboxes oversimplifies things. That is why such information in my opinion is better covered in the actual article content, where the topic can be covered with more nuance. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I will reply by understanding that some people might not understand the meaning of Traditional Religion, or/and find religion complicated; I get that. My intention about the meaning of "Traditionally" in the Inbox is that it is no longer the overwhelming religion of those people, but it once was. I understand Religion and Ethnicity can be complicated (Particularly for an article about an ethnic group globally), just because an ethnic group is prominently one religion in one country doesn’t mean they are prominently that religion in another for example. Many people have fled their country to escape religious persecution. It is also important to note that some countries (Most notably Germany (Deutschland) and Switzerland) have a major geographical divide in religion. For ones where Christianity is divided, I would suggest describing their Traditional as simply "Christian". I understand why using religion the Ethnic infobox might not seem right. But I think we should at least agree we should state "Prominently" or "Traditionally”, we can always talk about it. Terms like "Predominantly Christian" and "Traditionally Christian" seem like we are reflecting current times or/and historical times. I would suggest this criteria for using it in Inbox: 67% or more with one religion should be predominantly, if there is a plurality religion or less than 67% who practice that religion, we should use "Traditionally" if over 50% are Non Religious, we should use "Historically or Traditionally". Only stating the religion without anything to say whether it is still prominent or traditional sounds like it was written by an illegitimate source. We will need a sources to these demographics, and they must be up to date. I would also like to point out that "Traditionally" can be timeless. "Prominently" can eventually age. So I do understand
- how it can be difficult. Also, I did just read your think (After writing most of this) that it is oversimplified, maybe add a link in the inbox about history of Religion in that country? I can understand the arguments against oversimplification, there is a long history of religion changing in countries. Can I just ask you, would you say that oversimplification can lead to confusion? (E.G. people who don’t know the history of religion just assuming that has been their religion forever, and not knowing how they became that religion). Your statements have made me think it through. It isn’t super simple, and one of the most important things to understand is that people historically in almost every country, have only been legally allowed to practice a few religions (Many only one), our ancestors didn't get to choose their religion (Some did, but only a few were permitted), that is only something we have really had since the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. So whilst/while I do believe (And you can agree and disagree with me all you like) that religion is a key fact about ethnicity, it is also important to know that (I will say it again) religions have been enforced on us by Monarchs throughout history. Protestants had to convince their Monarch to become Protestant, this was notably successful in Scotland, which I think was the only country where there was known consensus among the population to split from the Pope, Anglicanism (in my opinion) was built for a very dumb reason. And I honestly believe many people who fled who kept their authoritarian monarch, but kept their religion wanted to send a message that they still loved their homeland, but hated their ruler. So the more I think about it, it actually is more complicated, but my simple words are: "Our ancestors didn't get to choose their religion, they were legally required to be that religion", it is also important to note that almost every country in the world (Particularly in Eurasia) has persecuted people of specific religions throughout their history, some countries (Particularly Authoritarian Governments where Islam is the state religion; the Arab Middle East especially) continue to persecute people for being the wrong religion to this day. I would like to thank you if you have time to read my entire statement, and deliver a response. And most importantly, please correct me if I made any mistakes on my religion history statement Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- First of all (In this reply) I did leave a reply, which I really do want to see as it covers why I believed it was necessary and I did read your first reply and have a think about it and did tell you my further thoughts, but after publishing that reply, I did come up with an idea about possibly adding to the Inbox a link (Or a few) for further information Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Servite et contribuere I would suggest raising your points on Talk:Norwegians, where other editors can also weigh in on the discussion. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, what did you think of my statement above? Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Servite et contribuere I would suggest raising your points on Talk:Norwegians, where other editors can also weigh in on the discussion. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand you think religion is important related to ethnic groups, and it often is, but for example adding blanket statements like "traditionally" etc to infoboxes oversimplifies things. That is why such information in my opinion is better covered in the actual article content, where the topic can be covered with more nuance. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring over trivial matters
This is regarding the ongoing dispute in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article. You have a history of edit warring over trivial matters. I will remind you the last time this happened, back in the summer. Feedback given by other editors on the situation included, and I quote, "[two] people think it should be one way; one person thinks otherwise; and nobody else gives a brass razoo - including myself." That's why I feel starting a discussion over the matter is not reasonable in the circumstances. It is a waste of editor time to go through lengthy dispute resolution processes over stuff that does not matter.
The mature thing to do would be, like last time, to accept that it is a 2-1 vote against you and drop it.
On the edit itself, the other editor's rationale was sensible. "Baseless" corresponds to a somewhat harsh and tabloid-y tone. We want to keep the tone of the project professional and neutral. "Without evidence" is just a touch smoother. JDiala (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Edits
Hello, I see you undid my edits. To be clear, I was not editing disruptively. I wanted to mention that there have been neo Nazis in Slavic nations and nazi sympathizers as well.
Also, should we rephrase the “cult of the beautiful body” part in a better way? I understand it’s linked in the article, but it does sound a little unorthodox in translation. Firekong1 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Firekong1 Hello, thank you for clarifying, but I don't believe it was disruptive. WP:VERIFY is just basic WP policy, and important to follow especially on potentially controversial articles like this. This is also a case where the article talk page is the best location for discussing. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- You’re welcome, I just wanted to clear this up in case it was a misunderstanding. You’re right that I should have discussed it on the talk page though, I will bring up the subject there. Firekong1 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Reverts
Hello, I saw you reverted my edit on Erling Haaland due to a source issue. The source I gave is a tabloid and I didn't recognize that, but instead of reverting the edit and information, surely it is more beneficial if you can look it up and insert a different source? I am not trying to criticize your revert(because it is correct according to the rules), but I just hope that this doesn't happen again. CS012831 (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Your request
I just don't have the time or energy right now, I suggest go to ANI. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Technical news
- Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
- A '
Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.
Religion and Ethnicity. I think I understand what you mean
Hi @TylerBurden! I know we have gone over this topic a lot, but when you removed Religion from the InfoEthnicBox, saying "What is the point of including this here?" I thought you meant that Religion information is Irrelevant to an ethnicity. But what I now think you meant was, "Let's have religion information somewhere else in the article rather than the infobox", am I right, or at least do I have the right idea? Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Servite et contribuere Basically, yes, since there is usually more nuance to an ethnicity and religion than can be summed up in a few words, a location like a section on religion is more appropriate. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- TylerBurden Just to be clear before I tell you this, this is Not a request for mental health support, but I have Autism and ADHD; and that might be why when you said: "What is the point of including this here?" (When removing religion from the InfoBox), I didn't quite understand what you actually meant at first, (I don't understand what people say sometimes, and I Initially thought you meant was that the religion information is totally irrelevant). Now I get what you actually meant, it's not that religion stats are irrelevant, your point was just that rather than using the infobox, it's better to sum it up in some words to give further description, such as when that became the main (Or possibly only legal) religion in the homeland (Meaning where they are Indigenous to/Where their ancestors came from, like Norwegians from Norway) of those people, And I honestly think it is a good point, some ethnicities and nationalities are more difficult than others. I also do strongly agree that terms like Majority and Minority are oversimplified. Like for Norwegians, there is a good description on the religion status that is not in the InfoBox, even though the sentence is actually quite simple, but gives more of a description than the InfoBox. I would advise against removing infobox status that has percentage numbers, as that actually does provide official numbers. But I get your point, and it is a great point, giving a further description can give readers further information for questions readers might have like: "Why did that become the prominent (Or only legal) religion?" "When did it happen?" "Who was behind it?" "Was it mainly done by the monarch (Or leader)?" "Was there a successful movement?" "Is it still the prominent religion among those people?" "And if it has, when did it Start declining?" "Where is the diaspora (Of whatever ethnicity it is an article on) most and least religious?" "How does the religious beliefs of the diaspora (Of whatever ethnicity it is an article on) differ by country?". An actual description in a religion section can give people those answers. I totally get your point. If some of these were points raised by me, please let me know. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- @TylerBurden I am glad you only took a break. I hope you are doing well. Anyways, I admit we have gone over this so many times, but I totally get your idea with Religion and Ethnicity InfoBox. Honestly, with no intention to cause any disrespect, I honestly think the words in two of your edit summaries: "What is the point of including this here?" Might not get your intended message out that it oversimplifies things. I try my best to say precisely what I mean in pretty much all edit summaries, to make sure that as many users as possible understand me. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Servite et contribuere I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I meant, I could have been more clear in my summary. But I'm glad that we seem to be on the same page now. TylerBurden (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- TylerBurden Glad we now are on the same page. Also, some ethnicities and the religious beliefs are more complicated than others, however, on simple Wikipedia, the oversimplification of an article about Finnish Americans is OK, because Simple Wikipedia is meant to be, well simple. But on the simple Wikipedia, an article on American does't even have religion in the InfoBox which signals that it is one of the most complicated in the world for Ethnicities/Nationalities. If a Simple Wikipedia article doesn't have religion in InfoBox, then it is likely too complicated, even for the Simple Wikipedia. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Servite et contribuere I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I meant, I could have been more clear in my summary. But I'm glad that we seem to be on the same page now. TylerBurden (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Sources and their places in a text
If a fact is sourced, the source is put in a note ending the sentence. If there is another source for some other fact, this should not be put in a parenthesis in the other sentence, but should better be put in a new sentence after the other sentence. That is what I have done in the article on suecophile. If you revert it again, you are violating the rules of academic sourcing, which is not what an encyclopedia should do. Your way of arranging the text is not good for the credibility of Wikipedia. Tara M. Lee (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Norwegian Canadians
Hi @TylerBurden,
Just wanted to clarify that the Norwegian Canadians map wasn't actually original research. I've updated the file to include a source, which is the 2021 Canadian Census; I can see how it came across as OR. Thanks for your vigilance.
Thiqq (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
- A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
- A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.
Technical news
- A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
- Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378
Miscellaneous
- The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.
Mariupol picture
If you look at the file description - the source is Tula Oblast. Is that picture from a reliable source? It could be fake. Alaney2k (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Alaney2k It seems like the original source is the "press center of the government of the Tula region", so likely the image started being circulated by this "press center", which is probably not a reliable source no. Even so, I doubt the image is fake, though probably part of Russian propaganda attempting to boast about rebuilding the city. It certainly does point a rosy post-invasion visual image, when in reality it doesn't seem to be so simple, per for example this source. TylerBurden (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Miscellaneous
- Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.
Edit warring on "Flag of Sweden"
Hi, please refrain from engaging in edit warring on Flag of Sweden. Multiple reverts without consensus can lead to blocks. Instead, please discuss your changes on the article's talk page per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you. Noobcrafting (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- You were the one that made a bold edit, and opted not to discuss when it was reverted, so I'm not sure why they're the one who needs to hear this. Remsense ‥ 论 20:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
April 2025
Your edit to Russian hybrid warfare 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) 12:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)