This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

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

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

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

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{ citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

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)

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)

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)