User talk:TylerBurden: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 1.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

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

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

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)[reply]

I understood from reading more about wikipedia and sources. I improved the sources and links. Theonlyruneyouknow (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding this edit summary,[1] 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".[2] Mhorg (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]