User talk:146.90.0.75

May 2023
Hello, I'm TylerBurden. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Northern Europe, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alfred the Great, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DDMS123 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at List of English monarchs, you may be blocked from editing. DDMS123 (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Battle of Carham. DDMS123 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I thought you should assume good faith? Where was the vandalism? Forgetting to add sources to correct information - and I can tell you have some odd bias, probably based on politics due to your ridiculous rage - isn't the same thing as "vandalising" an article. I take it you are referring to title of the English monarch? Also, where is the source that Alfred The Great's title was "King of The Anglo-Saxons"? Asser uses it - possibly, some scholars think it is a later forgery - in reference to Alfred but Alfred's coin says, "Rex Anglo" which ISN'T "King of The Anglo-Saxons" at all and is closer to "King of The English/Angles". The fact remains I changed a unsourced claim to another unsourced claim based on a correct translation.
 * Instead of accusing me of "[vandalizIng] Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information", you should have just sent a friendly reminder of something. The fact you want wikipedia to be factually incorrect and actually poorly sourced is revealing and probably highlights some bias. The Carham and English Kings articles are unsourced (or use low-quality sources) and filled with logical fallacies and misunderstanding; such as the bizarre view that the Earldom of Bamburgh wasn't counted as a part of England (which it was since the 1000s). 146.200.187.242 (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)