User talk:Wrolen

Welcome!

Hi Wrolen! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 08:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Trinity Southwest University, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Who defines fringe? Wrolen (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories Doug Weller talk 09:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

My revert

source says “promotional material for a variety of extremist groups and is run by Benjamin Moses, a recently elected district council member with neo-Nazi “Freie Sachsen” party.”Doug Weller talk 17:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The wording is contentious. It aligns Free Saxony with Neo-Nazism, which is not accurate. Wrolen (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, due weight should be given in that the lion's share of media outlets report Free Saxony as a "far right" party, not a neo-nazi party. Wrolen (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The German article aligns it in part with neo-Nazism. .Doug Weller talk 10:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I have added a source describing Free Saxony as a far right party.

I will add more sources that support this claim.

Thank you for your suggestion :) Wrolen (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

And the English one doesn't.

Neo Nazi carries a different cultural and linguistic meaning in German than in English. It does not follow to use a term in German that is not equivalent to the same meaning in English. Wrolen (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Tyler Oliveira, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This was accidental. I was in the middle of an edit and did not intend to remove the content entirely. Wrolen (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Nick Shirley. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Realtent (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain how I attacked other editors? Wrolen (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Your comments of "You are utterly incredulous." and "I hope you sleep well at night" are not appropriate. In Solidarity, realtent (have an issue? talk to me) 17:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 (2)

Regarding your view on the current consensus, what was meant by that comment was the same thing I have been telling you: when there is an edit conflict the consensus defaults to the condition of the page prior to that conflict and the page should be maintained in the pre-conflict version until consensus is achieved regarding the locus of the dispute. This is simply how discussions on Wikipedia regarding disputed content are supposed to work.

Furthermore you really should not feel the need to respond at length to every single other comment on a talk page. As they say in other corners of the web, when faced with a protracted edit dispute, go out and touch some grass. Because otherwise you will likely be seen as bludgeoning the conversation. This is disruptive because it delays the generation of a consensus through making the page effectively unreadable. I honestly couldn't follow the conversation on that page, at all, from a mobile device. There was simply too much back-and-forth. Please cool it a bit. Your perspective on that page is abundantly clear and will be considered as part of the consensus building process. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you and I will work to be less “aggressive” in the future. Wrolen (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

RfC Information

I saw there was some discussion about how to write an RfC. WP:RFC has information on writing RfC questions. It may also help to look at examples at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All, too. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 these are valuable resources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)