Talk:Ragnar Lodbrok

message: a fringe opinion of one woman does not constitute a new precedent in academia. His children, for example, didn't sprout out of the ground.. their father isn't "supposed".   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truculentt (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ragnar is a legendary chracter who may have had those sons. Pls don't try to make him a person of history! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep WP:BRD in mind. When changing an article from a long-standing version, if you get reverted you should not restore your preferred version again but rather discuss, as is now happening, here on the talk page. I’m not sure where I stand on this editorially but I do know that edit warring is not how we resolve editorial disputes. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Going through the page and talk history, it doesn't look like we resolve disputes at all. It looks like some mods and admins just hard-nose their unfounded bias because reasons. Only on Wikipedia does ambiguity exist about the person in question. Truculentt (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and nonsense

message: That's a hoax, right? Veery funny. However, I'm not sure what the sentence was before that (on mobile), so can pls someone undo that? Right in the introduction. Mike F2 Mike F (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: General Ization Talk   03:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim? 

message: I posted this elsewhere but i will now post it here. SergeWoodzing has removed succession from all the prehistoric kings just with no real reasoning. He takes the highhorse position and says he has the authority to to do so and doesn't elaborate as to why, just that it "is silly". 
By that logic literally all the other legendary kings of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark would have to be edited as well as ALL legendary kings of Europe, good luck getting that done. Eysteinn Beli and so forth all have this form of succession. It's just to provide a easier understanding of the supposed timeline. Henceforth why it says "legendary title". Not normal kingship. This is incredibly petty and silly. There was kings in Scandinavia long before it there were united countries, it almost feels like you're trying to erase that fact.
SergeWoodzing's fixation on trying to remove the concept of succession from the protohistoric discussion just isn't right. I have stated that there is a difference between normal kingship and legendary such. The ones that are featured on the pages where we have collided are not as part of the normal Swedish monarch tradition of succession as it's clearly shown to be part of the "legendary" prehistoric discussion hence why it's called "legendary title" when it comes to succession. By your logic you would literally have to go to every single legendary monarch page in Europe and remove all forms of succession from the legendary discussion.
You cannot shape the narrative of history just because you don't like it, that has nothing to do with warring. Stating that it would be warring is just trying to prevent other people from getting their opinions as to yours into the discussion. There was always a form of succession to these pages before you came along and no offense I'm not sure what your motive is as you aren't exactly elaborating. I won't undo what you've done further since i know you'll just throw a fit and i don't hate time for that, life is too short and Wikipedia is Wikipedia. Next time try to raise the discussion to a bit higher level instead of just getting mad and crying about me "warring" when you don't get as you want. It's childish and immature. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To other users: This has been copied and pasted at 4 different discussions. See Talk:Sigurd Ring#In favor of "succession". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: In favor of "succession"

message: There wasn't a Holy Roman Empire before the 12th century! Frederic I. Barbarossa was the first ruler, who named his empire to be 'holy' because he struggled for supremacy over the papal demands for worldly power. 
Ragnar raided parts of the Frankish realms (or western parts of the Frankish Empire).2A02:8071:2CD1:4200:952A:B642:60DC:6C94 (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Roman Empire? 

message: I just rolled back 2 new unsourced edits where Ragnar was portrayed in a definite manner. Writing to editor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And I just restored the stable version, because such claims need strong sourcing. TylerBurden (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Rollback