User talk:Tympanus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:25, 1 April 2021

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 19:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Notice of my post of 20 January 2020 15:50 (UTC), as removed because of my blocked status at the wikipedia:teahouse#Citations_referring_to_WP:nor(…)

Blocked as an upcoming warlord, but I am not, never was, never will be, I can only reply without my user account. Ermenrich provided no evidence for his allegation that the DER BERNER is a self-publishing magazine. Rather, I received reliable information that all submitted manuscripts are subject to the editorship's evaluation for publication. Turning to the "Kommentierte Bibliografie (1945-2010)", Ermenrich's allegation is not relevant because the editorship underlines unmistakably rather the popular significance of Ritter-Schaumburg. His two best-selling books were published by Herbig, now Langen-Müller Verlag, which is accordingly known to be a non-academic publisher! It is obvious that Ritter-S. has been widely introduced by Badenhausen, albeit with some rather tentative criticism, as this can be seen in his publications. Neither his books nor his articles allow a fringe status in this matter. Furthermore, I vigorously reject Ermenrich's assumption that I could be identical with him. As already posted elsewhere here in the English wiki, I am a historian (with a past in the UK). Since 2018 my residence is in a city about 7 miles from Badenhausen's German home town.

Tympanus (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block issued following ANI thread; threats of edit warring by proxy; obvious attempts at promotion of the website of a Badenhausen. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tympanus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I declared at User talk:Ermenrich, I rather prefer a dialogue for the article's subject "Badenhausen" to avoid a potential edit war. Moreover, as being implicated, I am not responsible for actions that other users have planned or proposed to me. As I stated at wikipedia:teahouse, I vigorously reject assumption that I could be identical with him. As already posted elsewhere here in the English wiki, I am a historian (with a past in the UK). Since (end of 2018) my residence is in a city about 7 miles from Badenhausen's German home town. Tympanus (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below. Yamla (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were blocked specifically for this statement: I am prepared to start an edit war in order to get a decision from wiki authority. (However, I would not appear in this war, because I have enough students who would be ready for this job.). Fortunately, thanks to your efforts the page has been proactively protected and presumably added to many watchlists (such as my own) to address any future follow-through on that threat. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tympanus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Meanwhile, I have told all my students to think never of an edit war in order to urge decision. Besides, in case of an apparent discrimination, I should have a chance for my reply at the current topic that I initiated at Wikipedia:teahouse. Tympanus (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tympanus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request again to unblock me: I have accepted the reason (as quoted below) I have been blocked for, and I will respect all the rules and policies of wikipedia in order to improve it with useful information. Reason for block is/was my statement that I was prepared to start an edit war in order to get a decision from wiki authority. I do apologise for this! Tympanus (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Apart from apologising for your openly avowed intention of edit-warring for the purpose of deliberately causing disruption in order to force others to do what you want, you have given no indication that you intend to edit differently from before. On the contrary, your comments below strongly suggest that you do intend to continue as before. JBW (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block evasion is generally a bad idea. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted to read that you will respect all the policies of Wikipedia. Since that means that you will accept Wikipedia's policy on consensus, you will no longer be trying to get your way on the one issue which has been the focus of your editing, where consensus is unambiguously against you. Since you won't be continuing with that, what constructive editing within Wikipedia policy do you expect to do? JBW (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, JBW. As you can check my edits of the German article of Þiðreks saga, I improved it from originally 57 k to 157 k. In doing this I was neither reverted nor significantly corrected (!). Besides, as to other articles and (for instance) in contrast to user:Ermenrich, I was never involved in an factual edit war! The English version appears improvable to me and so I intend to edit also this article. Thank you again for your attention: May I post you for administrative questions I possibly would be faced with in editing the English wp?--Tympanus (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge the reviewing admin, JBW to keep in mind that Tympanus's stated goal is to use the website of an electrical engineer (to wit, [1]) as though he were an expert on a medieval myth, just because he wrote two books that are negatively mentioned in a comprehensive bibliography. In other words, he not only intends to violate wp:fringe, but also wp:weight by pushing this view as though it were a position in mainstream scholarship. I urge you not to accept his unblock request. wp:PROFRINGE is against Wikipedia policy and Tympanus has shown no sign of understanding this.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This interject is absurd, see my previous post: As you can check my edits of the German article of Þiðreks saga, I improved it from originally 57 k to 157 k. In doing this I was neither reverted nor significantly corrected (!). Thus, my referenced improvements have nothing to do with Badenhausen. Check also, for instance, my edits of the German article Dietrich von Bern. There is no detail that allows to combine it with Badenhausen! --Tympanus (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Tympanus. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. JBW (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for this. I will be editing here independently, thus according to my own conviction, and based on my knowledge and experience as a historian who feels able to recognise other persons of other profession and/or their works for a wiki relevance. In so far I do not follow a third-party interest. --Tympanus (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't paid any attention to the disputed sources, but one thing I must point out is that on the English Wikipedia you are not allowed to use your "knowledge and experience as a historian who feels able to recognise other persons of other profession and/or their works for a wiki relevance" to decide, through your own analysis, what counts as a reliable source or appropriate weighting of opinions. It often seems strange to newcomers that expert editors' own analysis is not wanted in Wikipedia articles, but for an encyclopedia that's the way we need to do it. A Wikipedia article must present the balance of mainstream reliable sources (as defined at WP:RS) regardless of an expert editor's own opinions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for this important clarification I will definitely bear in mind. As I understand, actually, an import item even for any historian who turns to legendary or semi-legendary epics.--Tympanus (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being blocked forever?

Is there anything I can do to get unblocked? (You may refer to my edits in German Wikipedia for my reputation ...)--Tympanus (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on the German wiki are not really relevant here. There's an unresolved COI here, as is clear also from this article--whose existence, by the way, makes it even more unlikely that someone here will accept your unblock request. Let me make this clear: that sourcing (and I mean that website, and this material is not acceptable here per [WP:RS]]. Peer-reviewed material only. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words.

Regarding purpose and context of all my edits of the last two years in the German and English Wikipedia, I see no COI with the person you indicate.

As long as this talk page exists, I feel free to propose here improvements for WP articles.

Thidreks saga:

I think that this article still deserves some additions and should therefore also be supplemented with basic geographical information. At least, for example, with the localisation of the saga's Hunnic territory according to William J. Pfaff, as this is also shared by e.g. Reinhard Wenskus and Otto Höfler. Incidentally, Pfaff and remarkable German academia, albeit mostly from the 19th century, do not disregard Thidrek's seat Verona 'cisalpina' (i.e. Bonn on the Rhine). 29./30. March 2021

Ian N. Wood:

Regarding his significant academic achievement, the article should be supplemented with this bibliographic link that encompasses his 260 publications till 2019:

http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/autoren.php?name=Wood%2C+Ian+N..

The meaning of the middle initial (see Talk), as displayed on his German site, is right.--Tympanus (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 ::[[Ian N. Wood]]:
 ::Regarding his significant academic achievement, the article should be supplemented with this bibliographic link that encompasses his 260 publications till 2019:
-::http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/autoren.php?name=Wood%2C+Ian+N.
+::http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/autoren.php?name=Wood%2C+Ian+N..
 ::The meaning of the middle initial (see [[Talk:Ian_N._Wood|Talk]]), as displayed on his German site, is right.--[[User:Tympanus|Tympanus]] ([[User talk:Tympanus#top|talk]]) 15:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)