Jump to content

User talk:Tympanus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

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:

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]

Information icon 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

[edit]

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]

Stop icon
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]
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:

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

[edit]

Information icon 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?

[edit]

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]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for almost three years now. Yes, it is true that I committed a very bad transgression that should never have happened and that I still do regret so much. I have understood my blocked status, and I have accepted that Wikipedia could not take any other action against users who threaten an editing war instead of a fair discussion about different views. I did apologise for that and I do apologise for it again now. I was under enormous psychological pressure at the time, caused by the awful dying of my parents and, only a short time later, the sudden death of my beloved wife. So I can only say that I should not have written on those days of January 2020 when I was feeling particularly very bad. I know that my personal strokes of fate cannot be undone, but I have found a way to deal with it mentally in new surroundings with professional support – please allow me to add this very personal statement. Back to the subject, I had enough opportunity to think about my misbehaviour in the English Wikipedia and to learn from it by reading many discussions, especially in the last 6 month. I have now internalised Wikipedia's Five Pillars, which I had not considered necessary before, unfortunately. And I have understood that Wikipedia will only have a future-proof foundation with each of these pillars. I now feel prepared to stand up for these pillars in good faith and with objective fairness. As I already noted on my user page (now deleted), I would like to improve articles on ancient European history, and I would also like to contribute with actual biographical information to articles about scholars who are or should be now retrievable in the English Wikipedia in case of being unblocked. Tympanus (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I'm inclined to give a second chance based on the discussion below this request. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query: do you still intend to promote the theories of Rolf Badenhausen and what is your relationship to him? One of the reasons for your block before was a potential undisclosed WP:COI - if you are not Badenhausen yourself, as you claim, you have certainly been in contact with him (by your own admission) and appear to live near him.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:COI it is to be noted that my last personal meeting and conversation with Badenhausen was on 28 July this year. On this day he gave a lecture at the colloquium of the Nibelungengesellschaft Worms e.V., where I was accredited and where he reviewed some opinions of Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg very critically. I do not think and never thought that Badenhausen can be attributed own theses, rather he does not contradict the basic views of the older German philologists about the Thidrekssaga and Dietrich von Bern, such as Simrock, Mone, Müllenhoff and others. As Badenhausen let me know on the sidelines of this colloquium, he intends to emigrate to the USA in the course of 2023, where one of his cousins has offered him a residence on Long Island, New York state. (I will certainly not follow him there, as my family roots are in England and Germany). On October of this year it was published that he has been appointed to the Board of Directors of Dietrich von Bern-Forum Association and that he intends to continue publishing from this forum. Also because of this I do not see any reason at present to make edits on Badenhausen. And if they should be made in the future, as I can assure you, they would be in accordance with all WP rules. --Tympanus (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tympanus, thanks for answering Ermenrich's question above. I read the ANI thread that led to your block, and I am concerned with the threats you made at that time to start an edit war. As such, please answer the following questions in order for your unblock request to be considered:
  1. What is an edit war (as defined on Wikipedia) and why does Wikipedia seek to prevent these on our site?
  2. What is a conflict of interest (as defined by Wikipedia) and what should editors do if they have a conflict of interest with an article?
  3. If unblocked, what articles would you like to edit, and what would your edits be? Specific examples are helpful. Please note that since your block concerned the Badenhausen article, it is highly unlikely that you will be unblocked to edit that article or others connected to Badenhausen.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message, Z1720, to which I like to refer as follows:
  1. An edit war is when two or more users take turns reverting or mostly overwriting other users' changes of an article. The reasons for this are mostly significantly different or extremely controversial views about its content. But we have countermeasures to avoid edit warring. In this regard, we should definitely pay attention to the three-revert-rule, whose violation is usually considered as edit warring. Thus, the most effective remedy against a developing edit war is to seek consensus on the article's discussion page.
  2. In Wikipedia, a conflict of interest exists when an author/editor has a personal relationship with the subject of an article that makes it difficult for him to take a neutral point of view. For instance, if he is writing about himself, a close relative or friend, his own works, or the association or company to which he belongs. A conflict of interest already exists if he references one of his own documents, e.g. publications, in an article. In all these cases, the author/editor should not edit an article in which he is involved.
  3. I would like to supplement articles about scholars and scientists with current biographical information. I have - IMHO – a broad knowledge of older European history and its cultural history, and there is much I have never written about elsewhere and could now contribute to Wikipedia. It is obvious after all that I am not entitled to write about Badenhausen, nor I had intended to do so. Furthermore, I will refrain from editing existing articles at hand of Badenhausen as long as I have any personal or common philological relations to or with him.
Greetings --Tympanus (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many unnecessary controversies and reversals in Wikipedia could certainly be avoided if its editors would adhere to the very essential principle which I quote and translate below from the German Wikipedia. Even there, unfortunately, it is not always observed! Especially the second sentence is very important, because even in reliable sources there are controversial opinions about specific contexts! In these often not easy to handle cases only a clarification on the discussion page helps. As far as I can see, Wikipedia has editors who are familiar with such problems, including Ermenrich, who, like many others (!), acts in an exemplary manner with sound competence in specific fields, such as esp. ancient history and literary studies.

Grundsätzlich beruhen Artikel in der Wikipedia auf überprüfbaren Aussagen. Überprüfbar ist, was mithilfe verlässlicher Informationsquellen belegt werden kann. Ob Aussagen wahr sind oder nicht, ist – insbesondere in umstrittenen Fällen – nicht in der Wikipedia zu klären.

Generally, articles in Wikipedia must be based on verifiable statements. Verifiable is what can be proven with the help of reliable sources of information. Whether statements are true or not - especially in controversial cases - cannot be clarified in Wikipedia.--Tympanus (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to proceed with my request to unblock me. I would very much like to continue editing in the English Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention.--Tympanus (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request was accepted in January 2023.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ermenrich, thank you for this! Sorry, I obviously overlooked it. Tympanus (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tympanus&oldid=1247015408"