Elmenhorster

September 2022

Hello, I'm GizzyCatBella. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Lithuanian nobility that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GizzyCatBella🍁 06:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Lithuanian nobility. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. GizzyCatBella🍁 07:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Elmenhorster! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! GizzyCatBella🍁 13:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Mikhail Fridman‎

A reliable source reporting a claim made by an unreliable source does not make the claim reliably sourced. In this case, (according to Politico) the source of the identification is TASS, which is not considered reliable. Reliable sources have not reported this as fact, attributing the claim to TASS or using the vague "reportedly". This is not enough for to meet verifiability requirements for a biography of a living person. If/when identification is confirmed, there is little doubt mainstream sources will report it as such. Until then please do not re-add. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

TASS is not a deprecated source; it is reliable on some topics and not for others; judging which is which involves a lot of subjectivity.

My impression is that you have a vested interest in the subject (the article has a history of such editors). Not least because your reverts conveniently revert not only this reference but unfairly whitewash the intro of the article. I'll keep keeping an eye on this. Elmenhorster (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and Yahoo! News is a trusted source and does not quote TASS. Elmenhorster (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to continue this discussion, please do so on the Mikhail Fridman Talk page. Thanks. Elmenhorster (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page, but I'll elaborate here. You do not seem to be analysing the sources very well. Additionally, in this case Yahoo News is a re-publisher of content – the article in question was originally published by New Voice of Ukraine, and like TASS, NV's reliability is questionable. NV also attributes identification to unnamed sources. We need much, much better than this in order to make a concrete statement such as the one you repeatedly added to the lead (fwiw, it would be the same if he was being identified as a lottery winner). When claims are unreliable or questionable, which is the case here, we need to make that clear or at the very least retain attribution (i.e. explicitly state "according to NV sources and TASS") for the claim. This is especially important when it pertains to biographies of living persons. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heinrich Reuss‎. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please see WP:BURDEN and consult WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source, WP:DUE for why secondary sources are needed. JBL (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not engaged in an edit war on Heinrich Reuss. Burden of proof on why it should be excluded is on the person excluding referenced content that has long been there. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"Has long been there" the article is less than a week old!! JBL (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Meaning, then, from the very start of when the article came into existence. English is your acquired language? Elmenhorster (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

But also unsurprisingly you don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about; have you read WP:BURDEN or WP:3RR yet? Nevermind, hopefully you will just be blocked soon. JBL (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Your post here is in contravention of at least one Wikipedia policy.

Still waiting for you on Wiki admin noticeboard - you're too busy responding to what you yourself started? Elmenhorster (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Conduct continued

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Heinrich Reuss, you may be blocked from editing. On the Heinrich Reuss article, you removed referenced material identifying statements given by the article's subject as antisemitic and conspiratorial. Per WP:FRINGE, we absolutely do refer to such statements as conspiracy theories when reliable sourcing does so. Your removal of the referenced antisemitic material is outright vandalism. Review our policies on these statements. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No I did not. Could you be more specific?

You did not engage with the reasons why I suggested renaming the section is necessary - for clarity. As far as I understand, you object to section naming only?

I'll repost this on the article Talk page for all to see - I have 0 interest in engaging with you in private. Elmenhorster (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Respond here rather than pestering the poor folks that have that talk page in their watchlist. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

We are already talking on the article's Talk page. I will not talk to insulting users like you or JBL in private. Public attention is necessary, mediation desirable.

Following this clarification I will consider any posting here by you or JBL for what it really is - intimidation and strong-arm tactics. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You accuse me of being non-specific with my warning when I explicitly appended a description of the conduct that earned you the warning and a link to the particular policies involved. You are a repeat violator of the very simple policies against edit-warring, been uncivil in discussion with me and others, and impatient to boot. You have violated multiple policies. If enforcing decade-old policies is "strong-arm" "intimidation" to you, you're clearly WP:NOTHERE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Presumably we can tag WP:LOGOUT too, with this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Elmenhorster reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: ). Thank you. JBL (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Lovely, I've responded there. Happy to engage on this topic. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.JBL (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Heinrich Reuss

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

firefly ( t · c ) 16:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)