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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk)
23:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)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)
Decline reason:
As per below. Yamla ( talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲 水 09:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk)
23:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)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)
Decline reason:
As per below. Yamla ( talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲 水 09:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)