Misplaced Pages

User talk:Elmenhorster: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:02, 12 December 2022 editWjemather (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers51,229 editsm Mikhail Fridman‎← Previous edit Revision as of 22:41, 12 December 2022 edit undoJayBeeEll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers28,209 edits Warning: Edit warring on Heinrich Reuss‎.Tag: TwinkleNext edit →
Line 82: Line 82:
::If you would like to continue this discussion, please do so on the Mikhail Fridman Talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 17:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC) ::If you would like to continue this discussion, please do so on the Mikhail Fridman Talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 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 ]. <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:02, 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 ]. <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

== December 2022 ==

] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' ''Please see ] and consult ] for what constitutes a reliable source, ] for why secondary sources are needed.''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 22:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:41, 12 December 2022

September 2022

Information icon 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Information icon 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 Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

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 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 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)