FeldmarschallGneisenau

My Talk page

About title case

Hey, the general Wikipedia policy is that unmodified job titles, as proper nouns, are capitalized. (per MOS:JOB).

There was recently a relevant talk over at Talk:Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz#Capitalization for titles that goes a bit more in-depth about the subject, if you'd like to have a look. If you want to seek a new consensus, however, please do so on the article's talk page first.

Thank you! Max19582 (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The manual of style isn't Wikipedia Policy. Just a guideline. It doesn't look good when the title is capitalized, it's distracting there in the lede FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's MoS is a generally accepted standard (exceptions do apply, but whether something looks good or not is pretty subjective). If you'd like to seek a new consensus, please bring it to the talk page. Thanks a lot! Max19582 (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Uh... it's you who's changing the consensus of prime minister not being capitalized in the opening sentence of the article. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Max19582 (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TylerBurden (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in 2007 Polish parliamentary election, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. 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. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @CanonNi could you specify which message toward which user you're referring to? My suspicion that Zenomonoz is engaged in whitewashing? That wasn't meant as an attack but as a suspicion of breaking WP, see WP:NOTADVOCACY.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You replied to NicolausPrime's second message with "Idk why you would brag about failure. Despicable well-poisoning." '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear @CanonNi, that was a reply to NicolausPrime's message and I called the well-poisoning attempt despicable, not him as a person. It's a clear well-poisoning attempt and unrelated to the topic at hand.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @NicolausPrime, could you join this discussion? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I posted that link in the WP:ANEW thread because there was significant circumstantial evidence there from me and two other users that FeldmarschallGneisenau may be engaging in sockpuppetry. I think this is a helpful thing to do, as it may help WP:ANEW patrolling admins to investigate in own capacity, who otherwise might haven't found it.

If other editors believe that this is not the right thing to do, e.g. because it constitutes inappropriate poisoning the well, and perhaps that I should have immediately opened a new SPI investigation instead, please let me know so that I can improve. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the user knew exactly what you meant, given their history of trollish comments on talk pages. Definitely WP:NOTHERE. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz "Trollish," that is completely subjective, and a meaningless accusation. I can assure you I am not trolling, I'm simply doing my Wikipedian job in a good-faith manner. See WP:AGF.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. You have already been blocked from editing Lex Fridman for 72 hours. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I accept that. There's a discussion going on whether public records published by the Government are reliable or not. I do not contend the admin's decision.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based upon secondary sources. A random govt document that mentions his birth name in a small section is a primary source. Learn the difference. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'm not even sure it's a primary source, like, it's not a birth certificate. I don't get what you're fighting over. That the Government, saying with certainty about him "PODCASTER LEX FRIDMAN. (BORN: ALEXEI FEDOTOV AUGUST 15, 1983. IN CHKALOVSK, RUSSIA;" is lying? I don't get your point. Seems authoritative enough and reliable to me.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY states "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." (bolding mine). A FOIA document present on a governmental website is a public document. Therefore, the BLP policy prohibits using FOIA documents in any biography of a living person, including Lex Fridman.

Being reliable and being secondary are different things, and neither implies the other. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a debatable assertion of personal characteristics though, just straightforward basic facts like birth name and birth place. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The BLP policy trumps general policies, as it covers a specific, narrower set of pages. Also note that WP:BLPPRIMARY further states "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.", which seems to cover this case too, as legal/birth name is very much a personal detail. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's the Honorable Administrator's input: To wit, under WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This seems compatible with using government documents (which again, are not always primary sources) to support the subject's birth date and place as that can easily be verified by looking at those documents. In fact it might not even be a primary source - it's not a birth certificate.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Except no government has confirmed his birth name here. The paragraph in the document is a request SUBMITTED by Julia Black (look at the actual titles on the columns, it says "REQUESTER"). Zenomonoz (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a request for more in-depth information on this individual born as Alexei Fedotov in Chkalovsk.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Julia Black wrote the paragraph. She is a journalist. She does not work for the DNI or the United States government, so we have no reliable independent source on birth name here. Sorry. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like administrator changed his mind. The argument is over. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

However, the Daily Beast is RS though, no? I'll check if Julia Black wrote an article on him then.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No, not really. WP:DAILYBEAST says there's no consensus on whether it's reliable: Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Beast doesn't mention this alleged birth name. I suspect that the user we are dealing with is a troll who is WP:NOTHERE and intentionally trying to waste editor time. Note that they also made troll comments to another user documented here... Zenomonoz (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am simply new to Wikipedia. You are not being nice right now, however, if you feel irritated, you are free to vacate yourself of this discussion. You do not have an obligation to be on my Talk page. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking other editors. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

???... Ok, I guess? FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Urabura. Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Lex Fridman

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lex Fridman, you may be blocked from editing. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2024 (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:FeldmarschallGneisenau reported by User:Zenomonoz (Result: ). Thank you. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Lex Fridman for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I accept it. I do not contend Your decision. There's a discussion whether public records published by the Government are reliable or not.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)