User talk:DerAnsager

Welcome!

Hello, DerAnsager, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Markus Gabriel, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! reddogsix (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Markus Gabriel

The article Markus Gabriel has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Gabriel

This is a quick note to explain why the edits to Markus Gabriel's page are terribly inappropriate by Wikipedia standards. We have particular concern that we show for writing about living people. You can find more information here at WP:BLP, but basically, if we want to make statements that reflect negatively on a living person, we must have independent, reliable sources. I am only seeing sources on this issue that were written by his accuser, Vacariu. We have a specific guideline that cautions against the use of self-published sources.

Further, the more incredible a person's claims, the stronger the sources should be. Vacariu has apparently brought plagiarism-related concerns against at least five people. I don't know of any other case in academia where such a large-scale effort would have been undertaken to plagiarize the work of one man. Still, nothing about this staggering sequence of events appears in any reliable source. We would be foolish if we did not question this lack of significant coverage. I feel like it's a little silly to have to explain this to anyone involved in academia. Do you understand why it's so important for you to delete these assertions right away? EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns about statements which can discredit a living person and I firmly support the Wikipedia standards, nevertheless I believe we should neutrally report the facts. You are right, if only he had made an accusation without a factual basis, we shouldn't report that. But when an Ombudsman react to the accusations, and an investigation occurse based on the statements, we should at least mention that, without taking sides. --DerAnsager (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has determined that the use of independent, non-primary sources is the best way to neutrally report the facts. None of the three sources are independent (two are self-published by the person in the dispute and one is from the university involved in it). There is no significant third-party coverage of this episode, so the info stays out.

If you are still not understanding the links/WP guidelines above, I would at least appeal to your sense of decency: Two parties really stand to get hurt by covering this information - Gabriel and Vacariu. (It would be unfair to mention this allegation against Gabriel without adding the context of the allegations against his other colleagues. If people read all of the allegations thrown out there by Vacariu, there is a real risk that they will find him to be psychologically unwell.) By leaving this info out, there is no risk of damage to either party. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Gabriel and Vacariu are relevant enough in the contemporary philosophical discourse to recieve a third-party coverage about a plagirism issue, and let's say some philosophical paper would discuss this, what would be their sources? Gabriel and Vacariu (and probably the University of Bonn) so they could just report in the same manner. One says this, the other says this.

I tried to formulate as objective as I can, I don't take sides on this issue and just btw, it's very mean to say a person is "psychologically unwell", we don't know him and as I read his paper, these EDWs really are almost identical with Gabriels Ideas. Did Gabriel plagiarised him? We don't know. So let's just leave it there and let the reader decide. DerAnsager (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary reliable sources are required for mentioning any negative claims about a person; that no secondary reliable source has covered the allegations means we cannot include them.

Yes, "one says this, the other says this," but that's not the baseline for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Anyone can say anything about anybody; if no secondary source finds Vacariu's claims meaningful or important enough to discuss, that means those claims are not suitable to include in Gabriel's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation of the ombudsman is the secondary reliable source DerAnsager (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, a personal letter is not a secondary reliable source. Please read our guideline on identifying reliable sources to understand what is and is not a secondary reliable source. What I'm talking about are independent third-party publications such as academic journals, newspapers, magazines, journalistic television programs, peer-reviewed articles, etc. Those are what we base our articles upon.

I have reverted your edits, and if you persist in attempting to insert unreliably-sourced negative claims about a living person, I will have to request that you be topic-banned from the page. We do not include unsupported, unsourced claims about people in Wikipedia biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is a document from an independet source. On Wikipedia, you don't have to use sources such as newspapers and magazines.

What counts as a reliable source [...] The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.DerAnsager (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A personal letter is not a third-party published source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal letter it is a result of an investigation by an institutionDerAnsager (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to not understand our sourcing policies. If you revert again, I will be requesting a block or topic ban - you are tendentously pushing negative poorly-sourced claims about a living person in contravention of policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the policy and cited it, please go on and request a topic ban. DerAnsager (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Markus Gabriel, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your interest here seems to be very limited. You have been reverted, and reasons were given; I have protected the article from further disruption. For now, pending a case brought by another editor, I am warning you that you might be blocked (indefinitely) for edit warring, BLP violations, and a general tendency to only be here to defame the subject of a BLP. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My main account is that on the german wiki and there I've created many articels on several topics. I just translated the german artical on Markus Gabriel to share it with the international audience.

I will soon write a statement about the topic block request --DerAnsager (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions request

I have unfortunately had to open an arbitration enforcement request here. You are invited to comment and discuss your actions related to the page in question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at WP:AE. This is a conventional admin action, not an AE action, so you can use the {{unblock}} template to ask for review. The problem with your edits was that they were defamatory about a living person, Markus Gabriel, and by our standards they were badly sourced. It appeared to the admins that your main purpose for being on the English Wikipedia was to add this negative material to Gabriel's article. Our policy on WP:Biographies of living persons sets a standard for what is allowed to go in these articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]