User talk:Factscount46

June 2022

Your recent editing history at Nuremberg Laws shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The information provided on the page Nuremberg Laws are necessary to put the statements that appeared in the original version in perspective. As it was stated, it implies that the boycott of Jewish businesses and the removal of Jewish professionals from certain positions were made out of racial bias. The information I provided shows that these actions were taken in response to a call by world Jewry to boycott German goods that was called for as early as March 21, 1933. I have quoted two sources to back up this claim, one from the New York Times of March 21, 1933 on Page 10 and the front page of the British Daily Express of March 24, 1933, both preceding the boycott of Jewish businesses by more than a week. Unless the author (perhaps Diannaa) has a vested interest in distorting history, the changes I made should be allowed to stand as they represent facts, not fiction and are easily verifiable. I have a number of other articles I can reference in relation to this from the New York Times but I am getting the distinct impression that historical facts do not carry weight here which is a rather disappointing observation I am having to make when it comes to the accuracy of Wikipedia content. Factscount46 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You have made no effort to use the article talkpage to gain consensus for your edits, and reverted to your preferred version immediately after being warned for edit-warring. That is bright-line disruptive behavior, regardless of any possible merits of your edits. I issued a site block for that reason. I am willing to change that to a partial block from only that article to allow you to use the article talkpage now that we have your attention, provided you discuss your edits with appropriate regard for other editors. Acroterion (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I later discovered that you copied the content from the article 1933 anti-Nazi boycott. Here's where talk page discussion would have helped; because that article discusses the impact of the boycott on Hitler's actions and has full citations to the newspaper articles you were attempting to cite, it answers my main objections, which were that your sources were uncheckable and the content was off-topic. During your block, please consider taking the time learn more about how to effectively participate in Wikipedia editing, particularly how to properly cite your sources and how to effectively communicate with other users (hint: edit warring is not a good substitute for talk page discussion). Wikipedia is a big and complicated place, so a little preparation is desirable before jumping in. Here's a good place to start: Help:Introduction. — Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all let me say that I added the text to Nuremberg Laws more than once because after I added the appropriate context to the out of context claims made in the original story, when I checked shortly after I noticed that the changes were not there so I inserted them again in the assumption that something had gone wrong with my submission. Also, I actually did not copy the content from the 1933 anti-Nazi boycott page. My sources for the added context were, as I indicated, the New York Times of March 21, 1933 page 10 and others up to April 1st, and the Daily Express of March 24, 1933, front page. I spent a year researching the NYT archives in relation to this topic and found several articles dealing with the same topic. I was not even aware of the source you mentioned which b.t.w., in itself, is incomplete, not factual and out of context, which I also intend to remedy. The point is that my changes were factual, verifiable (although it requires a subscription) and from a reliable source. The picture I added of the cover of the Daily Express newspaper's front page to illustrate my point was rejected for "copyright" reasons. Not only is this image in the public domain, I believe it to constitute ‘fair use’ of any copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

I also took exception to the phrase earlier in the story that stated that the Nazis "seized power". In fact, they did not. Hitler was offered the position of Reichs Chancellor (Reichskanzler) by President von Hindenburg. I noticed that the story now says "After Hitler rose to power" which is correct. Unfortunately under subsection Nazi Germany, it still states "after the Nazis seized power" which should also read "after the Nazis came to power" or "rose to power".

Not sure where to go from here. I took your advice to look at the Help section to see how to source the newspapers in question and will add that to the edit but I would like to have my text re-instated in order to make the story factual. Perhaps you care to tell me what comes next. Factscount46 (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have already re-added the content yesterday, and improved the citations. Diff of Nuremberg Laws. In the future, if you could provide full details of your citations, that would be perfect. The main thing missing in this case was the titles of the articles and (where available) the author's names.

A newspaper from 1933 likely still enjoys copyright protection. An admin at the Commons will have a look and decide what to do. Fair use images are not accepted at the Commons. — Diannaa (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I've unblocked in view of this discussion, and have not partial-blocked from the article in question. Please be careful of copyright, and except in the most exceptional circumstances, don't rely on fair use. And in the future, please use the article talkpage to discuss when your edits are contested. Acroterion (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)