User talk:Poundthiswriter

Welcome!

Hi Poundthiswriter! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the warm welcome mate! I already did a bit of digging figuring out the basics of wikipedia editing, but I really appreciate you reaching out, I love how welcoming this place is to newcomers and I certainly don't take it for granted. I hope you have a great day :D Poundthiswriter (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Dutch National Holocaust Museum, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have substantiated each and every claim with numerous sources. If you think npov is violated I invite you to consult the sources and provide me with substantiated research disproving information gathered from my sources, rather than threaten me with revocation of my editing privileges. Poundthiswriter (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Swatjester. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "Do not let your personal sympathies..."--sounds to me like you're calling someone a Nazi. Please don't do that. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling Swatj a nazi. I'm stating that personal sympathies for Heckler & Koch as a corporation may lead him to be hesitant to have such labels applied to the founders. But they are correct labels nonetheless, and my edits shouldn't be undone unless he has proven that my *sourced* proofs of their NSDAP-memberships are either forged or incorrect. I did not call Edmund Heckler a nazi for fun, I called him a nazi because he was a registered member of the NSDAP, simple as that. There was no political motivation in me calling Heckler a nazi, it is simply what he was. Poundthiswriter (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "personal sympathies for HK as a company", and I doubt that this is how others read it. At the very least it's a pretty serious violation of WP:AGF. Swatjester has suggested you seek the talk page and that sounds like good advice to me, and try to not make things personal there. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this sounds more like personal sympathies between long time editors rather than any grievances with my content. I am not "going against consensus" because there is absolutely no consensus here. I am going against the word of you and Swat, because your word is incorrect and I have substantiated that claim with numerous sources which you and swat have disregarded. What is there left for me to do if I have given you both proof and you instead dig your heels into the sand and tell me you're gonna block me from editing for "edit warring" when I am objectively correct in the situation? I have given you sources, I have given you explanations, I have given you links to actual German archives. In response I get "I don't like x" "I don't appreciate how y" "I don't understand z." If you do not have any CONTENT disagreement with me there is no point to this, and if you do have a CONTENT disagreement with me, I would like you to address the SOURCES that I have cited rather than "I don't like how you worded your reply to me, you seem like a meanie." I agree on taking it to the HK talk page, what I don't appreciate is you threatening to ban me from editing for "edit warring" in a situation where I am clearly in the right and have presented SOURCES as proof, and have gotten nothing but emotional responses in return, yet it is these emotional responses without sources that are being taken equally seriously because they're coming from a fellow senior editor. That's not how wikipedia should work. Poundthiswriter (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening? I don't know. I am telling you that your behavior, which includes a violation of AGF, edit warring, and personal attacks are going to lead to a block. And now apparently I have "personal sympathies" with Swatjester? That's even more attacks. No, I am not interested in your links or your evidence: I am here as an administrator, and I am here to look at your behavior. Content, that's for the talk page. If you want to consider this an "emotional response", that's fine; I consider that a silly rhetorical move, toxic even. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would've assume good faith if I believed Swat's remarks were made in good faith. As you are an Alabaman I am not sure if you'll know or recognise the seriousness of saying that me labeling Heckler as a nazi is "undue." The (West) German government has put a LOT of effort into "sanitising" it's arms industry and particularly the obvious nazi history. Questioning whether a card-carrying registered NSDAP-member is "really" a nazi is nothing shy of apologia-politics. Heckler was a nazi. There is no room for ambiguity there. If you are not interested in the content, on which my ENTIRE argument rests, I dont feel like I can trust you to judge this situation fairly. If somebody comes up to you and says "I believe the earth to be flat" and I have a strong negative reaction to that, but also substantiate it with the mountains of proof that the earth isn't flat, I don't think it's reasonable for someone to come in and say "well we're gonna undo all the things you wrote because this one guy feels like the earth should be flat and you were mean to him as you were providing him proof, be careful or we'll remove your posting privileges." I didn't just say "Swat you are a xyz" and left it at that; no, he was sceptical and I provided him with proof. He then follows up by NOT reading any of the proof I provided him with, and instead nitpicking at the *tone* in which I said things. If you say something blatantly wrong, like "H&K isn't founded by a nazi" and I respond "yes it is, here are 4 sources that prove it + an archive location of one of the 3 founding members' NSDAP registration, not to mention the other 2's role in Mauser, an arms factory in direct subordination to the Reich" I don't think *I* should be the one getting a talking to. And you can call me toxic for that all you like, because I do not care for your personal like or dislike of me as a person, I care about the fact that correct, relevant information is being removed by a vandal giving me the equivalent of "you can't just call a card carrying NSDAP member a nazi" as a reply and HIM somehow being taken more seriously than me, the person providing 4 sources and an archive link substantiating my claims. Poundthiswriter (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Final warning for edit warring, editing against consensus. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

To edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area on Wikipedia accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages, with the sole exception being for very specific edit requests, which should be in the form of "change x to y for reason z". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the requirement extended to Talk Pages, thanks for letting me know. If I may ask, why is this rule extended to Talk pages? I think restricting articles makes sense to prevent these articles to be perpetually in edit wars, which degrade their quality and reliability, but I do not see the same issue for Talk pages, could you shine some light on the matter? Poundthiswriter (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because one can still disrupt the consensus building process on the talk page. I believe that's why, couldn't say for sure. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Poundthiswriter! Your additions to Signale für die musikalische Welt have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry III, Lord of Waldeck

I selected some information to merge and redirect as an alternative to outright deleting it. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks Poundthiswriter (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]