Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at New Right (Denmark), you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vif12vf. I see this now after I already have reverted your edit. I don't see what I have done wrong in requesting realibel sources in order to establish such a bold claim as calling it far-right (it is not called far-right on the Danish language Wikipedia page either). I understand that you're a member of a socialist party in Norway and event though I do assume good faith, I can't help thinking that you might have your own biases on this particular issue. I certainly do not see any need to threaten me with being blocked. Marginataen (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you move an article, and that move is reverted, you should not move it back again. You should follow the WP:RM process and start a discussion to seek consensus to move the article. Thanks, Number 57 17:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC) My apologies. I had already started a discussion with no response. Now, I have mentioned you on the talk page.--Marginataen (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I see that you moved User:Marginataen/sandbox to User:Nye Borgerlige. I have undone this move. It is inappropriate to have a page in the name of an unregistered user. (It's generally a bad idea to create another user's user page like that anyway.) I don't see where this could be a stand-alone article on NB, which has its own article at New Right (Denmark), so I have moved it back to your sandbox page. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll name it something else next time.--Marginataen (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was it supposed to have been? It didn't look like it wouldn't have made it as a stand-alone article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i just thought a sandbox was a place to prepare edits before publishing on an actual article so I just named it the name of the article. Marginataen (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you involved in the party somehow? Number 57 21:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. If I in any way have behaved biased, please let me now. Marginataen (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you have a conflict of interest concerning your edits of Mikkel Bjørn and possibly related pages. As you know, the same problem has been pointed out to you many times in discussions on the Danish Wikipedia site, where you have received several warnings and blocks for your edits due to vandalism, using sock puppets and repeatedly ignoring requests. On Danish Wikipedia, you have responded evasively when asked about your connection to Mikkel Bjørn and his affiliated party at the time, New Right/Nye Borgerlige and its youth wing, subjects which you have edited extensively.

On the English Wikipedia, your behavior so far has been more moderate, but your pattern continues of extensively editing pages related to Mikkel Bjørn, his former party and his presently affiliated party Danish People's Party]/Dansk Folkeparti. You seem, moreover, to have a personal connection going beyond mere sympathy, as witnessed e.g. by the personal details not publicly known that you have formerly been able to write when originally creating the page of da:Mikkel Bjørn Sørensen, and by the personal photos you have uploaded as your own work, portraying Bjørn over several years from political conferences to his own private office. Editing pages without disclosing a conflict of interest is against enwp's rules, and the frequent and extensive mention of Mikkel Bjørn in several other articles of Danish politics may violate Wikipedia:NPOV, in particular the principles of due weight and balance. I would therefore ask you to make a full disclosure of your relations to Mikkel Bjørn and his present and former affiliated organisations, and to comply with the guidelines described in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Økonom (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Økonom

Thank you for your inquiry and sorry for the late response – I've had a busy week and not been active on Wikipedia at all. I must say that I find you to be using ad hominem argumentation. As I openly stated on my user page just before your message, isn’t my time on the Danish Wikipedia something I’m proud of, nor representative for my editing as of today. If you identify real tendencies or edits, breaching with any code of conduct, please let me know.--Marginataen (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do not address the central issue, which is your apparent conflict of interest when editing the pages in question. As already stated, editing pages without disclosing a conflict of interest is against Wikipedia's code of conduct. --Økonom (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Økonom (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, General elections in Denmark, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 08:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing the article Mikkel Bjørn for six months for promotional editing. See my post here for a detailed rationale, and note that you can still edit Talk:Mikkel Bjørn, to make suggestions and take part in discussions. 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 ~~~~}}.Bishonen | tålk 14:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, could you notify people on the talk page about page moves regarding controversial pages before you do them? Your unannounced page move of David Charles Grusch led to a RPP incident report from being acted upon because the reviewers were unable to find the page history. In the future, please don’t just move pages out of the blue when it concerns a current event. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:GEOCOMMA. To see an example, see our article on Colosseum: The Colosseum is an elliptical amphitheatre in the centre of the city of Rome, Italy, just east of the Roman Forum. This is house style on the English Wikipedia. It may be different on the Danish Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, relax. I was wrong about a comma. Marginataen (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It can be confusing because many Commonwealth countries don't normally include the comma, while American English does. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I btw wanna apologize for changing the article's name Marginataen (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s all good, dude. I think the only issue right now is what name it will eventually end up at. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your help with the David Grusch article. Sorry for the confusion with the Nick Pope and Michael Shermer images as I tagged you in one older location higher up on the talk page while you started a fresh topic. It looks like you did not include a signature and time stamp with your new topic comment. You may wish to add a signature and time stamp to your comment in the new topic as well as leave a note up at the old location that have started a new topic further down about the value of both images together. Jjhake (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Marginataen (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to say, I think everyone is impressed with how you came up with that image. You clearly bring some much needed creative skills to the table, and we need you desperately on this article to make it shine. I think we did discuss it earlier, and there was a quick consensus that the images you chose probably aren't the best fit for reasons explained on the talk page. I would ask you to continue experimenting with a different set of images for a new mosaic, perhaps something more concrete and real, like government insignias, images of legal documents applicable to the case, or anything else you can think of that isn't based on science fiction or the disputed involvement of, let's say, the Vatican. Otherwise, I think it might be best to keep it out for now. Just my opinion, of course. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you've been reverted twice on this. I don't think it's the end of the world. I think if you team up with Jjhake on this you'll get a consensus for a new image. Jjhake already has one GA under their belt so is somewhat knowledgeable about what would work and what wouldn't. If you work together on this, you'll make more progress moving forward. With that said, I want to reiterate, I really like what you are trying to do even if we can't use it. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have just answered you on the talk page and see your comment here just now. Marginataen (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is a GA? Marginataen (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good article Marginataen (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant and helpful information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Viriditas Marginataen (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You can be unblocked if you disclose your conflicts of interest properly. You won't be able to do so on your user page or on article talk pages, but you can do it here--I know you are fluent with citation templates, so the guidelines in the COI page should not be difficult for you to follow. Admins, see this note. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Drmies. According to Wiki policy, indefinite blocks are applied "when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". I have been the main author of the page Nye Borgerlige and you yourself stated on that article's talk page that you couldn't quiet see the issues Økonom mentioned. I think this is very much based on me being confused about what a COI implies. As stated, if PE is the same as COI on Mikkel Bjørn's page, when I have done that on Bjørn' page. I don't think I have done that on the Nye Borgerlige page. However, I must say that, that page is very much influenced by me having been pretty much the only author. I therefore welcome that others take a look at it. When another user followed the discussion on the noticeboard and gave me a six month block from Mikkel Bjørn's page, I find it wired that you suddenly come along and blocks me from editing Wikipedia entirely. The most substantial edits to both those pages have been made so from now on it's more a question of updating them. The foundation is all right.

  To a large degree, I think the issue is that I have been the my all means main author of those pages and Wikipedia is very much the result of people comming together. Because I have had a COI with Mikkel Bjørn, I don't think that legitimises you to overrule an other admin's discussion so I can't write about UFOs. Marginataen (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh by the way, I am not aware what a full disclosure of conflict on interest implies and I will only be on my phone for the next week or so. Does it mean that I will have to reveal my identity? I btw can't see anything where you write "here--". Marginataen (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Marginataen, if you want to call an uninvolved admin to this page to review your unblock request, you need to type the template {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} , curly brackets and all, below, and replace the words "Your reason here" with your actual reason. To call Drmies here, you need to link their username in your signed post, see WP:PING. (Pinging Drmies is no longer necessary, as I am doing it for you by including their linked name in my signed post.) How to fully disclose your conflict of interest is explained at [1]. It does not involve revealing your identity. Bishonen | tålk 14:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thank you Bishonen. Marginataen, I don't understand what's so difficult about understanding "conflict of interest". You seem to have a very good grasp of written English, and you write it pretty well too. And if you really were confused, you could have asked that any of the many times you were asked about it--instead you just danced around the topic and deflected the question. You could have learned that disclosing a COI does not mean disclosing one's identity, if you had followed the link in the note User:Økonom posted here on 30 April. You're also pretty good with citation templates, for instance, so pinging people and posting unblock requests should not be hard for you. Finally, I didn't suddenly come out of nowhere. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It is hard when I only have my phone and am not on computer. I am/was under the impression that you first appeared on 20 June and by blocking me overruled the decision by Bishonen who just blocked me for six months from one page – not six million. If this is wrong, please let me know. Regardless, I didn't want to conform to anything from Økonom and used a lot of time discussing with him on the talk page. I will look into COI disclosure when I get a computer but the bottom line is that I think a block I completely overkill also considering that I write about over things, i.e. David Grusch's UFO claims. As I stated on the noticeboard, the main work on the two articles Nye Borgerlige and Mikkel Bjørn has been done – now, it's just about updates and polishing. Marginataen (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • • All right, just read Bishonen's link to COI. Seems easy, I'll do it when I get to a computer. Hope, I won't be judged too much just because I have been a member but on the quality of my edits and reasoning in discussions on the talk page. Marginataen (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • That link was there already: it's the same page Okonom linked you to. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

          Correct. So just to understand it properly, if I fill out the disclosure, I will be unblocked? You didn't answer weather I am right in my understanding that you came out of nothing on 20 June and overruled Bishonen's assessment. Marginataen (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you keep referring to my pageblock, Marginataen, I want to say that I don't feel overruled, as the situations were different when I blocked and when Drmies blocked, several weeks later. I gave you a time-limited pageblock on 6 June — a mild sanction, but then I was considering you had not been blocked before (well, not on this wiki) and assuming good faith. You had not then made this edit, where on 24 June, after months of tapdancing around the question of COI, you say "If PE goes hand in hand with COI, I have definitely had a COI with regard to Mikkel Bjørn". That changes the terrain, including changing, in hindsight, the way your previous comments look, and I can understand that it made Drmies run out of belief in your good faith. (Note btw that Drmies blocked you on 24 June, just after you acknowledged your COI — not on the 20.) Bishonen | tålk 07:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Which previous comment? Marginataen (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentS, I said. Months of tapdancing. I can't believe you really need examples, but here's one from this very page. Bishonen | tålk 09:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, Bishonen. I misread it as "comment" in singular.

I now have access to a computer. On the talk page, I wrote, "If PE [promotional editing) goes hand in hand with COI, I have definitely had a COI with regard to Mikkel Bjørn". This I wrote after Drmies told me that they go hand in hand. At the noticebord on 6 June, Bishonen wrote, "If I should be made aware of similarly promotional editing at other articles, especially from now on, Marginataen, there may be further blocks". To this, I responded, "I totally respect your decision which makes sense, and I've never claimed not to be a supporter". Since then, I have not commited any PE. The last thing I wrote on the noticeboard on 13 June was, "I was blocked for promotional editing, not COI as far as I understand".

During this, I have tried to be as frank as possible and have clearly not understood that PE and COI are the same. Yeah, Økonom sent me a link, but I must simply refer to the honest reason that Økonom and I have had a troublesome relationship, and I didn't want to accept orders from him. This may be childish, but it is the truth. When Drmies wrote to me that PE and COI go hand in hand, I immediately admitted to having a COI whereupon I got blocked. I am therefore left with the feeling that I got blocked not for committing any more PE but for telling the truth.

I am not able to place the COI template on the talk page of the relevant pages as I am blocked. My wish now is to be unbloced so I, with the fellow editors knowing my former party affiliation, can participate in the discussion on the NB's talk page and edit other pages not having anything to do with that stupid party, i.e. David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims.--Marginataen (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marginataen, if you looked at WP:PING, which I recently linked for you, you'd see that pings only work if you sign in the same edit where you link a user. Adding the linkage to an already signed edit, as you just did, does not work. Drmies, Marginataen has tried to ping you again. I think your faith in their technical knowhow may be overly optimistic.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you want from me, Marginataen. I will not unblock you, and I doubt that Drmies will. I'll repeat myself from just above: if you want to call an uninvolved admin to this page to review your unblock request, you need to type the template {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} , curly brackets and all, below, and replace the words "Your reason here" with your actual reason. Don't worry if you run into technical problems; somebody will fix the template for you, just as long as you post the reason you think you should be unblocked, in a way that's clear to an uninvolved admin. I can't believe that any of your posts above are intended for the attention of an uninvolved admin. Go ahead. If you still don't even try, I won't be back. I seem to be spending an awful lot of time here. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, thanks for the ping. I also am not sure what Marginataen wants from me. The block was, indeed, for disruptive editing, not necessarily for the undeclared COI. I mean, I could have placed a CIR block, considering how Marginataen claims to be barely understanding any of this, though they had no problem with fancy templates in article space and were wikilawyering all over the place. Marginataen, hen who listens to Bishonen's advice and follows it will not go wrong. Drmies (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marginataen (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marginataen (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marginataen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. At first Bishonen gave me a six-month block from the page Mikkel Bjørn for promotional editing. On 23 June, I was on the Nye Borgerlige talk page explained that "PE and COI go hand in hand". I didn't, as Økonom said, "ignore" Drmies concluding comment. I was simply added a week after the discussion had been closed so I had not seen it which I also explained. On 21 June, I wrote on the Nye Borgerlige talk page, "In the noticeboard Økonon references, it is quite frankly not accurate that I was ruled to have a COI. Rather, I received a six-month edit block from Mikkel Bjørn's page due to promotional editing. This I pointed out to Økonon in the last comment on the noticeboard, whereafter administrator Bishonen archived it". The last thing written on the noticeboard on 13 June was, replying to a comment from Økonom, "It is not you who decide what I can or can not edit. I was blocked for promotional editing, not COI as far as I understand". I have clearly not been understanding that COI and PE go hand in hand. When this was pointed out to be on the Nye Borgerlige talk page, I openly wrote, "If PE goes hand in hand with COI, I have definitely had a COI with regard to Mikkel Bjørn". After that, I was blocked indefinitely by Drmies. Between my six-month block from one specific page (where I still could edit the talk page) and my block from all of Wikipedia, I had not committed any more wrongdoings. I simply admitted to having done something wrong when I realised that PE and COI go hand in hand. I therefore can't help feeling that I have somewhat been blocked for being honest. Should I have reaslied this before myself, absolutely. All I can say is that it has not been ill will. Just because I understand some aspects of Wikipedia well does not mean I master others. I also edit (or edited) many other pages that have nothing to do with this Danish political party. It is very frustrating for me that I can'tedit thoese now. Despite my undisclosed COI, I have a lot of insight on this topic and am the main author of the Nye Borgerlige article. I do not intend to make any controversial edits to these pages, and I am very willing to collaborate on them. I hope, at least for now, I will be able to come up with suggestions on the talk page

Decline reason:

You stated that you intend to continue editing the Nye Borgerlige article, even though you have a COI. This is not recommended, as your promotional edits to this article caused the block in the first place. In order to be unblocked, you will need to describe:

1. Why your promotional edits were wrong, and how you will avoid this mistake in the future (WP:PROMO will help),
2. What is COI and how editors can suggest edits to articles in which they have a COI, (WP:COIE and WP:ER will help with this),
3. What articles you would like to edit if unblocked.

Please avoid wall of texts in your responses as they do not help with unblock appeals. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assessment, Z1720. To avoid a wall of text, I'll go straight to answering.

It was wrong because it was largely promotional and it was about a topic I have a COI in relation to. To avoid this, I'll stop editing pages where I have a stong personal connection with the subject. Instead, to answer question 2, I'll suggest changes on the talk pages of such articles with the exception of spelling errors and other obvious mistakes. There, I am going to display the COI mark. COI stands for Conflict Of Interest and is any sort of external relationship with the subject where a "tendency to bias" must be assumed. This means that the content from an COI editor is often overly positive or negative and not neutral. If unblocked, I would like to edit a wide variety of topics mainly about history, society and nature. Right now, I would especially like to edit David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims. If you look at my contributions, you can see what other topics than my COI I have edited in the past in order to get a more elaborate impression of my field of interest. Best regards, --Marginataen (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello Bishonen. I have now requested an independent editor to review the block. I have no prior history of blocks on English Wikipedia and I find an indefinite block to be out of proportions. Even Økonom who has much authority on the Danish one only gave me a year there. With regard to Nye Borgerlige, my hope is that I could be able to comment on the talk page. From now on, I will clearly flag my COI. On 21 June, I wrote on the talk page, "Recognising that I was edit blocked from Mikkel Bjørn's page, everything mentioning him should be read critically and revised accordingly. This is especially true of the last two paragraphs under "2022 election and Vermund resignation". I really want to change and don't know what else to say. I simply did not realise that COI and PE was the same. Also, I edited at lot of other pages without relation to my COI with little to now issues. I find it bad that I can't edit these. I will let it be out to the block request but hoped we could sole it without. I have during all of this tried to be as nice as possible. Sorry for my English.

On 27 June, you wrote "That changes the terrain, including changing, in hindsight, the way your previous comments look, and I can understand that it made Drmies run out of belief in your good faith". After I was told that PE and COI was the same, I immediately admitted to having a COI. My admission is what "That" is in your comment is referring to. I have tried to read your comment again and again (including my comment from 21 June which I understand "previus comment" is refering to. I simply can't see how the fact that my view changes after presented to new information changes anything in hindsight. Have a nice day, Marginataen

I saw your response to my decline in the unblock request above. You will need to open a new request by posting a new unblock template (info at WP:APPEAL.) A new administrator will evaluate the request. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Z1720. I've now done that. Thank you for your assistance :)--Marginataen (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 @Drmies @Bishonen

Hello

I would just like to make sure that my case is progressing through the system. I have read all the policies Z1720 advised me to read and intend to follow them. I have also never been blocked before therefore I hope find you too will find that a permanent block may be a bit unproportional to the wrongdoings committed. Most crucially, I now understand what an COI is and have flagged that I have one. The comment "If PE goes hand in hand with COI, I have definitely had a COI with regard to MB" was written as an reflection over my prior behaviour after finally understanding the nature of a COI. I are so many other articles unrelated to my COI that I wish to improve (e.g. 9/1, Prigozhin, David Grusch, an article about Folketing elections, artwork title and many others) and can't wait to get started! Marginataen (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Marginataen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked for the same reasons as stated above. I am sorry about not declaring my COI and will refrain from editing pages where I have a COI, meaning the page about the New Right as well as current and former politicians of the party. Concerning those pages, I will (with the exception of grammatical errors, typos and obviously false information) instead only make edit requests on the talk pages of those articles. There, I'll clearly flag my COI. As with all other pages, I intend to behave more or less like before since I've had virtually no issues on non-New Right-related pages. If I were to break this pledge, I would find it completely reasonable to ban me. Finally, I would like to emphasise that my request is not to be unblocked here and now per se, but merely for the block to be time-limited. Please note that I've never been blocked here before. Best regards,--Marginataen (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer Z1720's three points under "Decline reason" more thoroughly:

Why your promotional edits were wrong, and how you will avoid this mistake in the future (WP:PROMO will help). It was wrong because Wikipedia should be written by independent editors unrelated to the subject. By not this, I was effectually undermining the integrity of Wikipedia.

What is COI and how editors can suggest edits to articles in which they have a COI, (WP:COIE and WP:ER will help with this). An COI can be any sort of personal relation where the editor is closely related to the subject and therefore unlikely to write from a neutral point of view. "Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith". The issue is that, despite my COI, I know a lot about the topic and belive I could significantly improve content in them from a neutral point of view. I order to to this, I myself will NOT edit them, but present suggestions for changes on the talkpage for review by other editors.

What articles you would like to edit if unblocked See my latest comments but definitely not topics where I have a COI. On thoese, to the degree I still want to contribute to them, I'll suggest changes on the talk page.

Accept reason:

Per discussion above and below, I am unblocking you on the following conditions:

• You are topic-banned from New Right (Denmark), broadly construed, explicitly including its current and former members. The standard exceptions at WP:BANEX apply. As an additional exception, you may make edit requests on articles' talkpages, provided that those edit requests do not become disruptive. In either case, I would encourage you to focus your efforts on other topics.
• Please place COI disclosure templates on the talkpages of any articles you have edited where you have a COI. I would also encourage you to place {{User COI}} on your userpage, although I won't outright require it.

More broadly, editors expressed concerns about your ability to clearly communicate with other users. Please understand that communication is required. If others tell you not to do something, you should probably not do it. If others ask you a question, you should answer it clearly and without equivocation (or if you can't answer, be clear about why you can't).

Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be deciding on an unblock--that's for an uninvolved administrator. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that, Drmies. After a month and 15 days, my point was just to make sure that my case indeed is progressing. Btw, do you know how I can archive discussions on this talk page?

I'm sorry it's taking so long, Marginataen. Admins perhaps think it looks complicated and that a careful review will take more time than they can individually spare (they're volunteers). It happens. I have posted an appeal at WP:ANI for somebody to come here and review, in consideration of your long wait. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I immensely appreciate that. Thank you!🙏 Marginataen (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was in favor till I read , " obviously false information." I don't think you could make that determination. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what I had in mind was like in a situation where the text e.g. read "Ergemann won by 203 votes" when the real number stated by the source is 204. That's like obviously false and a typo. I was also thinking about clear vandalism like someone just writing, "At the party conference, Vermund fatally stabbed down two party members and was convicted for homicide". Cases like that. Marginataen (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've read through all this. It reads like pulling teeth to get here, but I do think the latest request broadly has what we want to see in a COI unblock request. Marginataen, I think I'd be okay with accepting this with a formal topic ban from New Right (Denmark) and its current/former members. Note that this is a bit narrower than the COI guidelines: Those allow several exceptions, whereas in a topic ban the only relevant exceptions are obvious vandalism and obvious biographies of living persons policy violations. (So, your hoax stabbing example would still be fine to revert, but grammatical improvements etc. would be off-limits.) Would this work for you, Marginataen? Drmies, would it work for you? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, we should put you on payroll. Thank you. Sure--I think topic bans are often effective in stopping disruption, and they offer a way forward to the editor. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I'm still able to suggest changes to those articles on their talk pages, I'm absolutely fine with that. Marginataen (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wouldn't be allowed to edit the relevant talkpages either, Marginataen. That's not how topic bans work. Please consult WP:TBAN to see what a topic ban is. And note that Tamzin already provided that link for you. Communicating on Wikipedia works a lot better if you click on the links people give you. Those links contain information for you, that's why we take the trouble to provide them. Bishonen | tålk 21:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen is correct on how TBANs work, but in this case I'd be fine with an exception for edit requests; I've made such exceptions in the past for users. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to still make talk page suggestions to those pages would really mean the world to me. I think a big problem has been that I do have a quite some knowledge about the subject but at the same time haven’t been able to present it objectively. This is e.g., show by more than half of the current NB article being either and edited or unedited version of content added by me. I believe that I have much more to add and would love to still be able to suggest those things on the talk Marginataen (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I btw am aware that talk page suggestions do not equal incorporation into text Marginataen (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you've already accepted the unblock request, Tamzin. I wanted to say that I'd be ok with an exception for edit requests, but I think it needs to be specified that that means one request and you're done, and no more than one request per page and day. No arguing ad nauseam on talkpages. Well, can't be helped. Bishonen | tålk 08:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

One request per page and day and to a non-ad nauseam level? I'm absolutely fine with that. Agreed. Marginataen (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember to sign all of those "one request per page and day" posts, as you did not do here. A simple mistake to make, certainly, but not the kind of mistake an editor with your specific sanction should make. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm real sorry that I forgot to sign it. Is the one request per page and day rule general or specific to COI related pages? Marginataen (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of extending topic ban to include 2023 Brussels shooting? Southdevonian (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled. We're having a discussion on the talkpage of 2023 Brussels shooting about the use of an image of the perpetrator where we two have been the only ones so far to participate, and now you want to ban me from the article altogether? Just wait until others join the discussion. Marginataen (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created Marginataen/sandbox/NB in article space twice. I've moved both to your userspace. Please don't create pages like that in article space; you should be placing an {{Edit COI}} edit request on the talk page of the article you want to make changes to. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 16:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done so. Sorry for the inconvenience, dudhhr Marginataen (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Special:Contributions/78.157.120.208 while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Marginataen (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was you, Marginataen? Yes, I can see it obviously was. That means you were evading your block by editing logged out. In view of this block evasion, what do you think, Tamzin? Should Marginataen remain unblocked? I'll leave it to you. They're a pretty experienced editor who has been editing enwiki since May 2021, so I find it hard to believe they believed it would be OK to edit logged out while blocked. What do you say, Drmies? Bishonen | tålk 21:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, I really don't know what to say. I mean, it was ten days ago, that's the good part, but cheeze and rize Marginataen, what were you thinking? How many more times to Bish and I have to come back here? Drmies (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do it out of ill will or used it to gain an upper-hand in discussions. I also didn't use it on COI. Was just frustrated over the long wait and really wanted to get started. But am not going to defend it. Marginataen (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think you can. As far as I'm concerned, and because I don't feel like blocking anyone right now, it's the next to last time I want to be here. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently on hiatus from admin status, @Bishonen, so I defer to your and the good doctor's judgment. Thanks for the ping. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen @Drmies: An addendum having looked at this further (been on the road all day). I'm still not going to express an opinion on what to do here, but I will say that I would not have unblocked if I had known about this, at least not without discussing the socking. After discussion and with a commitment to not do it again, I might have been convinced to commute to a one-month tempblock for socking, which I did once before for an editor who socked but made mostly constructive edits. But an outright unblock would have been off the table. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tamzin. So Drmies was the blocking admin and Tamzin is not adminning right now, but would not have unblocked if this last issue had been known. Deepfriedokra and DrKay, what do you think? And thanks for bringing it to our attention, DrKay. Did you notice Marginataen had just been unblocked when you posted here, i. e. that their logged-out editing was actually used to evade a block? Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

No, I hadn't seen the prior block. I don't think it's necessary to take further action at this time. I believe Marginataen understands that this is a final chance. DrKay (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you decide, I just want to confirm DrKay's statement that I am absolutely aware that I'm on thin ice. Marginataen (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let it ride. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon this, my understanding is that you are subject to a formal topic ban from New Right (Denmark) and its current/former members. If that is the case, and based upon the requirements of WP:TBAN (specifically, Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic), I believe your current sandbox content is a clear violation of your topic ban. If I was you, to prevent an administrator from imposing a more severe ban or outright block, I would delete that sandbox immediately. But that's just me. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can this really be true, Bishonen and Tamzin? Marginataen (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's my own sandbox used for writing proposals for changes to my COI pages. Marginataen (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:JoJo Anthrax's description of the t-ban rules is indeed correct, Marginataen. However, I'm inclined to give you a pass for this. Tamzin has already made an exception for edit requests on talkpages, and I'm hereby also allowing you to write about Nye Borgerlige-related stuff on subpages in your own userspace. It seems to me that your doing that doesn't make the encyclopedia worse, or waste other editors' time. Note, I'm only making this exception for sub-pages (sandboxes), not your own userpage or user talkpage. The ban applies to those, as well as to other people's talkpages. The only thing related to NB you may do on those is ask questions about the extent of your ban, as you have properly been doing here as well as on my talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 07:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Tunsind tak, Bishonen. Det vil jeg holde mig til. Vi har en aftale. Marginataen (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ett avtal, yes. :-) Bishonen | tålk 10:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Zacarias Moussaoui into September 11 attacks. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Diannaa. I have now read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I can see that you already have done it on the 9/11 article, so I won't take further action in this case. Thank you for making me aware! :) Marginataen (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to making a better collage. However, the consensus to change the images from attached 8-grid images to detached grids is not big enough to be established yet. There are some pros to doing this, but there is no proper consensus yet and it’s very important that we begin establishing consensus to changes in the collage before we change them. Again, thank you, and do not be discouraged about this DementiaGaming (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @DementiaGaming. What do you think about changing to detached grids? I don't know whether it's possible with the current Multiple image template, but perhaps it would be nice to be able to click on the individual photos, but at the same time not having that little border between them. Also, if we do it, we would do it for all articles from now until 1960. What's the procedure for that? I don't assume we'll have to make a discussion on every single of those articles' talk pages. Best regards, Marginataen (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DementiaGaming: I see you removed the template on 2022, telling me to make consensus. That's OK, and I've been trying to do that by contacting you here, asking how to create consensus about changing all collages to the multiple image template and what you think about that idea. I await your answer :) Marginataen (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a neutral perspective on it. What I'm saying is to invite more people for consensus. There have been several wonderful edits made by wonderful people to the collages, but the only problem with them is nobody else agreed to do it with them, which causes problems and competition. I would recommend putting a suggestion into the talk page for WP:YEARS [2] DementiaGaming (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've now done so. Thanks :) Marginataen (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Manchesterunited1234 (talk), an English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons user. I already watched your file File:Abdesalem Lassoued.webp and was uploaded with a high-size. However, English Wikipedia did not allowed high-sized files due to fair use and I reduced this file by myself.

Don't forget to do that next times; Thanks. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks @Manchesterunited1234. I'll do that. Is fair use of for dead people where there is no other image under a free lisence or can it also be used in articles about living people where where's no free alternative? Marginataen (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if there are non-free alternative files, the files uploaded can only be used on the main article of the file description.

• For non-free files including : persons from websites, fictional characters, screenshots from Windows and TV series/films ; it only be used on the main article and not elsewhere.
• For logos, non-sports companies may only have their logo on the main article. For sports clubs, some articles may have reserves/academies, so files can be used on the main article and on reserve/academy article, not elsewhere.

Thanks. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What so helpfull. Would you mind linking so somewhere where I possibly can read more? Marginataen (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Wikipedia pages Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Fair use to learn more about using non-free files, Bye Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Abdesalem Lassoued.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to William Lane Craig. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. The discussion at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Years#Change to the DMY date format indicates the editor is already aware of the controversial nature of changes in date format that do not conform with guidelines. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when you add people to the Deaths in 2023 page, please note that they should be in alphabetical order under each day, and that only simple cites should be used. Thank you. Marbe166 (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Got it. Thanks. Marginataen (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maginataen. I told you above that it was all right for you to keep and edit sandboxes related to the New Right, even though you're topic banned from the subject, since they wouldn't "make the encyclopedia worse, or waste other editors' time". However, they do, see the discussion on my page. I believe you have encroached on my assumption of good faith in making requests like this and this and attempting thereby to enter your sandboxes into the conversation about the articles that you're banned from. Also, there's been a problem of other users cannibalising your sandbox images (uploaded to Commons by you). I'll give you 24 hours from now to copy your texts into some text-editor offline, if you like; then I'm deleting the sandboxes User:Marginataen/sandbox/NB, User:Marginataen/sandbox/Pernille Vermund, and User:Marginataen/sandbox/Rasmus Paludan. Bishonen | tålk 22:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

There has been no problem with "other users cannibalising" my sandbox images. There was one user who once copied some images from my sandbox into the New Right article. Økonom removed these images quickly again. To you, I then pointed out the principally flawed in a constructive edit being removed solely for containing content made by me. The entire "Founding and outside the Folketing" section is i.e., written by me. You called it a complex issue and I wrote that I would not take further action but instead at some point present at comprehensive edit request. It could have ended there.

Now, you want to delete my entire sandbox. On the first "this", I declared a COI and linked to my sandbox. Absolutely no one said that anything about that this was the wrong way of doing it and my request was implemented. In good faith, I thus did the exact same the second time but was told that I could not do this. On the second "this", I write "Don't get why I didn't have to post it here last time". I should have added a question mark at the end because it was just frustration and wonder that I did not have to do it the first time. After that, I decided to do some more work on the text proposal before submitting it.

If you know how to delete Pernille Vermund, you are welcome to do so as I wanted that done anyway. Marginataen (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As you have not edited User:Marginataen/sandbox/Rasmus Paludan since before your topic ban, I can leave that, if you should wish it. Provided you continue to not edit it. Bishonen | tålk 10:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The only thing that has changed was one dude copying in a collage and now you want to delete my entire sandbox? This is a waste of time. I've added a note on the sandbox and that should IMO be the end of it. Marginataen (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just prevent me from making sandboxes about topics that interests me just because one (btw unproblematic) collage was added to the article before it would probably have been added anyway by me making an edit request. Marginataen (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I've absolutely no COI with Paludan. My intrest in writing about him is by one means linked to his short time in the NB. Marginataen (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as you can see below. Since you didn't answer my query and condition about the Rasmus Paludan draft, I deleted that. It can be restored if you wish, and if you undertake not to edit it further. (But not because you have "absolutely no COI". You may need to re-read the terms on which you were unblocked: "a formal topic ban from New Right (Denmark) and its current/former members". Nothing about your COI.) Bishonen | tålk 12:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Please explain me what I've done wrong. As I see it, the only thing that has happened was one IP adress once copying a collage into the New Right article. Marginataen (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all that happened? Did you notice my sentence "I believe you have encroached on my assumption of good faith in making requests like this and this and attempting thereby to enter your sandboxes into the conversation about the articles that you're banned from."? Did you click on my links there?

You're supposed to make formal edit requests, as you were told here. Not make requests like this and this. I let you keep the sandboxes because it didn't occur to me that you'd merely point to them and consider that an "edit request". I don't actually understand why it's a hardship for you to keep the sandboxes offline and, yourself, copy the text you want to ask people to put into the article for you, using the edit request template. This was explained to you here. Proposed text must be of reasonable length, so people can conveniently discuss it on talk, and must be of the form "change x to y". That does not apply to your sandbox at the time you made this request — nothing like it: it consisted of a long four-paragraph section plus 12 (!) "smaller requests" that you also asked to be implemented, and lots of footnotes. You can't expect people to deal with all that at once, and I'd be surprised if Tamzin envisaged anything of the kind when she said you could make edit requests. Please do it properly, or I will consider withdrawing your permission to make edit requests. They aren't normally part of a topic ban — the intention of such a ban is that you'll focus on other areas. Bishonen | tålk 13:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The page User:Marginataen/sandbox/NB has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

Per unblock conditions at Special:Diff/1176297336 and warning here.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bishonen | tålk 12:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page User:Marginataen/sandbox/Pernille Vermund has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

Per unblock conditions at Special:Diff/1176297336 and warning here.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bishonen | tålk 12:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page User:Marginataen/sandbox/Rasmus Paludan has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

Per unblock conditions at Special:Diff/1176297336 and warning here.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bishonen | tålk 12:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marginataen. I'm glad we're moving toward a wide discussion on date styles for year articles. In the meantime, could you please stop changing date styles without affirmative consensus? For example, you recently changed 2024 to DMY, which I reverted. You've now re-reverted. The article had an established MDY, present since its creation in 2020. This shouldn't be changed without consensus, per MOS:DATEVAR. Would you consider self-reverting? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as long as you don't change 2023 back for now :) Marginataen (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! You might have missed it, but I did self-revert at 2023. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right, it's now been done for 2024 Marginataen (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M. You re-started the date changes on articles with an established style, without (as far as I'm aware) any talk page discussion. Can you please self-revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I have reverted your numerous changes to this article for several reasons. First, this is a GA rated article so it has been well vetted and consensus reached as needed for the article; including grammar and RS sources used. All articles can use some additions and changes overtime but not necessarily to a great degree. I invite you to use the talk page for consensus, as needed. See WP:BRD. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I've undone your reversion and removed the mention of Denmark; the really only contextual change. Everything else was basically image placement and (born–dead) for important people in Hitler's life. Marginataen (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit changed Robert Heinrich Wagner to Robert Wagner; these are two very different people. You also changed Friedrich Weber (veterinarian) to Friedrich Weber, which is a disambiguation page.

I got an unnoticed edit conflict while fixing these links, and removed your mention of the date of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I was planning on removing that detail regardless, as it's off-topic for an article about Hitler. — Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already at 12360 words (2360 words over the suggested limit of 10000 words) so adding off-topic details is not a good idea in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you're still modifying the year collages in your sandbox. I'm saddened by the removal of those collages, but perhaps they don't necessarily need to exist on the English Wikipedia. They are still heavily used on the Vietnamese, French, Spanish, and Esperanto versions of Wikipedia. So, I invite you to continue creating collages together. Although the collages were removed from the article, they still exist in three places:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:4me689/collage_gallery_with_descriptions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryansean071/Events_Collage_Gallery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:4me689/collage_gallery

I know you don't like the idea of integrating all eight pictures into one image, but I hope you can continue to participate in this thread and let's push forward the year collage into the year 1900 together! And I hope that the decade collage can continue to advance to at least the 1400s. Nagae Iku (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are exactly right that I don't like that integrating all eight pictures into one image. Let me elaborate.

When looking at the collage depreciation discussion, a remarkable amount (a majority, I would assess) of the sentiment against them was not at all predicated on collages in themselves rather than practical concerns linked to disagreement among editors. Several participants in the discussion even expressed sadness in supporting their removal, which they viewed a necessary evil.

Based on the depreciation thread and talk page discussion, I identify three contributing factors, leading to the decision to remove them:

1. Flexibility

When I began making collages some months ago, I often wanted to just replace one image with an, in my opinion, better one. However, to so this, I had to make a completely new collage from scratch. The images used in the collage were on Commons, but rarely the cropped ones, meaning anyone who wanted to change just a single image had to crop a bunch of other them – also it's just nice that they can be selected and viwed in a higher resolution

.

'''1: Flexibility'''

Every time I wanted to change just one image, I had to make a whole new collage in a external program. The images were on Commons but not as cropped, meaning I also had to cropped a bunch of images just to change one. This made the collages far more difficult to adjust and come with suggestions to than it would have been, had the multiple image template been utilised.

1. I find it evident that the the lacking flexibility to adjust the collages due to them not using the multiple template format was a main course of their demise.

'''2: Mitigation of non-consensus edits'''

On several decade articles (i.e. 2010s), an invisible comment advises editors not to change the collages without concensus on the talk page. A key, and legitimate, criticism of using collages was that people changed them without consensus. Such an invisible comment would have greatly mitigated this issue and given editors strong confidence in simply and swiftly undoing any non-consensus edit to the collage.

'''3: Implementation'''

Almost of these +100 collages were created and implemented during a very few months in 2022, for the most part by one person. As a single individual during so little time will never be able to make "perfect" collages – and absolutely not for so many articles during so little time – suggestions for changes naturally arose. The implementation should be more gradual with the proposals posted to the talk page first. I should also mention that having had some sort of essay/standard/policy on how to make collages could also have been beneficial

The courses described above led the relatively small community of editors writing about years to be overwhelmed. If we abolish collages, it should because we are, as some editors, principally against their presence in the articles. Not because of practical concerns that can be solved (the line of argumentation that what I believe the majority of people against them has used).

Let me just adress one argument: When people argue against collages by saying, "Images should be throughout the article", they are completely right. This has just nothing to do with collages. Look at any good article about a historical event like WW2 and you'll be med by both a nice collage in the lead as well as images spread throughout. Thoese two are not mutually exclusive and the argument holds no weight.

When people arguing against collages say "Images should be placed throughout the article", they are exactly right, but this is a non-argument. Any good article about a historical event like WW2 has both a nice collage in the beginning and images throughout. Thoese are not mutually exclusive. Marginataen (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Marginataen!

Tack för de uppmuntrande orden. Jag har arbetat med många olika ideologier på Wikipedia, men mitt favoritområde är utan tvekan konservatism! Jag skapade nyligen en mall för dansk konservatism, som du gärna får hjälpa till att utarbeta!

Mitt förslag är att du också skapar en engelsk artikel, som heter Conservatism in Denmark. I så fall kan jag hjälpa dig med arbetet. Det finns redan motsvarande artiklar för en rad andra länder runt om i världen. Artikeln behöver inte vara heltäckande utan bara sammanfatta de centrala dragen och portalfigurerna i dansk konservatism.

Med vänliga hälsningar Trakking (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump's rhetoric is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's rhetoric until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

soibangla (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tim O'Doherty. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Liz Truss, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I first see your comment here on my talk page now. Thank you so much for the referencing guide. Just what I needed :) Marginataen (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marginataen. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  Izno (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marginataen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No investigation" was ever necessary. I admitted to it right away and gave an explanation on MB' talk page. It was sincerely not meant to be sockpuppeting. Zeitgeistu is just the account I have begun to use for uploading images to Commons as I've done both before and since. I wasn't given a notification about the "investigation" which I don't know whether or not is a requirement but I think would have been good practice.

Everything was just going smoothly and I was about to make a peer review request for the 9/11 article which I I've done quiet a lot of work on, made the article "Rhetoric of Donald Trump", and I was also right about to do some work on the January 6 US Capitol attack. And then I got myself blocked for changing a image with on MB's page. As explained on that article's talk page, I was just brainlessly going through all the MPs of the DF party who had all gotten new images uploaded to Commons at the same time. I feel so god damn stupid and am angry at myself. There was no malicious intend behind it. WP:INDEF reads that indefinite blocks "are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". Zeitgeistu is meant as an alt account, not a suckpuppet. As a great deal of new images of all the MPs of the DF party was uploaded, I, while logged in with Zeitgeistu, simply went through all the seven articles. This was done brainlessly. I did not intend to break any policies and sincerely acted in good faith and quickly responded to Økonom on the talk page. Despite admitted it right away, Økonom had already, without my knowledge, started an investigation of me and I suddenly just logged on and found out I'd been blocked. Regardless of the offence itself, please understand that Økonom is not a neutral part but is someone who has been after me for years on the Danish WP. Please! I really want to make the 9/11 article into a FA article as well as contrubuting to January 6 United States Capitol attack, Henry Kissinger, Javier Milei and so on. Please review my contributions from I was unblocked back in August to my current ban and you will hopefully conclude that I was on the right track, contributing, discussing, and collaborating with othe editors. When I did something wrong on Liz Truss for instance, I wasn't reluctant to apologise on her talk page and self-revert. Please let not this disturb my good progress. Update: I deeply regret that I cannot contribute to writing about the abdication of Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II. I will not let that political party ruin my Wikipedia editing.

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the fact that you used the Zeitgeistu account to edit articles related to New Right (Denmark), which is a clear violation of your unblock conditions. (Note: this is tangential and not really related to whether or not you should be unblocked, but there is no requirement to notify suspects of a sockpuppet investigation, and it is not common practice). Spicy (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for not addressing it properly. Let me do so: After being blocked the first time, I promised that I would not edit COI pages myself but only make edit requests. Replacing that image was thus absolutely a violation of my unblock conditions which I DEEPLY regret it. As evidence that I will not disrupt the project again if unblocked, I will point to my many constructive contributions to other topics and the non-maliciously intent of my regrettable COI edit. It is for me frankly not worth ruining the enjoyment I get from editing Wikipedia in general by making minor edits to COI pages – Especially when I could just have made an edit request which I’ve now learned how to do correctly. That fact that I had that option just goes to show why that conduct was so immensely stupid and illogical. If unblocked, I will continue the good path I was on before 21 November. Please let me know if find anything in this response lacking. I just can't wait for Jeffrey Epstein's infobox image to be replaced by this one of higher res: File:Epstein Final Mugshot (in better quality).jpg

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Marginataen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It has been almost a year since my block, and I stand by everything I wrote in my accepted unblock request from 5 August 2023. As acknowledged in my request declined in January 2024, using the Zeitgeistu account was a lapse in judgment and was not done with any intent to deceive. I also wish to note that the political party associated with my conflict of interest has since been effectively dissolved, and I no longer have any intention or interest in editing topics related to it or its former politicians. My focus and motivation are now entirely on contributing constructively to Wikipedia, particularly to history-related subjects such as 9/11 and World War II, which I had begun working on before my block. After my most recent request, I chose to take a break from Wikipedia to reflect. During this time, I revisited Wikipedia’s guidelines, particularly those concerning conflict of interest and proper communication, to ensure that my future edits align with community expectations. I am committed to adhering to all relevant policies and fostering a constructive and collaborative approach to editing. Thank you for reviewing my request. Marginataen (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Successful WP:SO appeal. Editor has acknowledged COI with regards to [[New Right{Denmark}]] and will need to use COI edit requests to propose changes to related articles. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser needed to check for block evasion. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I don't see any recent evidence of block evasion. You're welcome to unblock from a checkuser standpoint, but I will also note that there is a previous unblock condition in the block log which might still be in force (although I don't see it logged at WP:EDR). – bradv 04:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marginataen, I see that you've said you're not interested in making edits related to New Right (Denmark) anymore, which is good. I don't think you will need a topic ban from the whole subject going forward so long as you can make a very clear and unambiguous COI statement. I see obtaining one has caused some difficulty before, but hopefully not this time? -- asilvering (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply, Asilvering. I hereby disclose that I have a COI with the NR party. As noted in WP:COI, this is a description of my situation, not a reflection of my opinions, integrity, or good faith. I look forward to the possibility of contributing to the encyclopedia once again :) Marginataen (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. I'll note that in WP:EDR as an edit restriction, not a topic ban - ie, that you would need to use COI edit requests if you were to work on topics related to New Right (Denmark). Sound good? -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it does. Thank you. Marginataen (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Battle of Alcácer Quibir. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not it wasn't. My apologies Marginataen (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop unilaterally changing the date format and English variety used in articles, you've already been pretty destructive over the past few days. It does not matter what format another article uses, so you need to get that justification for switching out of your head. Re-read WP:ENGVAR and WP:DATEVAR and abide by what they actually say, please. Remsense ‥ 论 23:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Remsense ‥ 论 00:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Brandon (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for engaging in mass date format conversions without consensus. Given you've recently been unblocked, edit warring over date formats does not demonstrate that you're here to be collaborative. Brandon (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandon, appears the behavior resumed. I’ll defer to your judgment in next steps. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BrandonBrandon

I have not reverted any pages where it has not been either justified in accordance with MOS:MILFORMAT or by an article already being written, using the dmy format. Marginataen (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:MILFORMAT reads:

"In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage"

I was going down the list of United States Army four-star generals and had come to no. 59, Barksdale Hamlett. From my point of view, I was simply enforcing a policy that until that point had been neglected. I had planed to finish the list down to MacArthur tonight, but will wait until this is resolved. Marginataen (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CurryTime7-24. I noticed that you recently removed content from Carl Nielsen without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for the nice message Marginataen (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I started a discussion about you at the administrators noticeboard. I neglected to notify you and I am sorry for that. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Danish mink cull, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marginataen: How does MOS:MILFORMAT apply to Janette Nesheiwat? —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 16:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She appeas on list of active duty United States three-star officers under "United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps" Marginataen (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Marginataen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Kowal2701 (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Kowal2701 (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was talking to someone on Facebook using the name William Casey and the same picture used for George W. Casey and they told me that they aren't actually him. I feel it is disrespectful to use a veteran face and name in such a way to ask women for pictures. Disrespectful and disgusting. Is there anything we can do for this soldier 2600:1015:A122:97DB:79B2:6251:3E77:D0CA (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]