User talk:Marginataen

Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 Fascism, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Marginataen

Hello Marginataen,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username MPGuy2824, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Marginataen, for deletion, because there's already a page about that topic at Copenhagen Court House. Please don't be discouraged; we appreciate your effort in creating new articles. To avoid this in the future, consider using the search function to find pages that already cover what you want to write about.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

English

Hi, this is the English-language Wikipedia, please only publish content in English here. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Danish mink cull, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DR. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mette Thiesen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

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) 06:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

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) 06:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Christian Egander Skov moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Christian Egander Skov, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. 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, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Christian Holst Vigilius moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Christian Holst Vigilius, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. 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, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Moving articles

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)

Your sandbox is back in your userspace

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

Apparent conflict of interest

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)

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murder of Emilie Meng, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Rindalism

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Rindalism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Nye Borgerliges Ungdom

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Nye Borgerliges Ungdom, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Årsskriftet Critique moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Årsskriftet Critique, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. 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, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

That's perfectly alright, Onel Thank you! I'll take a look at it if I get the time Marginataen (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

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)

Jelling Seminarium moved to draftspace. Half finished, or possibly half-started.

An article you recently created, Jelling Seminarium, 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 08:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Marginataen, Jelling Seminarium seems to have merged into UCL University College, so I have tried to improve that article a bit. TSventon (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

General elections in Denmark moved to draftspace

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)

Horsens Statsskole moved to draftspace. Largely unsourced.

An article you recently created, Horsens Statsskole, 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)

I agree. No worries. Marginataen (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Marginataen, there is some general advice at Help:Translation. In particular,content translated from another Wikipedia should be noted in an edit summary, such as Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.. Attribution can be added at any time, so I have added it at Draft:Horsens Statsskole and Rindalism. TSventon (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @TSventon. Greatly appreciate it Marginataen (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mikkel Bjørn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Zetland and DR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Page block

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).

Page moves

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)

Commas after country

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)

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

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)

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

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)

David Grusch article confusion

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)

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

Image in the Grusch lead

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

June 2023

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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).
  • 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)

    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)

    • • 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)
        • That link was there already: it's the same page Okonom linked you to. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

          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)

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).

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

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).

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)

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).

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)

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

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

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)

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)

---

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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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

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).

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

Your recent article creations

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)

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

September 2023

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)

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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).

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)

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)

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

A word to the wise

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)

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

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

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).