User talk:Gigglemugs

May 2022
Hello, I'm PAVLOV. I noticed that you recently removed content from Bruno Gröning 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. PAVLOV (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Pavlov, The information I deleted is extremely defamatory about Mr Groening. Totally unverified and untrue. Thank you for your concern. I am new to Wikipedia and am happy for any advice. Gigglemugs (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It is verified by the citation, correct? --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Hipal.
 * No, it is incorrect about the alcohol and sexual harassment. Where is the verification for this. Not it the citation quoted. Gigglemugs (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is cited with . For the first sentence, pp. 49, 122, 131–32, 144. For the second sentence, pp. 49, 132. The author is https://www.monicablack.net/ --Hipal (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You wrote, with the title "Defamation of Mr Gröning's character.""Thanks for your message. Have you read this information about Bruno Gröning harassing women and his alcohol abuse in Ms Black's book yourself please"

Why do you ask? --Hipal (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Hipal,
 * Thanks for getting back to me. I do not want an edit war with anyone and apologies if I have upset you in any way about Mr Gröning's Personal Life section. I have ordered Ms Black's book and will look at the pages you have cited.
 * Having fist discovered Bruno Gröning 16 years ago, I have been researching his life in depth for quite a while and have many books from a variety of authors. I have read hundreds of testimonials about his life and the extraordinary effect Mr Gröning still has on sick people today. I notice that several people have had claims of healing etc blocked on Wikipedia as not being verified, yet a comment Ms Black has written defaming his character is happily accepted as truth. In all my research, I have never come across the claim that you inform us of, that Ms Black has written in her book. Perhaps I will contact her too.
 * I ask if you have actually read these claims yourself, or has a third passed them to you?
 * I would happily work with you on rewriting details about Mr Gröning's personal life from my own research.
 * Kind regards,
 * GM. Gigglemugs (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your involvement with the subject matter may make it difficult for you to follow Wikipedia's policies. I'm going to leave you some resources that I hope will help you.
 * Much of Black's work has been published in other forms. See the article talk page for one that I've used. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Bruno Gröning
Hi Gigglemugs! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Bruno Gröning several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at Talk: Bruno Gröning, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PAVLOV (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A lengthy welcome
Hi Gigglemugs. Here's the welcome message I routinely give to new editors:

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)