User talk:MicholIsUsed

June 2023
Hello, I'm Prodraxis. I noticed that you recently removed content from Klaipėda 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. -- Prodraxis talk contribs  23:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability requirement for Wikipedia article content
I have removed your addition of primary source material from Reichstag Fire Decree, which had previously been removed by, and subsequently reinserted by you, with a plea not to remove it again. My removal was based on the edit summary here. Although you have been around for a year, I consider you a brand new user with your three dozen main space edits. It is important to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise that operates by consensus, and simply reinserting material as you did after Diannaa had removed it for good cause, could be interpreted as edit-warring, which is disruptive to Wikipedia and therefore prohibited. There are numerous other methods for resolving content disputes. Note that all content in Wikipedia articles must be WP:Verifiable, and is based on adding citations to reliable sources; as a corollary, whatever links you may have added to the See also section or elsewhere, do not fulfill the requirements of WP:Verifiability and thus the unsourced content may be removed at any time by any other editor. See Help:Referencing for beginners.

When someone reverts your edit, rather than immediately reinserting it because you believe you are right, please go to the Talk page of the article, and discuss your edit there, giving your justification of why it should be included, quoting or linking Wikipedia policies and guidelines where possible to support your arguments. That is what you should do now, assuming you still wish to include this materia; i.e., go to Talk:Reichstag Fire Decree, create a new discussion, and make your arguments there to support inclusion of your content. It is considered good etiquette to notify interested users from previous discussions; see WP:NOTIF for how to do that (you should notify Diannaa and Mathglot from that discussion).

Finally, mentioning in your edit summary that he should be reported for vandalism is problematic in two ways: the word vandalism has a special meaning at Wikipedia and even if he she reverted you a hundred times it would not be WP:VANDALISM (although it would be edit-warring); and also, I hope you can see why threatening another editor in your edit summary as a way of preserving your intended content is not a good idea. After all, if such threats were allowed (they are not), they could equally be used against you, right? That way lies chaos. So, please don't do that. Once again: collaborate, discuss, and seek consensus via discussion and dispute resolution methods.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to reply below, or you can ask questions about editing Wikipedia at the WP:Tea house. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional details at the article Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, can I create a seperate Wikimedia page with the suspended articles and how?
 * -MichollsUsed MicholIsUsed (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By creating a page at Wikisource to hold a copy of the text itself, and then linking to it from the article with an interwiki link. An example of this is given at the linked discussion. Note that you can, and likely should, upload the entire text of the bill, not just the deleted sections, Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why the entire text? I don’t want people to search for it, I want the removed articles to be easily accesible. MicholIsUsed (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind what Wikipedia is: an online encyclopedia (i.e., not a repository of legal texts) and what Wikisource is: an online repository of full-text documents (such as legal texts). If you add it to Wikisource and add a wikilink to it, nobody will have to search for it, anymore than someone reading List of presidents of France would have to search for information about Charles de Gaulle (or any of the presidents); you just click on the link "Charles de Gaulle" in the list, and it will take you straight to the article. Same thing in your case: you add the text to Wikisource, including sections or anchors just like at Wikipedia, and then you create a link in the Wikipedia article pointing to the deleted articles. The information about deleted sections will be one click away, just like with a wikilink at Wikipedia, and take the user straight there; no searching. Does that answer your question? Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So I have to add the entire Weimar constitution, right? And can I write:
 * Article 152: ……
 * Artcile 153 (suspended in the Reichstag fire decree of 1933) ……
 * Article 154 ……
 * ……………… MicholIsUsed (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a volunteer project, and you don't *have* to do anything. In order to quickly get to the result you wanted here at Wikipedia, you could create the new page at Wikisource for the Weimar Constitution, and add only the deleted laws to it, with the idea of either coming back to it later to add more as you have time and feel like, or just let other volunteers fill in the rest of it. Finally, maybe somebody has already added it there; I would check both English and German Wikisource. If you luck out, it's already there, and all you have to do is link to it. Search around, ask for help there if you're not sure how to find it. If it's not there, well, then back to Plan A. Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ta-daaa! Article 114. Now, wasn't that easy? The English version has links to the chapters, like Chapter II but not to the individual articles. You could add sections or anchors to improve navigability in the English version, if you want; check with the Scriptorium for help on doing that. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ta-daaa! Article 114. Now, wasn't that easy? The English version has links to the chapters, like Chapter II but not to the individual articles. You could add sections or anchors to improve navigability in the English version, if you want; check with the Scriptorium for help on doing that. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability is required
Please do not add your unsourced opinion to articles, as you did in this edit to Nazism, where you characterized Nazism as anti-capitalist, without providing a source. (In reality, the situation was more complex than that, with Nazis both supporting and being supported by large businesses and industrialists.) This edit has been undone. Please note that everything you add to an article is subject to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and anything that needs a citation and doesn't have one is subject to removal. Please review WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and Help:Referencing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Economics of fascism
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Economics of fascism, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. This edit has been undone, but remains in the history; you can redo your change if you include a citation with it. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Stick to the sources
Your edit to Fascism removing "socialism" from the list of things that Fascism is opposed to has been undone by another editor, because it was correct before your edit, as the term is given directly in the source cited in the article. There seems to be a pattern on your part of changing articles simply based on your own opinion, whether removing words you don't agree with, or inserting wordsd you prefer. It is really, really important to understand that as Wikipedia editors, we do not add content to Wikipedia articles based on our own opinion, but only based on the content that can be found in reliable sources on the topic, and cited in the article. Please take this to heart, as a continuing pattern of editing based on your own opinion without regard to what the sources have to say is likely to result in your editing privileges being suspended. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Am I (as an editor) allowed to change words only based on nearby citations or on any source on the page? MicholIsUsed (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverted seven edits of yours at Economy of Nazi Germany
Hello. I have reverted at Economy of Nazi Germany. I started with your most recent edit, which I checked against the 28-page journal article, which does not back your addition to the article. Your other six edits I just reverted en masse without checking whether your changes are backed by the existing sources or not, because it would be very time-consuming. But given your recent track record of additions of unsourced content and removal of sourced content you don't agree with, I'm going to assume those six edits are more of the same. If I am wrong about that, I apologize; feel free to revert those six, but I'd appreciate having a page number or quotation in the source which backs your change being added to the existing citations. You need to stop adding or removing content from articles based on your own opinion, and stick strictly to what the reliable sources say. If you continue this pattern of editing, you risk getting blocked. Mathglot (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of your other edits at Political views of Adolf Hitler, Animal welfare in Nazi Germany have been reverted for the same reasons. I hope you take the advice about WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research to heart; they are core policies at Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I’m new
Hello. I usually edit semantics and did not know this info, so thanks. I will readd some of my edits as they were semantical and you removed everything "en masse", while I will use citations on others. Thanks.