User talk:Deamonpen

Welcome to Wikipedia, Deamonpen! Thank you for your contributions. I am Virophage and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Virophage (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Offi-46-3.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deamonpen,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Esther Passaris for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

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.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vinod 08:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deamonpen, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Inessa Armand has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Erwin Rommel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 3 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

words of German writer [[Ernst Jünger]] who were in contact with Rommel in Normandy, "liebehass" (a love-hate relationship"{{sfn|Remy|2002|p=253}}. Ruge's diary and Rommel's letter to his wife Die Kraft des Bösen|url=http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-89343538.html|accessdate=2016}}</ref>{{sfn|Remy|2002|p=348} Remy and [[Der Spiegel]] remark that the statement was very much genuine. X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22phantastische%20vorstellungen%22%20rommel&f=false}}</ref>{{refn|group=N|Kubetzky: "Politics-wise, he has nothing but fantastic conceptions." (Goebbels' diary,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erwin Rommel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spiegel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Erwin Rommel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

of British 1st Armoured Division was captured at Martainville, most likely by members of 7th< Panzer Division, and used as a human shield on the lead panzer. Again, there is no evidence that der fürchterlichen Simplizität der Anzugreifenden besaß. Er war ein eindeutiges Vorzeichen.«</ref>) s adjutants asking them to keep track and take care of their relative.{{sfn|Remy|2002|p=44}}<ref>{{cite book|last1=Butler|first1=Daniel Allen|title=Field Marshal: The Life and Death of Erwin Rommel|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ananke (mythology)

added links pointing to Gaia, Orphism, Hydros and Vyacheslav Ivanov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Margaret I of Denmark page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erwin Rommel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Marshall. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just checked the GA reviewer's talk page and he has been absent due to personal matters; see his post: "On my absence" therein. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank alot, Kierzek, I didn't know.

Deamonpen (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you recheck your recent edit to [Ötzi]. I think there is a typo and it should read "flight an arrow" instead of "fight an arrow". Although, strangely, I can barely find any dictionaries that mention that used as a verb. Apparently I'm older than they are? (I do find a couple usages like this in specialist archery articles) Thanks. Shenme (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank a lot, Shenme. It was my stupid typo. Deamonpen (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't absorbed the warning above. You've copied material directly from Peter Roberts[1] (a book which fails our criteria at WP:RS and should not be used as a source and from William Stiebing[2] where you slightly modified the text but that isn't enough. You also used someone writing on model boats as a source for " generally regarded by Egyptologists as one of the most successful pharaohs" - how does that make sense?

Some of your sources are published by Xulon and Lulu.com - both self-publishers - see WP:SPS. We need academic sources. Charles N. Pope is also self-published and clearly fringe, see his book about Atlantis.[3] Charlotte Booth is probably ok but we could do better, Cuppy is not ok for Egyptology. David Del Testa's specialty is "modern European and modern Southeast Asian history" so isn't an RS for this. Kerr seems ok. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-My sentences that collect info from Roberts were short, which read as followed: "Roberts comments that Thutmose II was not the child of a royal princess, thus his marriage with Hatshepsut was needed to give his succession letigimacy" "Senenmut was the child's tutor, and according to other authors, possibly father" "Hatshepsut was born around 1508 BC, the daughter of Thutmose I and his primary wife Ahmose. She first lived in Karnak, and then Thebes, the vibrant capital of the empire. Peter Roberts opines that her childhood would have been spent in a military atmosphere, considering her father's many campaigns." I think I only used language that would make the readers thought immediately of Roberts' book in one instance, that was "Thebes, the vibrant capital of the empire" (seven words in total, and as I now know, Us copyright laws, while declaring that they don't protect short phrases, do not mention how many words would be considered short, but this experienced editor who has worked 20 years in the publishing industry advises that ten words or less would not get one sued; I know, quantity will matter less if it is a substantial part of the book that makes people buy it. I do not see the potential here). That was not even half the sentence, which was "Her early childhood was spent in Karnak, and later in Thebes, the vibrant capital of the empire." If this is a violation on copyrights, which I've not managed to find out that it is yet, I'm really sorry. It was not deliberate from me.

If the standard is that harsh, that even phrases are not acceptable, I think major parts of this Hatshepsut article, rated as B class (meaning references have been checked - as far as I know) are not much more modified in comparison with mine: For example, most of the Tyldesley parts

"Hatshepsut's numerous statues were torn down and in many cases smashed or disfigured before being buried in a pit."

Her cartouches and images were chiselled off the stone walls - leaving very obvious Hatshepsut-shaped gaps in the artwork

Thutmose - not only Egypt's most successful general, but an acclaimed athlete, author, historian, botanist and architect

The Oracle of Amun proclaimed that it was the will of Amun that Hatshepsut be pharaoh.

sporadic and haphazard, with only the more visible and accessible

the prolific builder part from Duncan

Officially, she ruled jointly with Thutmose III who had ascended to the throne

designed and implemented by Senenmut

... too many to list so why does this high standard only apply for me?

when dianaa made the complaint above, I was quite new, actually the inspiration for what i wrote were not from the website s/he listed but I did not know how to react.

-don't see any problem with Booth

-William H. Stiebing Jr.: I only added the sources to sentences written previously by others.

-I didn't know that xulon was self publishing. I will be more careful. I knew Lulu was self publishing but I saw that book by Darlow quoted by other authors as a respectable source

-Hatshepsut was a building Pharaoh, and many of her achievements mentioned in the articles are about buildings, construction techniques, the navy and things like that. Thus I don't think an expert on Egyptian vessels does any harm.

-Del Testa, when teaching at California Lutheran University, did teach World History courses. I don't see why having opinions from an author who studies world leaders in general and compares them is a bad thing?

-On Pope's huge website on ancient history, it seems he manages it as he is a member of United States Library of Congress. I feel that the person is thus notable. Can you point me to a source that criticises his works on Ancient Egypt? Egyptologists seem to have a tendendy to have an interest in what would be considered "non scientific" (religious) somewhere, so I don't take any particular effort to dig out whether other than their books on the topic, they have made some ridiculous comments somewhere. And where is the links to Atlantis?

-Cuppy was not from me. i only moved him to another position Deamonpen (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reply properly until tomorrow. You are right he doesn't say Atlantis but Atlantans, but see this. I'm a member of the Library of Congress, nothing special about that. Our policy on copyvio is our policy, not anyone else's. More tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant you were talking about a book he wrote but it was only a stupid comment. but Ok, if you are a member of that library and you said so. You're welcome

Deamonpen (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that you are trying to avoid copyright violations. Basically, unless you quote, the text should be clearly your own words. That's our policy, which is distinct from copyright laws. See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.

If you think there are problems with the article you really need to take them up on the talk page.

As for Darlow, see this description He's clearly fringe (besides the fact I can't find any evidence of qualifications). Teaching world history doesn't make you an expert on Egyptology. Anything he knows he's gleaned from them. We should be using acknowledged experts in Egyptology. Again, how can someone who writes about boats be an expert on Egyptologists? You can take all these to WP:RSN and argue that they meet our criteria at WP:RS, but I'd advise you not to bother. Still, your choice. The Roberts book was written for students on the Higher School Certificate (New South Wales). Again, fails our criteria. He's not an Eygptologist. Why would we settle for sources by people without years of academic and practical experience in Egyptology? Doug Weller talk 15:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I really did not know about the paraphrasing policies.

Thinking about Del Testa again, I now think regarding the specifics of events, real Egyptologists should be more respected, and thus I probably should not have used him regarding some details, but I think he should not be dismissed completely. because for a broader view of the situation, a look at the character of the subject, the place of hers/his in the world history, perhaps it's better to consider views from scholars with broader interests, even psychologists, social scientists... etc. I would think again about others. As for the statement (existed before I saw the article) that the subject has a rep as a great pharaoh, I have accumulated a lot of other sources but have not figured out a way to organise them yet. Deamonpen (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not missing something, your revert and subsequent additional edit restored a situation (which I had corrected) where footnote 94 still contains a URL in the title field of the citation template and footnote 95 and footnote 96 point to exactly the same URL:

• 94: http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/politiklexikon/17870/morgenthauplan/131154/15-17-juli-1947
• 95: http://www.bpb.de/geschichte/zeitgeschichte/deutschland-chronik/131154/15-17-juli-1947
• 96: http://www.bpb.de/geschichte/zeitgeschichte/deutschland-chronik/131154/15-17-juli-1947

--Boson (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, originally the third link was mistakenly pasted into title: http://www.bpb.de/internationales/amerika/usa/10605/2-weltkrieg?p=all 10:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Deamonpen (talk)

Rommel myth, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Erwin Rommel. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Deamonpen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 19:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For adding useful edits to Wikipedia!!!! Jack90s15 (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.Deamonpen (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles N'Tchoréré, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 7th Panzer Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Deamonpen
	Hi Deamonpen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,    –Davey2010talk 00:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erwin Rommel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 7th Panzer Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Deamonpen
	Hi Deamonpen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,    –Davey2010Talk 19:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deamonpen, I'm trying to follow the discussion, but it's at times confusing due to occasional lack of signatures. For example: I don't know about Poland, but I don't think.... From the context, it appears that it's your post, but there's no indent in the post that follows, plus it's only one signature for both of them. I wonder if you could look at your posts and add signatures where needed? I'd like to contribute to the discussion, but it's a bit difficult at this point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will try. We posted things too quickly so... sorry. Thanks for your attention to the topic.

The additions, reliant largely on mid 19th century sources, should have been raised on the talk page before being effected. Arguably, they have made a confusing and over-elaborated article even more so. Urselius (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Urselius. If 20th-21st century sources state the same thing, then by all means we should use those. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, would do so.Deamonpen (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with the change here, but I have to say the attempt at art criticism in the edit summary is nonsense! Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just repeated the impression I got from reading about the subject. His daughter Margaret thought the painting did not look like her father in normal conditions, and that Dürer exaggerated certain characteristics. On the other hand, some authors like Terjanian thought that the portrait was a very idealized portrayal of a man who was about to die very soon (and the next, more realistic portrait showed his corpse as very decimated). Anyway there is even a scholarly debate on Maximilian's appearance so a famous portrait will certain generate some noises, still...Deamonpen (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maximilian armour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albrecht of Brandenburg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maximilian II.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Netherlands Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip of Cleves.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural depictions of Holy Emperor Maximilian I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brabant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matilda, Abbess of Quedlinburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wallhausen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend, I'm just shooting you a quick message wondering why you removed my map from the HRE wikipedia page under imperial reform in Feb 2022? I'm not mad or anything, I'm just curious. Was there something wrong with it and I should improve it or is there another reason.

Looking forward to hearing back from you, Cameron — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWiseBeluga (talk • contribs) 04:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it does not really correspond to the "Imperial Reform" period. Now that I think about it, it should be in the previous section rather than being removed completely. I've just reattached it. Thanks for this conversation. Deamonpen (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural depictions of Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural depictions of Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seneca.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural depictions of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middelburg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural depictions of Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lodi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maximilian (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Guinegate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deamonpen. You added a reference to "Fößel 2017" to Barbara of Cilli, but the work isn't defined in the article. Could you add the needed cite, or let me know which work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was my mistake. It's Kondor reporting about the works of Fößel and others, not Fößel herself. Deamonpen (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not here to quarrel again. I just wanted to say that I agree if we leave the page as it is at the very moment, with your footnotes and so on. In the very text, you mentioned the archbishop of Esztergom did not crown her, and there was a confusion over it. So we should not rewrite the whole wikipedia that there were multiple female kings in Hungary. Let's let the article as it is now. Super20020917 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will rewrite the other Wiki pages, at least the notable ones. If other female monarchs are treated with the same standards (any sign of "confusion" is treated as the evidence that their title is not Queen regnant/Monarch, but all events pointing to the periods they were treated as monarches are inserted just as "notes"), many would be just usurpers and not monarchs, including:

-Wu Zetian, who was not recognized as Emperor by her son/successor, was referred to as Empress Consort Wu (and and illegal usurper) by traditional Confucian historians.

-Margaret of Denmark, who never used the title of King or Queen regnant in Sweden and Norway

By the way, if you have other opinions, bring it to the Elizabeth of Hungary page and its Talk page.

-Deamonpen (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For more stressing you could add that Elizabeth of Luxembourg was also crowned KING)))). Well, that will be ridiculous Super20020917 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See, Norden1990 with more than 45000 edits has also deleted your editssss! Because they are unpassable. So your sources are wrong. HAIL TO MARY, KING OF HUNGARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super20020917 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated 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) 04:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll excuse my initial skepticism. These articles about far-right philosophical movements get a lot of disruption from right-wing types who are upset that they paint often unflattering pictures of their pet ideologies. As such, when someone comes in and does a major cut, it's something I do get nervous about. Considering that, as I've gone through your edits I've found a total of one minor quibble over one removed source, I would say this is pretty clearly not the case here. I'm less alert to a slow accretion of synth than to sudden major cuts, apparently. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply,

Don't worry, I understand. Although I often notice the opposite, that is Yarvin and similar tech bloggers and their fans try to gain fame at all cost, no matter how unsavoury that kind of "fame" is. The thirst for fame has reached ridiculous points like this:

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/curtis-yarvin-venice-biennale-2660020

Recently I have gained an interest in the personality and activities of Peter Thiel and his circles (basically, what I would call the new military industrial complex, which does include people and companies named in the sections, like Andreessen, Altman, Scale Ai/Wang, Anduril/Luckey...etc). I find the claim that Yarvin is some kind of spiritual leader in these circles ludicrous, even though the writings of Thiel, Srinivasan, Karp, Andreessen (the latter two are influenced by "leftist" thinkers too, like Robert Michels etc, which also reflects their political positions in real life) and Yarvin, Land etc certainly converge at some points. Deamonpen (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Peter Thiel, Deamonpen is repeatedly attributing claims to whole publications rather than to authors or the sources they attribute in turn, and using vague verbs like "suggests" and "suspects" in a manner I find WP:WEASEL-y. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find your manner both WP:WEASEL and your deleting behaviour highly excessive. A publication is responsible for the sources they publish and the authors they give a platform, except if they declare that the writer's opinion is not their own opinion. Such publications also frequently say about each other, that "The Times says [...]" and "The Variety report that." I find the repeated bad-faith assumption personally offensive.Deamonpen (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this edit it looks entirely bromine to me and certainly not WP:WEASEL. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Maybe it is just about different editing styles. I will continue to work on that article (the subject is a character who will still appears in many future publications, I am sure. The article feels... skeletal, in view of what we currently know about the subject), so I also want to able to talk normally to the other editors.Deamonpen (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists can use different styles when writing news articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with its own style. I haven't found a clear guideline against that kind of WP:Attribution yet, but it's clearly less precise.

Additionally, please be careful when restoring WP:BLP content that is under discussion, as you did here. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the source, but changed the sentence so that the meaning would be represented in a better way. I can say that you deleted materials in an excessive manner after we had discussed with with a third editor too.

It is common to list a newspaper or magazine that way, which is applied in the case of enclopaedia too. We don't say, Author A of Encyclopaedia B, of the twentieth edition, says "...". When it's about a book author, when we decide that there are enough evidences to say that the author has a reputational problem, they have a reputational problem. The publisher matters, the book that contains their chapter matters, but Irving does not become a reputable WWII historian depending on the publisher of his specific book. Magazines or newspapers on the other hand are often rated on the account of their own reliability - in most cases, the journalist is an unknown individual, unlike the historian.Deamonpen (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your style seems to involve a kind of lossy compression of epistemic knowledge. In your Jacobin sentence, you added a quote from the book The Contrarian by Max Chafkin used in the article, apparently from a conversation between Thiel and an anonymous friend, without noting the differences in provenance. This is not necessarily a policy issue directly, but it degrades the quality of the information, and BLP information is generally held to high standards. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The biographer and the ''Jacobin'' apparently both believe that the conversation happened. As said, people who report about Thiel's life often want to keep their identity hidden, as they fear retaliation. It is not a case of an anonymous letter that even the author/the publication cannot track. And the Jacobin definitely believes that Thiel uses the blood transferring story to create the image of an evil genius, which the publication rejects.Deamonpen (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:No original research. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to review it too.Deamonpen (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the retaliation detail, that comes from Chafkin's book.~~~ Deamonpen (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palantir Technologies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond. Czarking0 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I will participate. Deamonpen (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marc Andreessen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Founders Fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geni.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deamonpen. Thank you for your work on Christian Angermayer. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please try to move/copy footnotes to appear at the end of each sentence and not just at the end of the paragraph. Thanks and have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei: Thanks for having reviewed the page. I've added some refs. Does that look better now? Deamonpen (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message! It generally looks good. Are the sentences "In 1998, he was enrolled at the University of Bayreuth, where he met two professors, Roland Kreutzer and Stefan Limmer, who were working on a new gene-targeting method called RNA interference. Angermayer and the professors then started a company named Ribopharma AG. Although Angermayer, then 21, only held a minority stake, Ribopharma received backing from the German government, allowing him to drop out of college." found in the next footnote? If so, you could either leave it, or copy the footnote there. If not, please find a source for this. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei: Done. Thank you! Deamonpen (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deamonpen, I've put together some suggestions for expanding and updating the General Matter article. I thought you might be interested in reviewing at Talk:General_Matter#Expanding_the_article given your work at Peter Thiel and Founders Fund. Thank you, Spring765 (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try to help. Deamonpen (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for all your work here! I'm going to take some time to go through it all. Best, Spring765 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. If you have any other relevant materials or need to correct something, I’ll be happy to help. Deamonpen (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deamonpen. Thank you for your work on Kevin Harrington (national security advisor). Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thiel Capital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Harrington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deamonpen, you should check out Wikipedia:Disambiguation detector. It's a tool you can easily enable that lets you see when you add disambiguation links. I've found it very helpful since I've turned it on. Mbdfar (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Deamonpen (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~~~~ Snokalok (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

The new conversation can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Continuation of conversation. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 09:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the article Evie Magazine, which you have recently edited, also overlaps with the following contentious topics:

• gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them (WP:CT/GG)
• pseudoscience and fringe science (WP:CT/CF)
• COVID-19, broadly construed (WP:CT/COVID)

Thank you. — Newslinger talk 09:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Deamonpen (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'm a student from LUISS university in Rome and I'm working on a presentation based on wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and one part of the work is to put myself in the shoes of a wikipedia contributor and find out some feeling he receives when editing or writing pages. The questions I would like to receive answers on are the following:

1. What does the editor think and feel:
2. What does the editor say and do:
3. What does the editor hear and see (about its surroundings):
4. What are his pains (what type of frustration does the user feel when contributing):
5. What are his gains (what does make him feel good when contributing):

Active support is really needed so thanks in advance and have a great day Tartaluca (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks for the invitation

I will think and try to participate after some days. Deamonpen (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank for the response, I have to close the work soon so if you want you can contribute even if in a small percentage today. :))) Tartaluca (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I often contribute to a topic when I feel that there is a lot of misunderstanding or bias on social media or popular history books about that topic. When I do that, it's also a chance to collect and organize the sources I've seen to gain a better picture of the subject for myself.

2. I like controversial topics and individuals. I like to put the controversies out there and let different opinions balance out. I like to dig into unusual, insightful, scholarly sources that are often crowded out by the usual media stuff.

3. Wikipedia is rather left-leaning (and in some corners, full of activists) and Western-centric (I will not say that most are consciously racist - to the contrary). This is from the point of view of someone who loves the Western civilization and considers oneself politically "middle" (I will not use the word "neutral"). There are people who act in bad faith but they collaborate so it is hard to deal with them. It is easier to deal with a topic/subject who are famous or really significant, as there are a lot of sources about them. I am good at finding sources and detecting info, so I can just bring a lot of my sources out to balance the other view point. Harder with little known and under-researched topics though.

4. Users who act in bad faith and are consistent in doing so.

5. Seeing people quote articles largely written by me and discuss points mentioned in those, even if they see it from a totally different point of view.

And as said above, having a better understanding of the subject myself.

If one asks about the Wikipedia environment, I really like people who rewrite my clumsy sentences in a more attractive style.

Thanks. Deamonpen (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much have a wonderful day Tartaluca (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deamonpen! I saw this comment you made earlier Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia about how you're frustrated with how people on Wikipedia handle things.

Even though I'm not too knowledgeable about that specific case, I completely understand that there are many flaws to Wikipedia. If you want to bring change to the rules, or to how users are treated, then note that messages like the one you sent there will likely alienate people and become even more hostile towards you. Instead, I would focus on slow and steady growth, often utilizing things like consensus and citing the rules, even when it's difficult, because I believe that eventually positive change can and will come if you make it happen.

Also, if you ever need advice or help with anything, I'd be more than happy to assist you.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Regarding Wikipedia, I think generally it reflects the Western academia and media (although when it comes to the latter, there is more space for bias, as Wikipedia largely deprecates somewhat right-wing popular sources such as NY Post or Dailymail or Bild, while allows sources such as Dailybeast. So topics related to modern politics or social-cultural phenomena are somewhat skewed, in comparison with topics that belong to faraway history ) Structural changes are affected by structural changes in the larger environment. Or if Elon Musk or whoever can make a good enough competitor. Certainly, I like human-input content, that is why I am still here.

As for local changes, I believe you are right, you can change things when you are patient enough, but only if the topic itself gathers enough people who are interested in it (who will come from different strata/perspectives). The subject is "big" enough, and then whether Dailymai is allowed or not doesn't matter. You are right that this is also on me wanting quick changes - the thing is I never intend to work longterm on the Evie article. Deamonpen (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Michels is not and has never been the CEO of Thiel Capital. This is not written in the cited article or anywhere else on the Internet. Moreover, he is not reported anywhere, in any source, as undertaking diplomatic activities on behalf of Thiel Capital. This is patently false information. I would request you not to re-add this again. InquireHere (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of issues with your recent edits made to the Thiel Capital page.

Issue A — Misrepresentation of the Kress.de source

The passage:

“Thiel's and Palantir's business and political connections with the Döpfner family … attract a lot of attention in Germany.”

This phrasing does not appear in the Kress article you linked.

The sentence is also written in non-encyclopedic language (“attract a lot of attention”) and looks like original research or editorializing, which violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

Issue B — The Jesse Michels claim

The added passage says:

“Jesse Michels … works as CEO for Thiel Capital … noted for diplomatic activities … involving Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, Vatican, Kalmykia, Albania, Africa.”

This is certainly blatantly false, poorly sourced, and extremely implausible.

The cited link (billionaires.africa) does not substantiate that he is CEO of Thiel Capital or involved in diplomacy. This is a textbook case of adding unsourced or fringe claims, violating WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS. These edits are enough to justify a report if the user persists.

Issue C — Several other additions raise significant BLP and verifiability concerns:

Some statements on Charles Vaughan appear to overstate or misrepresent what the cited sources actually say.

Certain claims rely on student newspapers or other marginal sources to support serious allegations, which does not meet WP:BLP or WP:RS requirements.

A few passages appear to involve synthesis (WP:SYNTH), connecting individuals and events that the sources themselves do not directly link.

Some language introduced (“anti-woke network,” “crusade,” etc.) is non-neutral, contrary to WP:NPOV.

One or more citations appear to be future-dated or otherwise unverifiable.

Because these edits involve living people, the sourcing and phrasing must be especially careful. Please ensure that any material added is:

- Directly supported by reliable, published sources

- Accurately summarized without interpretation or inference

- Neutral in tone

- Fully compliant with WP:BLP and WP:V

If you'd like to discuss specific edits or sources, I’m happy to go through them with you on the article Talk page.

I am reviewing your other edits to this page and will continue further shortly.

Thanks for your attention to this. InquireHere (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jesse Michels:

CEO is probably a mistake, but not a reason to remove the whole sentence.

The sentence does not claim that Michels is doing diplomatic activities on behalf of Thiel Capital.

A previous sentence only says that some current and former Thiel Capital employees are notable for politics, which are sometimes controversial. No where it is stated that this is orchestrated by Thiel Capital.

Certainly Kurz, Kratsios, or Harrington do not recognize that they do any political activities on behalf of Thiel Capital, but the press suspects that there is some linking (only in the case of Kurz, the suspicion is mentioned bcause it was a fairly important EU official who said that).

In the case of Vaughan, I have included materials that argue again the case that there is a conspiracy. Obviously, Vaughan did something in the UK, but whether there was political networking on behalf of Thiel, or there was a race science conspiracy or any conspiracy or not.... is another matter.

Re: Moritz Doepfner: "attracts attention" is already a more neutral way of talking about it/

Kress

"Der Springer-Chef hat drei Söhne aus seiner Ehe mit Ulrike Döpfner (und einen weiteren Sohn mit Julia Stoschek). Sein Sprössling Moritz arbeitet als Chief of Staff für Investor Peter Thiel, hielt der gewöhnlich gut informierte US-Medienjournalist Ben Smith bei „Semafor“ zuletzt fest, um seine These zu belegen, dass Döpfner enge Kontakte „in die kleine Welt der neurechten Leader“ pflegt. Bereits im August vergangenen Jahres hatte das „Handelsblatt“ geschrieben, Moritz Döpfner leite die Investmentfirma Thiel Capital „des libertären Vordenkers und gefürchteten Strippenziehers Peter Thiel“."

On the manager-magazin, Thiel is reported to be helping Moritz to become "Ein deutscher J.D. Vance", and certainly Thiel and the Quantum System deal (that Moritz brokered for Thiel) are seen as controversial

On tagesspiegel:

"Schon immer hat der Springer-CEO die Nähe zu den US-Tech-Unternehmern gesucht. Sein Sohn Moritz Döpfner arbeitet als Chief of Staff für den umstrittenen Trump-nahen Investor Peter Thiel."

These are popular German magazines. So how do you want the whole thing to be written? "Thiel's alleged political and business links with the Doepfner father and son cause a lot of debates?" Deamonpen (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And still, the Michels article see Michels as "The visit began at the Vatican, where Michels, an investor with Thiel Capital and the Thiel Family Office, accompanied Ilyumzhinov to the 60th-anniversary commemoration of Nostra Aetate, the landmark Second Vatican Council declaration reshaping Catholic relations with other faith traditions." and not boss of his company American Alchemy. Deamonpen (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: FYI, the OP has brought this up at ANI here. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is inaccurate. The article clearly introduces Michels first as the host of American Alchemy, with his Thiel Capital connection mentioned only later and without relevance to the events described. Nothing suggests that he visited the Vatican as a Thiel Capital employee. The narrative plainly situates the interview with Kirsan Ilyumzhinov—and the Vatican visit—within the context of American Alchemy, which covers alleged extraterrestrial experiences. InquireHere (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Vaughan reference relies entirely on Cambridge student newspapers and opinion pieces. This is a WP:BLP concern. Student publications are, at best, marginal sources for potentially contentious material about a non-public figure, and here they’re being used to imply a web of “links” and political activity around a named individual who has no substantial independent coverage. Per WP:BLP and WP:RS, we should not be synthesizing or amplifying speculative claims about a living person’s political role based only on student journalism and commentary.

More broadly, the Thiel Capital article is already very long and verging on bloat. The “Personnel” section in particular is drifting toward a directory of everyone who has ever passed through the firm, along with detailed summaries of their separate political or academic controversies. That kind of content is better handled (if notable) in the individuals’ own articles, not here. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, the focus in this article should be on Thiel Capital itself—its structure, role, and major activities—rather than speculative coverage of junior or mid-level staff based on weak sourcing.

Given these issues, I suggest either (a) trimming the Vaughan sentence back to a minimal, neutrally worded note based on high-quality, non-student sources (if any exist), or (b) removing it altogether if such sources cannot be found. In its current form, it both fails WP:BLP sourcing standards and contributes to unnecessary article bloat. InquireHere (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the follow-up, and for providing the German passages. I agree Kress, manager magazin and Tagesspiegel are all solid RS. I don’t think we’re that far apart on the underlying facts; the disagreement is mainly about how far we can go in summarising them within policy.

1. On Michels / “CEO” / diplomacy

Even if “CEO” was an honest mistake, it’s not a trivial one in BLP terms. Misstating someone’s role as CEO of Thiel Capital very materially changes how a reader understands their status and authority, and it was not supported by the cited source. That alone justifies removing or rewriting the sentence, not just quietly fixing the title.

Similarly, the billionaire.africa piece does not describe Michels as doing “diplomatic activities” in any formal or quasi-official sense. It presents him as:

- an investor/filmmaker who has worked with Thiel Capital / Thiel’s family office, and

- the host of American Alchemy, accompanying Ilyumzhinov on a trip that the article frames in the context of his show and Ilyumzhinov’s alleged experiences.

That’s why I wrote earlier that:

The article clearly introduces Michels first as the host of American Alchemy, with his Thiel Capital connection mentioned only later and without relevance to the events described. Nothing suggests that he visited the Vatican as a Thiel Capital employee.

Phrasing like “noted for his diplomatic activities involving… Vatican, Kalmykia, Albania, Africa” is not coming from the source; it’s us turning a colourful narrative into a claim of “diplomatic” significance.

That’s classic WP:SYNTH / WP:OR, and because it’s about a living person, it runs straight into WP:BLP and WP:V.

If we mention Michels at all, the safest BLP-compliant version would be something minimal and closely tied to what multiple RS actually say, e.g.:

“Jesse Michels is an investor and filmmaker who has worked with Thiel’s family office and hosts the podcast and video series American Alchemy.”

Anything beyond that (especially about “diplomacy”) really belongs, if at all, in his own article with careful sourcing, not in a long Personnel list here.

2. On Döpfner and “attracts a lot of attention”

I don’t dispute that German media have written about Thiel’s links to the Döpfner family and “new right” networks. The question is how we summarise that without slipping into our own generalisations.

Your Kress quote, translated, says roughly:

Moritz works as chief of staff for Thiel.

Ben Smith uses that to support his thesis that Döpfner has close contacts in a small “new right” world.

Handelsblatt says Moritz runs Thiel Capital.

Tagesspiegel similarly notes that Moritz works as chief of staff for Thiel, described as a controversial, Trump-aligned investor.

Those are all attributing particular claims or framings to named journalists and outlets. What they don’t say is the generic, unattributed “Thiel’s and Palantir’s business and political connections with the Döpfner family attract a lot of attention in Germany.” That’s our synthesis: we’re aggregating several articles and turning them into one, vague, “Germany is talking about this” narrative.

Two problems with that:

WP:NOR / WP:SYNTH – we are drawing a broader conclusion (“attract a lot of attention” / “cause a lot of debate”) that no single source states in that form.

WP:NPOV – the language is vague and editorial (“attracts attention”, “cause debates”) instead of attributing viewpoints to specific sources.

A more policy-compliant way to handle it would be to:

Stick to concrete, uncontroversial facts about Moritz that are directly relevant to Thiel Capital, and

Attribute characterisations to the sources that make them, rather than generalising about “Germany” or “debate”.

For example, something like:

“Moritz Döpfner, one of the sons of Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner, has been reported as working as Peter Thiel’s chief of staff at Thiel Capital. German outlets such as Kress and Tagesspiegel have discussed Thiel’s personal and professional ties to the Döpfner family in the context of conservative and ‘new right’ networks in Europe and the US.”

This (a) reflects the sources, (b) avoids vague “attracts attention” language, and (c) keeps the focus on Thiel Capital rather than giving a whole mini-essay on Springer politics.

If you’d like, I’m happy to propose a concrete wording change on the article that stays very close to the German sources and uses explicit attribution (e.g. “Ben Smith has argued that…”, “manager magazin has described Thiel as…”).

3. On Vaughan and BLP generally

On Vaughan, my concern is not whether he “did something in the UK” but that we’re building a network narrative about a non-public figure almost entirely from student newspapers and opinion pieces. Those are, at best, marginal sources for serious claims about political networks and “race science” controversies, per WP:BLP and WP:RS.

Even if some of those sources dispute a “conspiracy,” the mere act of collecting and summarising them in this article amplifies the idea that there is a controversy around Vaughan’s political role. For someone with no substantial independent coverage outside student media, that’s exactly the kind of situation where WP:BLP tells us to either:

- trim to a very bare, neutral factual note supported by high-quality sources, or

- omit entirely.

Given how long the Personnel section already is, I still think we should err on the side of less, not more, speculative material about relatively junior staff, and keep the page focused on Thiel Capital’s structure and major activities.

In short: I’m not disputing your underlying point that there are interesting German-language sources about Döpfner/Thiel, or that Michels has some connection to Thiel’s family office. I’m arguing that we need to summarise those sources much more narrowly, avoid any unsourced job titles or “diplomacy” language, and drop broad, unattributed formulations like “attracts a lot of attention” that go beyond what the sources themselves say. InquireHere (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeamonpenI have tweaked the wording to ensure there is no ambiguity and it is an actual reflection of what the article is describing. Are you fine with this version? InquireHere (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is better when we are calm and cooperate. Discussions about wording are normal.

Also I want to state some of my opinions on editing in Wikipedia in general and editing Thiel-related page in particular (just sharing, sorry for being TLDR, not commenting on your behaviours or anything). As I have said to other users, my opinion is that when there are controversies, they should be mentioned. Even if you don't, other will at some point (and for someone who is highly debated at a time like this). I like to dig deep into controversial people (who are important in a political-historical sense, and especially with connection to German culture - I am not German btw. Previously I have done a lot of editing on articles like Erwin Rommel and Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor and is the creator of the articles mentioned in Category:Cultural depictions of Holy Roman Emperors and Category:Cultural depictions of Holy Roman Empresses, except the Matilda one).

In my impression, Thiel and his supporters seemingly prefer privacy while the populace prefer transparency.

But I feel that it will do justice for both, if the populace know more.

I am not trying to build a network narrative. Some people are trying to build an Epstein-Israeli network narrative (as in Thiel is created by them or his power comes wholely from that), some say it is the Russians, some say it is Yarvin, or CIA or FBI or Mossad, or purely the rightwing side. These narratives clearly collide with each other (and with reality) in different places. But mentioning all of them on one hand, helps the readers have a broader view and choices to make their own decision. On the other, from Thiel's side, at least he can be seen seriously in all of his (known) aspects and relationships, rather than implied to be "a member of Yarvin network"/"heir of Epstein legacy"/"creation of globalists" or whatever. If there are sources that say he connected with the UK establisment through Epstein, it should be mentioned that there are sources that say Vaughan, James Orr and whoever. Maybe some are true, or all are true, or none is true, but better than the whole Epstein-centric thing that Whitney Webb (as mentioned in the Thiel article) and other Russian- and Chinese-affiliated propagandists are trying to push. Deamonpen (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know about BLP, but if there many sources mention it, it should be mentioned (with caution to some of the more outrageous claims). Student- etc is not a problem on Wikipedia, and not all of them are student sources.

My opinion is that diplomacy does not require being "formal". If Thiel can do politics without being anything formally, Jesse Michels can do diplomacy as well. Being substantial or not is a matter of perspective.----Deamonpen (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Deamonpen! Good evening! Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I agree that it is better to discuss specifics and to write calmly. :) My apologies for the extended texts earlier.

My concern with the Michels paragraph is that he is not a diplomat in any formal or recognized sense. He is also not noted in any reliable sources for any diplomatic work at all. The trip in question consisted of a single American Alchemy interview with a former Kalmyk politician who has spoken about alleged extraterrestrial experiences, plus attendance at one event in Rome and one in Tirana. The journalist’s description of the trip as “spiritual and diplomatic” is simply that — the journalist’s characterisation. No reporting from the Vatican, the Italian government, the Albanian government, or any other institutional source corroborates the idea that there was anything diplomatic about it. For that reason, I would very much prefer wording that sticks closely to verifiable facts without adding an interpretive layer that the sources themselves do not support. When I see users continuing to add back that Michels actively underwent diplomatic activities at the Vatican, it seems like an attempt to paint a picture that does not exist all.

I understand your interest in mapping out the relationships of people connected to Thiel Capital. This makes sense and many would say the same applies to a handful of other relevant businesspeople today (Musk, Bezos, et al). But a fair portion of the text involves non-public individuals and cites allegations or implications that go beyond what high-quality sources establish. If we were writing about a company like GE, for instance, we wouldn't list incidental trips or speculative links involving every mid- or even high-level staffer or associate. The same principle applies here. The fact that Thiel is a high-profile figure with extensive media coverage does not automatically make every person around him encyclopedically relevant.

My goal is simply to keep the article focused on what reliable sources say about the company itself, and to ensure we avoid unintentionally implying networks or activities that the sources do not substantiate.

I see people generally are very sensitive to this topic (some are saying that I am attempting to whitewash the fund :D). I am just attempting to maintain balance. I don't think that Wikipedia articles should go the way of Reddit. You are doing a great job. I am just trying to have a discussion with you on the issue in an open way. InquireHere (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the Helsing thing is not a network conspiracy thing either. They have clear links to Thiel and Thiel companies, whether "professional" or because of other reasons, but that is just a fact. They are allies of Palantir, Anduril, Valinor, that is known and official. The fact Ek invested in the company three months before Ukraine has been linked to his connection with Thiel. Helsing's current Deputy CEO, CTO and COO are former Palantir people. So that it is understandable that Expresso TV calls them Thiel ecosystem and links the presence of the CEO in Bilderberg to Thiel - they don't say where they have heard this from, or they speculate, but the way they state it is very matter-of-facty, and someone from the Steering Committee must have invited him. But that is more Thiel, Helsing and Palantir, so I don't mind you cut the part in Thiel Capital. The thing is almost all (if not all) major companies that are playing a role in fighting Russia and in the future maybe China either have direct relationship to Thiel, or are allies of his companies. And strangely there is still the accusations that Thiel is pro Russia (and wants his investments go to waste???).----Deamonpen (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeamonpenI really do understand the point you’re making about Helsing and the defense-tech landscape. My issue is that many of the connections you describe rely on inference and not on what the sources state outright. Even if some individuals previously worked at Palantir or certain outlets speculate about an “ecosystem,” that doesn't mean we can present these relationships as established fact. Wikipedia has to avoid drawing patterns or suggesting networks unless high-quality sources make those connections directly and unambiguously. No? Otherwise, what is the difference between Reddit, 4Chan, and Wikipedia? My concern is just to keep the article focused on what the sources explicitly support, without adding interpretations that could imply coordination or intent that the reporting itself does not confirm. Anyway, it is interesting for me to read your comments, because the line of thought deserves consideration. InquireHere (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeamonpenThank you for sharing this. :) I now understand your perspective muchg better. I really do agree that significant, well-sourced controversies belong in articles. However, Wikipedia has to be careful about how they are presented. The aim should not be to compile every allegation or competing narrative around a person. Rather, it should be to summarize what high-quality sources establish with clarity and proportionality. Otherwise, it becomes kind of like the Daily Mail... When sources contradict one another, or venture into speculation, it is impossible to present all of those claims side-by-side for readers to “decide” — that would unintentionally turn the article into a collection of theories rather than a neutral summary of verifiable information. My goal here is to keep the focus on what can be stated directly, clearly, and reliably without drifting into networks, implications, or narratives that the sources themselves do not firmly support. Does that make sense? InquireHere (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Jesse Michels I believe that if one source has come out, others will come out. It is Thiel and his companies, after all. I feel like I will do better deferring to some other editors in dealing with this matter while focusing my energy on other things. But I must respectfully emphasize again that I don't think one has to be something "formal" to do diplomacy. Diplomacy and politics have been *made* by non-state actors since forever, whether in a democracy or non-democracy, and I dislike the way in societies (that are growing older, more stratified), this is somehow a scandal no matter how well-meaning the participants are - and then the participants react by trying to be secretive about it, inciting more fear, and thus ultimately creating more mandate for often non-functional bureaucrats. Try looking at Chinese history: in many periods in their long history, especially the earlier eras, there were examples of women, technocratic people (business/military/...) etc. playing prominent roles in politics. Those eras might be a bit less "stable" and these people often employed unorthodox (sometimes reactive and violent) means but also often provided developments. But first, it was a bit sensitive, so you could participate but you should know your place and be discreet, and praise and give all your achievements to the rightful rulers, because after all you had no official mandate, and then from sensitive it became dirty and forbidden (it benefitted the trained scholar class, who would make exceptions for empresses dowager who bent their back for them, but even these were often erased as political leaders in their own right later). These kinds of misconception currently also contribute to the way some leftist commentators (who secretly admire the longterm planning thing in China) misunderstand the nature of their economic success (in short, it is another version of "killing the hounds when the rabbits die"/兔死狗烹). It is a toxic cycle. Informing/educating the populace about the actual workings of politics/diplomacy/military, rather than building grand narratives on official positions and assignments, will ultimately benefit both sides and make it easier to achieve a compromise (a new social contract, so to speak). There will be initial backlashes, certainly. Personally - and I know this will sound contradictory - I like both democracy and the good aspects of technocracy and believe that there can be frameworks that integrate the two (we will always have the military as an obvious technocratic area, btw), and the requirement is that first, there should be transparency.

Same with alliances between companies and defense-related entities. Dirty network or not, it is the goals and manners of cooperation, not the fact they cooperate. And certainly, Thiel, like other non-state actors can be both good and bad.

It appears fairly obvious to me that ArcticToday and https://global.espreso.tv/world-news-bilderberg-club-evolution-of-ukrainian-topic Espreso TV] state that Thiel supported Helsing through different means and Helsing has a close relationship with his companies:

ArcticToday

In November 2021, three months before Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine, Swedish Prima Materia invested 100 million euros in German defence technology startup Helsing. This wasn’t a coincidence.

Prima Materia is Spotify founder Daniel Ek’s investment arm. Spotify in turn has had Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund as an early investor. Palantir, in which Thiel and Founders Fund are invested, is a strategic partner with Helsing. These early U.S. technology connections have helped spur a close transatlantic venture capital relationship, which is now seeping into defence.

Espreso TV

For the first time, the meeting included an unusually high number of defense CEOs:

Brian Schimpf of Anduril Industries

Gundbert Scherf of Helsing

Alex Karp of Palantir

This is the so-called “Thiel ecosystem” — companies linked to Peter Thiel, who also attended the meeting.

Why these two sources do not show any sign of disapproval and criticism either.

And apparently not just Palantir, but Founders Fund's newly minted Valinor Enterprises is stategic partners with Helsing as well

https://www.valinor.co/

https://www.generalcatalyst.com/stories/seeding-the-future-with-valinor

Why is the word "ecosystem" scandalous? Has Thiel or his companies fired back at the notion they are close, have supported or been supported by Helsing at any place? Deamonpen (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deamonpen On Michels: the issue isn’t whether informal diplomacy can exist (it most certainly can and does), but rather does it in this instance. Not a single reliable source identifies Michels as engaging in diplomacy or being known for it anywhere. One journalist’s description of a single trip cannot be expanded into a general statement that Michels “has been noted for diplomatic activities,” especially when no confirmation exists from any official, independent, or authoritative body. That’s why I prefer wording that stays close to what the source reports: one interview, one trip, and the journalist’s own phrasing. Nothing more.

I understand your view that information may eventually emerge and that people around Thiel often draw attention (that's certainly true), but in this case the activity described has no connection to Thiel or Thiel Capital at all...it relates purely to Michels’ own project, "American Alchemy." This is how I found the Thiel Capital page to being with, fyi, because I am interested in the UAP topic and was doing a deep dive on Google and Wikipedia on prominent people linked to it after watching the film, "Age of Disclosure," last week. I found the fund's page because it mentions Michels, and I read it. I began to make edits to the section on Michels because the article was very clearly incorrect in its coverage of him (it falsely stated that he was the fund's CEO, remember, although this information was not included in the cited article or anywhere else on the Internet; Michels is, or was, at most, a mid-level person at the fund). That's when I started to read the article more closely and make other changes to ensure greater neutrality on the page.

I don't know if ArcticToday and Expresso TV are high-quality or especially noteworthy sources for making claims about political networks or institutional relationships. We need strong, independent, reliable sourcing to support that kind of framing, and I don't believe that these sources meet that bar. InquireHere (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Michels, I think that it does not have to be related to Thiel Capital in a way that Thiel Capital does something with it. But at least Thiel Capital is mentioned and Michels is currently an employee. We hardly know whether Kurz's political activities have something to do with Thiel Capital at this time anymore (he will deny, and other organizations related to him are mentioned as well, but Thiel Capital does get mentioned in Kurz's politics articles).

My impression is that Michels did a series of trip with Ilyumzhinov, Michels arranged the meetings, and in the case of Edi Rama it was mainly a meeting between Michels and Rama (it was Ilyumzhinov being brought along). I think it is fairly safe to say he did much more than just a filmmaker.

Michels brought Ilyumzhinov to both Rome and Albania, filming extended conversations for a forthcoming American Alchemy series set to air later this year — positioning Ilyumzhinov’s worldview within a wider inquiry into institutions, metaphysics and the shifting nature of global legitimacy.

Several days later, Michels took Ilyumzhinov for a private lunch in Albania with Prime Minister Edi Rama. Before the meeting, they visited the international headquarters of the Bektashi Order.

There were no press conferences, no staged optics. Instead, there was a Eurasian statesman in Vatican corridors, a discreet stop in Ulaanbaatar, a Sufi compound above Tirana, and a philosopher-investor arranging meetings, recording reflections and listening.

On Helsing, both are legitimate channels.

Espreso TV is an Ukrainian channel that is fairly notable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espreso_TV

Arctic Today is a channel focusing on countries around the North Pole, especially on geopolitical matters.

It is on the list recommended for news on the Arctic by the Harvard Kennedy School

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/hks/arctic

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=310705&p=2072662

Also recommended by Naval War College:

https://usnwc.libguides.com/blogs/system/Arctic-Today

https://usnwc.libguides.com/az/databases

Why should they be considered not reliable because some people don't know them? I don't know how New York Times or Washington Post is more qualified than them in making statements about companies and politics in Europe either. Deamonpen (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeamonpenThanks for this note. I enjoyed reading it. I am writing a lengthy note here. It is not an LLM. I would appreciate it if you would read it, too.

The core problem here is that you are drawing far stronger conclusions from the Billionaires.Africa article than the source itself allows.

On the Albania meeting: I can sense that you have far more than a layman's interest in and grasp of Central and Eastern European politics. Am I right? Then I’m sure you are aware that Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama is very much an idiosyncratic individual.

The Albanian prime minister is an artist and a former art professor. He has a big reputation for meeting an unusually broad range of people, including YouTubers, musicians, athletes, and other public figures. He has met iShowSpeed. He has met James Belushi and discussed his plans to build a legal cannabis business in Albania (on film). He has appeared with many, many influencers on livestreams and he often incorporates informal and symbolic encounters into his political style. In that sense, a casual meeting with a filmmaker or interviewer is not remotely unusual for him.

No Albanian government statement, no Albanian media outlet, and no independent institutional source reported anything about this meeting as diplomatic, political, or official. In fact, no one reported anything about it at all. This suggests that it was just an informal, non-governmental conversation involving a well-known YouTuber/filmmaker and a very media-friendly prime minister.

Moreover, if we look a bit deeper, Billionaires.Africa has covered Kirsan Ilyumzhinov repeatedly over the years because (the outlet states this itself) of his long-standing interest in Africa and his frequent visits there. (He claims to have visited almost every country on the continent.) They have also interviewed him on several occasions. This suggests that the outlet’s framing of the Rome-Tirana trip reflects the publication’s own editorial focus and longstanding interest in Ilyumzhinov, rather than an indication that the trip itself carried diplomatic or political significance.

We have absolutely no evidence beyond the single journalist’s framing, and we cannot build encyclopedic claims on speculation about what might have been discussed.

For all we know, given Rama’s personality and the nature of Michels’ show, they all may well have discussed extraterrestrials — we do not know, and Wikipedia cannot assume.

This is exactly why policy requires us to stick strictly to what is verifiable, not what appears “safe to say.”

My point here is that we cannot draw conclusions beyond what the sources explicitly establish, and in this case the jump from “one journalist’s framing of one trip” to “Michels is noted for diplomatic activities” is not supported at all.

I do agree with you that there are important fixers in the world, who work behind the scenes in politics. We all read recently about an important Qatari fixer, who played a significant role in the peace deal in the Middle East. And that individual has a long and dedicated history as a behind-the-scenes fixer. It is not one publication saying this.... It is many, many, over many years. It is all very easily corroborated.

In this instance, there is one publication and a huge assumption because Michels somehow knows or knew Thiel or works or worked at his fund.

On the sources:

Espreso TV and Arctic Today may be fine for general news, but Wikipedia’s standard for claims about political networks, influence, or the activities of living people should be much higher. These outlets cannot be considered authoritative for attributing political alliances or mapping corporate and geopolitical ecosystems. None of this is about dismissing the outlets — it is about applying Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. InquireHere (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said I would wait for the Michels part. Popular politicians having diverse range of interests is a normal thing, but regarding this specific article, I will say that it frames the activities including that one as political in nature.

Espreso TV and Arctic Today focuses on geopolitics (with Espreso leaning to the left, but this does not particularly shows in that article - I mean that, at least the quote part just mentions the Thiel ecosystem in a very neutral tone), much more so than many of the green sources you see on this list. I say that I vehemently disagree that they should only be used for "general news", considering the current standard of Wikipedia. The article on Arctic Today is also showing Thiel's connection with Sweden and Helsing in a generally neutral-leaning-positive way, and it should be seen as a balancing influence on other articles also talking about connections and networks, but not in that tone. If you try so hard to fight the opinions of these publications and deem what they write "conspiracies", what do you say about this or this or this? At least these Espreso and Arctic Today articles mention certain concrete things (Thiel influencing Ek's decision to invest in Helsing, Helsing being Palantir's strategic partner, Thiel having something to do with the fact that 2025 Bilderberg invited 3 defense CEOs...etc) and not write a whole grand narrative out of that about networks and shadowy influences and try to combine too many things into a single conspiracy.

Talking about Wikipedia's standard and the caution it shows when mentioning living people, well it does not prevent people from writing articles like this (which I tried to remove through AfD to no avail - I did that because I thought it was one thing when Bloomberg commented on the political network of Musk, Fortune commented on the political network of Thiel, and you might use that as part of an article on them or their activities, but creating a huge SYNTH mess out of them would be another thing) - like it is true that Thiel has relationships with person A, B, C, while Musk has relationships with E, D, F, but how can you draw a table that collect all these people into a single network (assuming that they all share the same kind of interest and goals)? The name "Network of the Department of Government Efficiency" does not even exist outside of Wikipedia, and yet people fought for it. Do you want to prepare the empty space, so that this kind of stuff will expand to the articles we are discussing as well? The choice of the word "ecosystem" itself is already neutral in comparison with "network", because things usually happen in a "natural" way in an "ecosystem".Deamonpen (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, people out there on the left and right are hugely concerned about Thiel's, Karp's and Palantir's relationship with Israel and certain organizations, with the help of Chinese and Russian propagandists of course (I have also introduced some materials on that myself). I think that adding some stuffs written by Europeans about European companies (and especially German ones) having relationships with them (and which are basically supported by facts) will add some balance. At the end, Thiel's huge bets are not Citrea or Carbyne, he does not bring Israeli companies with him to Bilderberg; Karp is/was co-CEO of Palantir Gmbh, not the Israeli branch. Deamonpen (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deamonpen Thanks for this detailed response.

I really do appreciate this discussion.

On Michels, I don't want to beat a dead horse. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. However, I do believe that even in an undergraduate paper, no professor would accept a claim that someone “engages in diplomatic activities” based on a single article from a niche outlet — especially given the context that I described. I’m surprised that this point is so controversial.

On Espreso TV and Arctic Today: my question isn’t if they’re “legitimate.” I don't want to say that. But are they sufficiently reliable to stake one's claims on them if we are talking about political networks and influence involving living people? I thought that Wikipedia requires strong, independent sources. These media can be used for basic factual statements, for sure, but I personally would not treat their interpretive framing as established fact in the same way that I might be more inclined to do with other, more respected analytical media.

Happy to continue discussing. I like your perspective. InquireHere (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are just less known. If that equals "less respected", I will say that they are also less criticized and less exposed. This line of reasoning usually leads to an Anglo-centric tendency, as in US-UK publications are overvalued even when they talk about something outside of their usual areas and involving other regions of the world, to the disadvantage of publications from smaller countries like Espreso TV and publications that focus on a niche matter (and not terribly relatable to the majority of adults in UK and US) such as Arctic Today. If you say at least one can reference facts from these publications, people calling the three companies "Thiel ecosystem" is just a statement of fact (This is the so-called “Thiel ecosystem” - meaning Espreso TV takes that one from others, and this is not something they invent), Palantir and Helsing being strategic partners, Thiel investing in Ek's company leading to Ek investing in Helsing three months before the Ukraine war was also just an event being reported. Either you believe them as truths, or not. I don't complained if anyone adds that "According to Espreso TV, the three companies are called the Thiel ecosystem." If you have "respected publications" which say something else, you can add that. Nobody says otherwise.

The kind of things the other articles do, on the other hand, is weaving together a narrative. They don't just list Kratsios, Harrington and others and comment that "many people who previously worked for Thiel now work for the government". They draw complex charts and network images. People who work directly under Thiel, people who co-invest with Thiel, and people who work for some companies Thiel invest in, are put together and are called Thiel network. And I notice that Democrats are frequently "forgotten" by these infographics lovers. Gavin Newsom received money from Thiel - never appears anywhere as part of Thiel network. Hoffman (PayPal mafia, co-investors in many things including military projects) - very rare. I can swallow the kind of "Stanford Review alumni" network as long as there is not too much speculation, because the basis is just one type of relationship, and they do actually have networking organizations for their alumni. And the people who reuse these articles on Wikipedia sometimes go even further than that, as I have shown above. So I see absolutely no point in helping them with removing the more moderate views provided by other publications. Deamonpen (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deamonpen Thank you for this explanation. I don’t want to generalize about any country’s media landscape. But what you said reinforces my concern. I lived in Western and Central Ukraine for years, and I am very familiar with how uneven the journalistic standards can be — especially the prevalence of pay-for-play pieces and low editorial oversight. That does not make outlets such as Espreso TV unusable on Wikipedia, but it does mean we have to be careful about how far we lean on their interpretations. As you say, reliability on Wikipedia isn’t about geography or politics. It is about editorial independence, fact-checking, and consistency. There are many, many excellent non-Anglophone publications all across Europe that meet that bar. But when it comes to higher-stakes claims concerning living people, political influence, and/or supposed “ecosystems,” Wikipedia requires (in my view, at least) sources with stronger, more established reputations. For straightforward factual statements, Espreso and similar outlets can be cited. But their characterisations should not be treated as fact unless corroborated by multiple high-quality sources (again, in my view). That’s the caution I am raising here. InquireHere (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is by Wikipedia's standard, caution is applied when something contentious, defaming etc is claimed about a living person. But both sources do not claim anything contentious and defaming. There is nothing problematic about the word "ecosystem" in any dictionary I know. If someone imagines something shadowy about it, that will be their problem. What is defaming about stating that Helsing and Palantir have a strategic partnership?

And while they do not mention Helsing specifically, other sources have mentioned Thiel competing with Schmidt in installing their people in Bilderberg (and not always with that neutral/sympathetic tone). Bilderberg is a private club. Steering committee members can invite so naturally he invites people he likes, why not?

The two figures at Bilderberg who seem to have an aura of influence about them are Schmidt and Thiel.

Over the years, Schmidt has been gently aligning himself as the heir to Kissinger, and has populated recent conferences with Google executives.

The Libertarian Thiel has already engineered his lieutenant, Alex Karp, onto the steering committee.

https://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-switzerland-bilderberg-2019-and-high-tech-future-transatlantic-1441259

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/15/bilderberg-hroup Deamonpen (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deamonpen, I've reached out to you a few weeks ago, and wanted to see how you've been doing since then. Do you feel like you've been doing better? Or are you still having problems with anything? Let me know! Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikieditor662, thank you so much for reaching out :) I feel like things are going okay, and I’m grateful that Wikipedia has thoughtful people like you who listen to many sides. If there’s any way I can help you in return, please let me know. Deamonpen (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're doing alright. I've been wanting to create a group, and eventually a wikiproject meant to maintain fairness on Wikipedia, among other things. Here are some examples of what it could contain:

• Reaching out to users who feel mistreated (as I have with you)
• Offering advice to users who ask for it
• Reviewing articles or discussions to make sure that they are aligned with Wikipedia's rules (where users/members could request reviews)
• Discussing ways Wikipedia can improve its fairness and treatment of users

In order for this to work, I first need to find other editors interested in it (and you're the first person I've reached out to so far). Would you like to help out, or at least become a member if such thing does open?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. I have never been a member of any such group before so I can't say that I have experience. But I think your plan is really worthwhile. I think I will participate:) Deamonpen (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad you like the vision! I suggest you find more editors who are willing to join this (and I'll do the same, although I don't know too many people). Once we get a few more members, we can start a user/work group, and eventually try to become a full project. Other than that, do you have any suggestions that you have off the top of your head? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to contact people although I don't know too many people either.

I think all points in your plan are good. I think that reviewing articles might include further effort to help improve them (suggesting proposals, helping with finding sources..etc). And maybe we can build short introductions that help new users to Wikipedia rules and guidelines on fairness and balance. Deamonpen (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! Once we get more members, we'll start putting these in a user page and map/outline these out. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deamonpen Good news, I just found another member who said they're interested in joining (RogerYG)! (Even though they said they're not sure how active in it they would be).

Do you think that now would be a good time to create a user page where I could outline the vision, or should we wait longer? And when I do create it, would you like to help out?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think we should just do it. I will contribute where I can. Deamonpen (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll create one soon. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deamonpen Before I do this though, what do you think the page should be called? (And remember this won't be the final version so it can be changed later) Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. Maybe Fairness and Balance? I believe we would belong to this group:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_WikiProjects Deamonpen (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! I've created User:Wikieditor662/fairness. For now though, don't propose the project, we'll need to do a bunch of work on it before we get there. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yours looks good. I have no talent in making anything aesthetically when it comes to documents or essays or whatever, but I have added information on the project on my main page, paired with some ugly arranged notes on Wiki guidelines.... Deamonpen (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! But wouldn't you want to put the information under User:Wikieditor662/fairness? That's probably where I'll redirect new people I invite. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not confident when it comes to making this kind of content or doing anything aesthetic or stylistic. Please reuse any material I create for this group and edit them according to your wishes. You have my trust. Deamonpen (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I added your information to the page! Have happy holidays! Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And I wish you and yours happy holidays too! Deamonpen (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

How are you?

I just wanted to ask you if you can help fix again the many parts of your pervious works and contribution to this article?

Many of it was just removed in the past few days with claims it was "too long". And I really don't understand why...... I think it was very good article to read and not just because Rommel is my favorite general.

Why Donald Trump article isn't considered too long for example? No one care about many of the "information" on it. Just because he is the president of the United States? ~2025-37152-94 (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Biden but the Trump article does get considered too long and they do try to reduce the size. There are several criteria for size but the more important one is prose size. Currently, Rommel article is

14,237 words in prose while Trumpis 12,779. That said, the user is a bit overzealous, and I do have concerns about some of the cuts. I will take a look and consider maybe making a fork. Deamonpen (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-37152-94, you may take a look at my sandbox (History) and provide recommendations if you desire to do so. I will try to gather sources and improve it so it can be a reasonable article within a few days.

I do like Rommel. It is often said with historical people one might never know, but I feel that he was a really simple person who was born to play a complicated role in a complicated period, and is a prime example of how naivete can actually have unlimited depth. Deamonpen (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've divided the materials between this new article Erwin Rommel in the Second World War and Rommel myth. Don't be sad, sometime the reduction at some places is a chance for others to develop the articles in the future. Deamonpen (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!!!! Thanks a lot for the Erwin Rommel in the Second World War. A very well written article not just about the famous German general of World War 2, but the best known general of the whole war.

I just give Trump or Biden as examples for articles that looks long, they are just few.... Joseph Stalin is long for sure, but don't know exactly with how much words.

Your new arricle is very good and well written, I just thought that many parts were missed from the main article before and without gevin a really good reason or something useful. ~2025-37152-94 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you like it. At least the editor who has done the reduction on the main page looks like they have good intentions and is not some biased user who only cuts one side, and thus editors can avoid a nasty debate. But removing too much in a short time naturally causes some problems with the composition of the page... Have great holidays! Deamonpen (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Founders Fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eric Jackson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed the project with Whatamidoing, and in this conversation, she showed me the similar project Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. Unless we can address fundamental differences, our proposed project will be unlikely to pass. However, I still want to make this project work. I'm thinking we should change it by adding/stating differences in methodologies and goals. Any suggestions? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think maybe we will highlight that our project focuses on building fair articles, rather than retaining users per se. Their project seems to focus on building a collaborative culture, improving the mood of users etc.

I think we can make note of strategy/tactics to change and attract attention to problematic, biased articles

Some raw, unorganized ideas:

-Be persistent but not aggressive, gather many many RS sources to change the sections slowly, until whatever summary the other side tries to place on top cannot hold anymore. Contact groups and individuals that might help with improving the article. My experience is that if you are persistent and knowledgeable enough about a topic, you will be able to attain a consensus that can satisfy many sides even if the other crowd is 10x larger than you. Certainly, as said, it works better with "big" people and "big" topics, so address these first. If you are the subject of an article or have some COI, there are tactics to address problems too (if suggestions on the Talk page don't work, notify someone who might do it, like the editor who is involved with General Matter above has notified me). If one has time to edit and is knowledgeable, one can try to improve related topics or similar articles first. If one does not have enough time, at least leave arguments backed up with sources on the Talk page — experience shows that this might help other users years later....

-Avoid violating rules yourself so when it comes to noticeboards, AfDs etc..., there are more reasons for people to stand on your side. Try to improve one's knowledge about Wikipedia rules and guidelines to defend yourself better, especially when the other misuse these rules against you or the perspective you want to defend.

-Create new articles that address the matter from another point of view or to retain significant materials about the topic Deamonpen (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Right now I'm still deliberating... I'm thinking, perhaps we could have the project focus on procedural justice? Although I'm also worried about overlapping with the wikiproject systemic bias. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor662, I think it is doable:) .

The Countering systemic bias project focuses on problems that are typical of society/academia as a whole and not just Wikipedia (women's/minority's views), so they encourage participants to edit topics that are related to socially disadvantaged groups.

But bias can often be a localized/individual problem, and in many cases, bias is often countered with bias.

So I think our project can complement their project by focusing on localized/individual problems.

An example I can think of is this: previously I edited many articles related to Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I a lot. In the process I became fascinated with "his women", especially the first wife Mary of Burgundy too. I found the couple very interesting, it was just that Max I lived much longer and there are so many surviving materials about him... I was very surprised when I found out that there was a notable trend with feminist art historians who tried to destroy their romance "myth", and showed that Max I just considered Mary a source of wealth that he could conquer and possess and whose achievements/honours he had stolen.... I felt that had I started from Mary's side, I might have followed that trend as well. But my sympathy for Max I (I am a female, mind you) gave me patience, and I was quickly able to dig out some other materials that could make a fair counterpoint. Basically the artworks Max I made and sponsored for her were complex. She was sometimes the young bride, sometimes his spiritual mother, sometimes a tragic warrior queen, sometimes the conquering goddess, sometimes his ideal empress. I find this one particularly moving (implying that starting with the status of a mere human, Mary would become the spiritual counterpart to God and rule the heaven, earth and sea like a martial queen, just like Max himself had once entered the earthly realm of the Low Countries as an outsider, but then became the more direct ruler....) He was also respectful of her political contributions but there were matters related to court politics that he could not have addressed directly. And in the end this more optimistic point of view does not lessen Mary of Burgundy — quite contrary. It just shows that not every historical female got their achievements stolen — some did, some did not, some became more obscure with time but not because they were tragically betrayed by their men (I feel that the whole having one's achievements stolen/having no chance to develop one's talents thing is more true for the middle class women of the 18th, 19th, early 20th centuries... Male scholars in that era often somewhat degraded the value of female personalities who had traditionally been portrayed as great as well. Some females could actually have their reputation enhanced 10x had they been born in a more supporting era — like this one for exampel [I also edited this article heavily])

So I think that balance requires many types of effort. Focusing on the disadvantaged groups is also good, but having an open mind about reality/history and doing justice to the supposed privileged/"oppressors" side are also good, and will help the disadvantaged groups as well.

Just some thought... I have no detailed ideas yet..... Deamonpen (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your help by the way! Say, would you like to be the co-founder of the project, since you've been helping out with it so much? You can also make edits to the project page in the way that you think will help make sure our proposed project is distinct. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deamonpen. Thank you for your work on Erwin Rommel in the Second World War. Another editor, Scope creep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Ref 364, 387, 388, 489 don't point to anything. Good article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 21:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deamonpen, I've reached out to more people since we last spoke, yet nobody new has agreed to join our project thus far. Do you think the project just won't work out? Or do I need to increase the number of people I reach out to or something? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]