108.234.185.147

-June 2012

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. This notice is for several such edits in several articles, including Adolf Strauß and Heinrich von Heß. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Adolf Strauß, you may be blocked from editing. Your edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Strauß/Strauss

You seem to be engaged in a slow edit war on this page. I suggest you stop, and join the discussion that has been started here. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"ss" transliteration of eszett

This section you added to the Adolf Straub talkpage is somewhat irrelevant to the issue there; that is not the place to discuss what you did wrong, or what should happen on WP globally, or whether there's some Germanophonic conspiracy at work. If you want to pursue the matter I've moved it, with my reply, to my talk page. As far as the other page goes, if you have a comment about the spelling on that page specifically, I suggest you add it to the discussion that is already in progress. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about this?:

Citations should not be necessary in a matter this cut and dried, but let me repeat what I posted on Michael's talk page, namely my own two hardcover English language Encyclopedia Brittanicas (1966 and 1932 editions), and numerous examples of Wiki articles on famous Germans (Gauss, Hess, Dollfuss and 8 other Germans named Strauss)using "ss" transliteration rather than eszett.

Stop removing valid, sourced material...

...or I'll block you for disruption. I see this is not the first time you've edit-warred over this and related issues. Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I warned you, and you reverted again. I have blocked your IP for 24 hours. Please stop edit-warring.

Here's the thing: it's only your opinion that it's a problem; many people think there is value added for those who can speak German to have the original text in addition to the translation, at least for official documents such as those you removed. If you want to convince those who disagree with you, have the discussion, and on the talk page, not through edit-summaries. That you think there's some Germanophone conspiracy trying to cram German down everyone else's throats is your own problem. That kind of mindset is not tolerated here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And your IP has been blocked for a week. Please stop editing disruptively. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You still seem to be incapable of editing collaboratively. I have blocked your IP again for 2 weeks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

See you in three months. Perhaps you can learn to edit collaboratively in the meantime, instead of just using blanket reverts with no attempt to discuss. If not, you will be blocked repeatedly and for longer durations until you either modify your behavior or leave the project. The choice is yours. Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

April 2013

Hello, I'm Yintan. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Desertification with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Yintan²  15:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Pratyya Ghosh. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Pol Pot because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battles of Narvik may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm Bermicourt. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Haußelberg because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your changing of the eszett to double "s" contravenes Wikipedia guidelines and also deleted the image at top left.

• Thank you for you comments.
• Since "ß" is neither encouraged nor discouraged, there needs to be a good reason to change existing text. The only justifiable change you have made is to Gauss since that spelling is widespread and common in English sources. The small hill of Haußelberg and hamlet of Unterlüß are, on the other hand, not widely reported in English sources, so we follow the section on No established usage in English-language sources. That's why the article titles are spelt that way. Your change to the image name means the image fails to display and your change to the opening sentence resulted in a typo. With respect to your criticism of the use of "ß" on Wikipedia, I'm afraid WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not an argument that carries weight here.
• Please also try to be civil in your remarks and do not use personal criticism including sarcasm like "Do you know who Gauss was?". My degree happens to be in engineering, so of course I know who he was.

  You should be aware that there has been considerable debate about the use of "ß" in the past. Just 2 examples are here and here. Please familiarize yourself with the arguments before making changes that are not supported by current guidelines and practice. If you wish to propose a change to the guidelines you need to do so on the appropriate page and inform the relevant Wiki projects (e.g. for Germany).

• Finally, please sign your edits by using 4 tildes (~). Bermicourt (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I agree "ß" is unfamiliar to non-German speakers, but I don't write the guidelines here and that is not considered a valid reason to change it. Only widespread usage in English sources trumps native spelling. Go look at the Czech articles! When I first joined Wikipedia I challenged the use of "ß", but got nowhere. You will find diacritics everywhere on Wikipedia.
  • I entered both "Hausselberg" and "Haußelberg" on Google books (generally reckoned by Wiki to be more reliable and authoritative than the web) and found not one single English language source.
  • I did a block revert which is why Gauss was undone. You will see I have re-instated it.
  • May I suggest you take your arguments to WP:DIACRITICS or WP:MOS rather than altering individual articles - you will only get frustrated or banned because we have to follow the guidelines.
  • Better still, from my experience I recommend you forget this particular issue (even Jimbo queried it and had to be content with the status quo) and concentrate on more fruitful areas. It's less stressful and more rewarding! Regards. Bermicourt (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I partly agree with you. There are pros and cons to the "ß" debate, so I do see both sides of the argument. On the whole I prefer, like you, to make things easier to understand for English readers (even though I speak almost fluent German), for example I have argued to call Hauptbahnhöfe "central stations" which has caused heated debate!
    • I undid the edits because they contravene current Wiki policy and I believe in acting under authority and following Wiki's rules. Otherwise we will have anarchy.
    • There is no individual who is the authority, rules and guidelines are agreed by consensus. In this area the 2 links I gave you above are probably where the issue should be debated. Trouble is, it's easy to find the policy, but not so easy to find the discussions because a) there are several of them and b) they have been archived. But ask a question on the talk pages of the above policies and someone will probably point you to the debates.
    • I have learnt that, on Wikipedia, if you don't follow the rules you quickly get banned. Also there are some battles worth fighting and some that are worth putting on the back burner for another day when the climate is more conducive to change. IMHO the diacritics debate is one of those.
    • Why don't you register fully and become an editor in the areas you are expert in?
    • For me the joy of Wikipedia is being able to create and enhance articles, especially translating from German, which is my passion. I have created over 3,000 articles by translation and I don't want to be distracted by endlessly arguing over a policy I can live with. Hope that helps. Regards. Bermicourt (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Perth, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User:PantherLeapord, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Yes, Fremantle's on the west coast of Australia, on the Indian Ocean, but it's also much closer to Singapore, Indonesia and the South China Sea, so the reference was correct: the vast majority of subs operating out of Fremantle patrolled the Southwest Pacific, because Fremantle's closer than the rather distant east coast. Fremantle was heavily used by the US Navy during the Vietnam War for the same reason. Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm Oddbodz. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Indemnity, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 19:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Super Bowl III. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Cmckain (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at 2011 Waltham triple murder, you may be blocked from editing. Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Curley Culp, you may be blocked from editing. Epeefleche (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Curley Culp. Unexplained add of uncited POV Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• Please read wp:synth and wp:OR to understand the policy here. You are free to delete other uncited original research and synthesis.Epeefleche (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Curley Culp, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. No RS source that you have supplied says "greatest era" -- editors are not supposed to make "inferences", to use your phrase describing your edit. As what I already asked you to read states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Epeefleche (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---