BlauGraf

August 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Fast & Furious (2009 film) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Fast & Furious (2009 film) was changed by BlauGraf (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.871825 on 2020-08-27T20:32:08+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay so BlauGraf's edit wasn't exactly vandalism and ClueBot was wrong again but it wasn't a good edit either. Please read MOS:SLASH, which is a big part of why it was not a good edit. Despite the warning from ClueBot BlauGraf went and repeated exactly the same change.[1]

I didn't notice that ClueBot had reverted BlauGraf's edit once already but I did see it was badly written and cleaned it up.[2]

BlauGraf repeated almost the same edit for a third time[3] with the same edit summary that it "corrected omission" changing the description of Dominic Toretto to say he was a "car hijacker/criminal". That still fails MOS:SLASH but also it is not an omission it is redundant, there aren't exactly a lot of non-criminal car hijackers, or non-criminal fugitives.

In future if your edits are reverted please try to understand or find out or ask why you have been reverted. Don't keep repeating the same edits. Best of luck. -- 109.79.168.179 (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Joseph Blaszkow

Hello, BlauGraf

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Joseph Blaszkow for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

JW 1961 Talk 15:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Blaszkow moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Joseph Blaszkow, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 21:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

- I am incredibly offended by this.  We have an incredible amount of space, and I am trying to contribute to this platform, and I am being stymied.

Please review the criteria for Wikipedia biographical articles: WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. ... discospinster _talk 22:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have reviewed it. Something must be noteworthy, and the first person to get a punitive damages award is indeed noteworthy. You have no right to delete my articles! This is dangerously improper and censorious!

@BlauGraf: No, if you had reviewed these guidelines and understood them you would realize that it is you who is in the wrong. There is no ambiguity here. Feeling incredibly offended by this just shows that you may not have the emotional maturity to be part of this project. In any case, if you cannot accept our community norms, guidelines and policies, then you are not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. Also, please learn how to post on user talk pages before committing further acts of vandalism as you did on mine. Generalrelative (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I will thank you sir not to attack me personally. I am approaching you professionally, but you are intending to go elsewhere.

March 2021

Did you intend to delete my comment while leaving this [4] message on my user talk page? If not, I suggest being more careful in the future because deleting others' comments (unless it's on your own talk page and your deletion doesn't change the meaning of the exchange) can be considered WP:VANDALISM.

Also, you stated in your last comment on my talk page that you have referred this matter to wiki arbitration committee. A quick look at your contributions history shows that this is not the case. Can you clarify what you are talking about here?

Note too that, contrary to your accusation, Wikipedia's policy on WP:HOUNDING is quite clear: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. I have been observing your edits because I am concerned about an overall pattern of disruptive editing, as my several warnings and comments on your user talk page (deleted by you but visible in your talk page history) show. You are welcome to bring this to arbitration but I expect that the outcome will be either a quick dismissal or WP:BOOMERANG. Generalrelative (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I sent an email to the arbitration committee, as directed. Additionally, I have the right to remove things from my talk page. You are continuing your disruptive edits, and you are now actively harassing me, as you are reviewing my edits. I have asked you to stop. I have no idea what some boomerang is, nor would a dismissal be reasonable, since the errors I have fixed have all been made in good faith. Now please STOP following me! - blaugraf

• "Take this to arbitration" was bad advice, I'm afraid. Arbitration is the final step in resolving disputes. Other forms of dispute resolution should be tried first unless there are privacy issues involved, which does not appear to be the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Beeble. Failing dispute resolution, the resultant venue should be WP:ANI, not ArbCom. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to follow any directive from the Management of Wiki for the resolution of this dispute, but I was unable to find an email address for these mediums. Please advise, or direct me how to submit the resolution request. -Blaugraf

Its not done via email. Follow the little blue links we gave you and read them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Per your request, the Dispute Resolution has now been requested. However, the fact that I continue to be tracked and followed by this relative fellow remains harassing, and unabated.

WT:MOSCAPS

This is a Manual of Style dispute, about whether "Black" may be capitalized when it is used as a proper adjective (and proper adjectives are capitalized in English) to refer to racial or ethnic groups. It should be discussed as WT:MOSCAPS. This is a content dispute, but it is not an article content dispute, and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is not the right place to discuss. This should probably be resolved by a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I see no evidence of hounding or harassment, but if there is harassment, report it at WP:ANI, and you may be told that this is a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Comrade Robert, I disagree - in order to be a "proper" adjective, it must be a proper noun. Black is not a proper noun, any more than white or yellow or red is. Proper nouns have certain requirements, and black does not meet that burden, as English or French or African does. I concede however, that is issue is stylistic. The harassment referenced above comes from the fact that the aforementioned person continues to follow every edit I have made and is engaged in an edit/flame war, which per my understanding, is improper. That is harassment. What troubles me is that so many administrators here are ignoring the factual assertion I have made. - Blaugraf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:105:C00:9113:511:B80:BD08 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to WP:AN while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Modifying your comments

Per WP:TPG, please make sure you give a clear indication you have changed your comments if someone has already replied, especially when someone directly quoted something you said which are are modifying. Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I recognized a glaring error in typing, in my haste to make a reply, and I fixed it. The error was mine, and I corrected same. I am not sure what you are saying. BlauGraf (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)BlauGraf

Yes the error was yours. But 2 people had pointed out you made an error. Instead of simply acknowledging you made an error, you made it seem like these editors were the ones who made an error. Worse, you later modified someone else's comment so it said something different from what it said. A comment which made a lot more sense, since it is indeed offensive to many to say that Asia is a country, no longer made sense. You need to learn to own your mistakes, not try to re-write history and in the process make other editors look foolish. If you don't you won't last long here. You'd note that I am modifying this comment, I wouldn't normally bother to leave this message. If no one has replied, and especially if it's been a very short time, then yes it is fine to transparently fix your mistakes or just modify your comment for some other reason. But definitely not when others have already pointed you made a mistake and you are eliminating that mistake so it's like it was never there. (Sometimes editors will give you permission to remove their comments and transparently fix mistakes.) One of my corrections of my comment was fixing "your" to "you". Yet if I ever hit an edit conflict, or didn't but found you'd replied, it's unlikely I'd fix this mistake transparently. Even if your reply didn't mention this mistake of mine in any way, I just wouldn't do it. (It can get complicated when people have replied to the thread but not to you. I think most editors won't mind provided you double check that what you said wasn't addressed by any replies.) I'll be honest, I don't really know how to be any clearer. As I said at AN, to me it just seems clear as day that if you change something you wrote in a way that doesn't make it clear you did so, so it now appears people who have replied were making the mistake not you, this is so very wrong. It seems even more obvious that if you modify someone's signed comment so they are now saying something very different from what they actually said and again leave no indication you did so, this is very wrong. Yet you seem unable to understand this, so if you still can't figure it out, maybe just don't modify your replies transparently ever. If you need to modify them, follow the recommendations at TPG for how you can make it clear you did so, or alternatively just post a follow up comment with your correction. And don't touch anyone else's comment ever. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Madam, I made the error, and then I corrected both in the original and in the quotation. The error was mine, and mine alone, so why is it not in my purview to correct it? Secondarily, I would have thought, on my own page, I maintain sole prerogative as to what to keep and to delete. Is this not so? Referring to my talk page, that is. BlauGraf (talk)blaugraf

As I said at AN, your explanation makes no sense, so I'm starting to think you must be trolling. Someone else's comments are not yours, and it's not your purview to "correct" them.

You say you used to work for law enforcement. If someone being questioned said "Asia is a country" and later you said "You said Asia is a country, it's actually a continent not a country. There are many countries in Asia."; I'm sure you'd be fighting tooth and nail if the lawyer for the person being questioned demanded that the official transcript of this conversation was modified so that with no explanation or foot note the first comment becomes "Asia is a continent" and your comment becomes "You said Asia is a continent, it's actually a continent not a country. There are many countries in Asia." because the person being questioned made an error, which was theirs and theirs alone to correct. You'd be fighting tooth and nail if their lawyer only demanded their comment was modified without any notice too, even if yours wasn't modified.

Per WP:OWNTALK and WP:UOWN you can delete most content on your talk page. However you don't have sole prerogative since the page ultimately belongs to the community and not to you. Besides those small number of notices you can't delete, you also still cannot modify either your own comments or someone else's comments in a misleading way.

In other words, if you're talking about deleting whole threads on your talk page then sure you can nearly always do that although archiving is encourage. If you're talking about deleting specific words in a signed comment then no you can't generally do that, not even from your own comment if it's been replied to. If you're talking about deleting specific but entire replies in a thread on your talk page, you need to take great care since you may remove the context of what someone is referring to or make it seem like they're replying to something they're not. At a minimum, you probably should make it clear you did so in a follow up. Frankly it'll be better to simply not do so. I'm not sure why you bring this up in any case since from what I see, those times you have removed stuff from your talk page [5] [6], no one did anything against that. Indeed GeneralNotability specifically noted you can in their comment above signed 19:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC).

Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

BLP and AP DS alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - Arab-Israeli conflict

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Concern regarding Draft:Joseph Blaszkow

Hello, BlauGraf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joseph Blaszkow, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph Blaszkow (October 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Eagleash were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joseph Blaszkow and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Joseph Blaszkow, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eagleash (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, BlauGraf! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Eagleash (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jagdpanther have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Denniss (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jagdpanther. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Denniss please stop vandalizing my edits. This is targeted and improper. I have stated a basis for my edit, and you continue to revert peremptorily. This is, as stated, improper. @blaugraf

March 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Soviet-Afghan War, you may be blocked from editing. RGloucester — ☎ 17:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Please be advised that the subject in question has engaged in an edit war, and has improperly changed my edits. He has started to flame my edits. Please post this notice on his page at once. ~~blaugraf

Your draft article, Draft:Joseph Blaszkow

Hello, BlauGraf. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joseph Blaszkow".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Italian aircraft carrier Aquila. BilCat (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mauritz von Wiktorin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ostmark.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Your long term pattern of attempting to whitewash Nazi war crimes is unacceptable; you have been warned repeatedly that edits like this are wholly unacceptable. You are clearly here to advance an agenda, which Wikipedia will not tolerate. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That is completely inaccurate. I am stopping others from advancing an anti German agenda. ~Blaugraf