Ulmendorf

Ulmendorf, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ulmendorf! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hutterites in Australia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hutterites in Australia. Since you had some involvement with the Hutterites in Australia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Elmendorf Christian Community

Hello friend. I made some comments on the Talk:Elmendorf Christian Community page that you might be interested in. Jsniessen (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Grand River Christian Community for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grand River Christian Community is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand River Christian Community until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Altona Christian Community for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Altona Christian Community is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altona Christian Community until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Evangelical Church of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denomination. 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) 05:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn

Below is my discussion with User Alexbrn about his repeated reverts in the article Pierre Kory. User Alexbrn's edits are all but neutral! The version of the article of Dr. Pierre Cory User Alexbrn revert to all the time is more of a hit piece than a neutral biographical article. User Alexbrn insists in slandering remarks on Dr. Kory in tha article. He seems unable to answer my questions, all he does is reverting and reverting! Ulmendorf (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Documenation below this line:

---

Do you have any idea what a neutral standpoint is? Martin Sell (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV for the policy, and specifically WP:GEVAL when it comes to quackery/pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that you engage in an edit war by reverting to YOUR version of the article, not me. The statement above about "quackery/pseudoscience" also seems odd to me, how do you know that for sure? Even if you were an expert, science is about discussion and not about just rejecting other view points! Ulmendorf (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV for the policy, and specifically WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and calling a drug a "miracle cure" without miraculous evidence is quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A closer view at the history of the article shows that you are over and over again reverting other users! YOU should be banned for that! This article is not yours so that you can decide what is in the article and what not especially since you restore your biased, not neutral view point! What do you think gives you this authority? Shame on you! Ulmendorf (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

So YOU decide what is a personal statement and what quackery? Are you a physician that cares for patients with Civid-19? Can't you see your arrogance and presumptuousness? Ulmendorf (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do you close this discussion? Why don't you answer my questions? Have you considered the possibility that you are wrong and people like Dr. Kory right? What if ivermectin is really a potent drug against Covid-19? What would you say if it turns out that many people died and will die from Covid-19 because they are preventented from getting a helpfull drug? And this may be the the case because YOU helped to suppress a discussion between physisians about what's best for their patients?

Have you ever heard that the tabacco industry suppressed informations that made clear how bad smokings is for your health. What if the pharmaceutical industry wants to suppress a penny drug like ivermenctin because the want so sell their drug Remdesivir which is more than 3000 US$ a dose?

What if you are part of these possible evil machinations that may kill many, many old, disabled or sick people who could have been saved by a cheap und potent drug?

Have you read the newest meta analysis which took many studies from all around the world to evaluate them? What if really 62 out of a 100 poeple could be saved but weren't because the discussion among physisians was suppressed? Here it is: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

It is no question that both facebook and youtube censored almost all statements about ivermectin that were not negative!

Could you live with the faxt that is partly YOUR FAULT that many, many poeple DIE a very cruel death by suffocation?

Why don't you answer Mr. Alexbrn? Ulmendorf (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Metron per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Metron. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  – bradv^🍁 22:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)