User talk: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)