User talk:Doubledareyou

Welcome

Hello, Doubledareyou, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Doubledareyou, good luck, and have fun. Ec13328 (talk 13:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pajz

User Pajz was very fast and undid my revision at 14:13, 22 July 2020‎ 22 minutes later at 14:35, 22 July 2020.

User Pajz didn't contact me, didn't argue, didn't prove anything and erased my contribution as fast as possible.

It is funny that User Pajz acts as an judge who does not listen and treats me like an disturbing object #Nazizeit

That would be me. Well, I stated the reasons in the edit summary. First, you are apparently trying to draw attention to some personal theory about the Federal Constitutional Court (or the German legal system as a whole), which is at odds with WP:No original research. Second, you do not provide any sources (WP:SOURCE) whatsoever. This is also true for preposterous claims like "They established Glitch in Germany because they were deeply frightened of judges and doctors and cicil servants and lawyers of the Third Reich who behaved like programmed robots." Third, your elaborations are, at their core, incomprehensible (one of many examples: ".. his constitutional complaint slipped within 1 week to the Federal Constitutional Court"? What? A constitutional complaint against a court decision (Urteilsverfassungsbeschwerde) has to be raised with the Federal Constitutional Court within one month following the allgedly infringing decision, s 93(1) BVerfGG; Maunz/Schmidt-Bleibtreu/Klein/Bethge/Hömig, Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz, § 93 para 7 (R 58 January 2020). And what does "slipping .. to the Federal Constitutional Court" even mean?) Fourth, in the last sentence of your addition specifically, you claim that judges of the Federal Constitutional Court "often ignore violations of laws" and make use of a provision in the BVerfGG "like a Nazi". This is obviously in violation of WP:NPOV. Fifth, to the (very limited) extent that your additions are comprehensible, they are erroneous. By way of example, you specifically claim, incorrectly, that the "limitation period" for a constitutional complaint against a judgement is one week; and you claim, incorrectly, that "§93d (1) Sentence 2 BVerfGG is usually triggered if a democratic law (limitation period: 1year) is attacked with a constitution complaint", which makes no sense to begin with (just read the provision; nothing "triggers" it, it simply states that decisions by a Chamber concerning the admission or non-admission of a constitutional complaint are unappealable). For the foregoing reasons, I will again revert your change and advise you that I will bring your edits to the attention of the project administrators should you choose to reinstate said additions in identical or substantially identical form. — Pajz (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For disputes with other editors...

...the best place to discuss is on the Talk page of the article in question. Wikipedia suggests that people can be bold in their edits, but if reverted, discuss (BDR). Reverting a revert can be construed as edit-warring, which can lead to both parties being blocked for a short period of time (a day or two). David notMD (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Sabine Hossenfelder your contribution was reverted because you did not provide a citation. Wikipedia requires both truth and verification. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting hyperlinks in the text of articles as verification is not allowed. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow promotion!

I did not provide a citation because Wikipedia forbids promotion. Hossenfelder only explains in her blog Backreaction (not in her book) what an ugly universe is. backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/03/book-update-german-cover-image.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/07/do-we-need-theory-of-everything.html

I agree that English Wikipedia does not consider a blog as a reliable source, especially by the person who is the topic of the article. If you can find published content about her theory - written by other people, i.e., not her - that would be acceptable as a citation. Does not have to be in English. Does not have to be available online. But does need to be referenced. Woit's review of her book makes no mention of "ugly universe". David notMD (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Federal Constitutional Court. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You have been told multiple times as to why your edits have been reverted. Please be aware of WP:3RR, if you revert and edit 4 times that isn't vandalism, you may be banned. Telling you in advance incase you try to do this repeatedly. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Federal Constitutional Court, you may be blocked from editing. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Berrely and others

They spit on the spirit of Wikipedia because they permanantly erase the valuable information Broken Subsid.

Berrely and others want citation source OPENJUR or BOOKS and no german hyperlink of www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de what dishonors german judges and their database that is no citiation source from an english point of view :)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Doubledareyou reported by User:Berrely (Result: ). Thank you. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You have been edit warring on the article Federal Constitutional Court. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please understand that even if you are correct and the other editor is mistaken, repeatedly reverting to try to force your version of text into article is disruptive and harmful, and is not allowed. When you have a disagreement over what should or should not go into an article, please discuss it, preferably on the article talk page, in this case Talk:Federal Constitutional Court. You have not posted any comments there as yet.

Please also understand that en.Wikipedia requires that any challenged or unusual content be supported by a cited source Readers must be able to verify the content. Sources should be reliable, and secondary sources are preferred and in some cases required. Please also understand that placing URLs (raw hyperlinks) in the body of an article except as footnotes using <ref>...</ref> tags (or one of the other accepted methods of inline citation) is not acceptable. Only wiki-links and source citations are to be used.

There are also some problems of grammar in the text you attempted to insert, but those could be fixed by ordinary editing. The main issue is the edit warring, followed by the lack of sources. The kind of edit warring you did often results in a short block. Instead I am giving you this final warning. Continued edit warring will result in a block from me or another admin. Please discuss with other users rather than repeatedly reverting.

Also, please be civil and polite. Phrases such as spitiing on german hyperlinks, I hope an english racist bans me, and Illegal revision and nonsense which you used in edit summaries are unhelpful and not appropriate. Even when yo9u feel strongly about an issue, it is possible to discuss it in a civil manner. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. — Pajz (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 Hours for edit warring, as you did at Federal Constitutional Court. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]