User talk:Nov3rd17

Hello! --Nov3rd17 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRandomIP: Your re-addition of the word "vorläufigerweise" in quotation marks in the German article of Carles Puigdemont (see version history) isn't neutral and it should be discarded. One-word quotation marks have a negative meaning in this context. For example in the sentence: Mr XYZ, please don't be my "follower". the quotation marks indicate that I'm not pleased at all. Bye --Nov3rd17 (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And don't get me wrong. I do not mean that an article mustn't include criticism. But it should be visible to the reader, not hiding behind a "". So I want to say to you, too: I'm not pleased at all that you reverted my edit for revert's sake. You weren't interested in the article of Carles Puigdemont before, you only did it because of me. And that I don't like! --Nov3rd17 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misusing meta sites

Once again you have misused the meta site Wikipedia:Third opinion for a discussion that has just started. However, the meta site makes it clear that "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page." I have therefore removed your inquiry. Of course you can add another inquiry later when we exchanged all our argument and indeed need a third opinion. However, I now have to warn you if you continue to misuse meta sites I have to report you as a vandal. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a discussion with you now. You aren't interested in the topic but only in "succeeding", when you want to evade 3rd opinion on these grounds. Isn't Talk:Sigmar_Gabriel#Third_opinion a good input from a third party? --Nov3rd17 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sigmar Gabriel is another example of you delegating work to others. I repeatedly told you what was wrong with the paragraph and how it could be fixed but instead of doing the work you just called for third opinion and let the other one do the work. I think this is not how Third Opinion is meant to be used. --TheRandomIP (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free time

No one is forced to do work on Wikipedia. Those who react on 3rd opinion do it out of curiosity for the article or out of passion for Wikipedia as a project or because they want to resolve quarrels. In German Wikipedia, there are too many influential people who like to command others. I've logged in German Wikipedia first, but besides that and my German language, the German Wikipedia is now alien to me, I won't invest time in a project where authoritarianism prevails. I'll come back when German Wikipedia has changed. In the meantime bye, bye to all who want to command others in their free time. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRandomIP: I'm glad that you implicitly acknowledged in German Wikipedia (block discussion site) that we finally reached consensus here with the aid of 3rd opinion in Sigmar Gabriel#Arms exports and that my edits there (and in the German article) were no "POV-Pushings". --Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another block initiated by user above and accepted by an admin of de.wikipedia.org --Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MBq: So you blocked me. Did you see what the block requester does? Now, I call it out loud: It's Wikipedia-associated-harassment. Look at his edit-wars. You condone that? --Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it was blocked because of an edit in the talk page de:Heiko Maas. But German admin @Logograph: didn't see that is a block. But only the user above. Not good. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRandomIP: As you are here in English Wikipedia reverting my recent edits, I've a question for you. Don't you think that your edit wars and vandalism notices are excessive? Especially those directed against me, of course. But there are many many others, too. Take a look at this history --Nov3rd17 (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating 1RR; see WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, as you did at Turkish military operation in Afrin. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian: I didn't violate the 1RR rule on that page because there was a substantial revision where I compromised on the second of two parts of the objection. Please reconsider your block. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit harsh for a new editor who is presumably unfamiliar with Discretionary Sanctions/General Sanctions and editing restrictions. There may be some other history I am unaware of based on the above discussion but his block log here at English Wikipedia is otherwise clean and he has fewer than 100 edits for an account that is only 4 months old? Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian: I've been reverted by user TheRandomIP only for revert's sake. He's way too much interested in reverts and in blocking users and in discussions about that. See his history in English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia. He uses fool language like "archetypical troll" and so on. He did that before in German Wikipedia and now I'm his target. Besides from making blocking requests against users and edit-wars he's keen on making deletion requests in German Wikipedia see (in German) or (Google translate). On the last article where he requested to block me because of the strict 1RR rule in English wikipedia didn't bother to revert the German sister article three times in a row. What should I do, create new account? --Nov3rd17 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would make a test: I change an article a little bit by adding decent sources and let's see if he will delete my sources on random grounds and if he deletes the text with it, too. (As he surely watches this page he will know it, but not the time.)

--Nov3rd17 (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He likes to take others down and gloats that he's now "watching you", (in German) or (Google translate)

Former German minister now supporter of Erdogan like Schröder and the "lupenreiner Demokrat" (flawless democrat) Putin?

opinion article from former minister --Nov3rd17 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No unnecessary cumbersome grammar notice: Correct the 1-2 sentences when necessary

[Moved to here from Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Grammar notice. --Scolaire (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)][reply]

@TheRandomIP: A notice of grammar and spelling issues? You edited the section in Peter Tauber#Insulting mini jobbers yourself. But there you didn't place that notice. Why here? For me there is no reason that you cannot correct 1-2 English sentences here, as both articles are about mid-level politics, not about medicine, other science where every word must be perfect or high-level politics, like the article Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Besides only a part of the small section was written by me.) If you are not sure you can post your sentences here. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some very basic grammar and style issues I can spot myself (like "NEVER put Place or Time between Verb and Object", you did that in the last sentence, or repetitive use of the word "and"), but there may be other issues I can't see due to my lack of experience. There is a simple rule: When there is one mistake, there is a high probability of another mistake nearby.

I'm disappointed that you removed the tag. It would have made the article stronger and your contribution more valuable if someone else was proofreading you paragraph. Instead, you're falling back into old patterns of behavior by bringing up off-topic stories about Peter Tauber who has nothing to do with this article. --TheRandomIP (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notice is quite huge and looks ugly. For these small issues it diminished the article without need. It isn't an article about medicine (and there you deleted my notice about one-sidedness, which is much much more difficult to fix!) But I requested 3rd opinion to get English native speakers on board. It's a the issue. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that "...ordered on 26 March that..." is wrong? Hmm. I think it's o.k. Look at Hedge-fund firm GLG Partners said on Monday that it had been approached by a number of sovereign wealth funds (emphasis added) So you're probably wrong. But let others decide. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And four "and"s in six lines isn't that much.--Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<>@TheRandomIP: You say you want to better me, really? I must tell you that I'm not interested in that kind of "assistance", especially when said by someone who reverted the German sister article three times in two hours! (That's off-topic now but has to be said! Rest on my talk page, if you want.) --Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not again... You're "blasting out of all barrels" again... Please stop it. If you think you are a perfect english writer and don't want your paragraph to be proofread, that's fine, your decision. --TheRandomIP (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I would think I were the perfect English writer (I'm not!) I wouldn't request 3rd opinion because of (alleged) bad English. Why do you blast me on 3rd opinion because of requesting it and criticize me here because of too much self-reliance? I'm not fond of your "assistance". Can't you get it, that this annoying?! --Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see this tag is currently not in the article and I have no plans to insert it again. So why are you still debating and making third opinion requests for no good reason? I actually wanted to help making your contribution stronger, but if you don't need this, then this is your decision. And you already improved the style of the paragraph a lot in your recent edits. Case closed. No further actions needed. --TheRandomIP (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Third opinion is for active disputes only, not for letting other people proofread your text. If you were unsure about your text, use the tag as I suggested. But using third opinion for proofreading is definitively the wrong way. --TheRandomIP (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. One request. Let's move the whole discussion between us to my or your talk page and delete it here or hide it. I'm feeling ashamed because it's the talk page of the article of a person who faces many years of imprisonment for such a small guilt and we argue here for nothing.

But the others should read and correct the text when it's bad English. Wikipedia means collaboration. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheRandomIP - Please direct your energy at articles

Why not create articles in German Wikipedia and not always this? "Thanks" to you, I'm banned there this and the next week. So prove that you are eager to do own work on Wikipedia and not revert or delete the work of others. May it be rather minuscule (like my edits on this account) or big but don't always revert others. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carles Puigdemont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CEST (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request in retrospect

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nov3rd17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't violate the 1RR] rule because it was at most one revert in Turkish military operation in Afrin, not more than one. In effect it was only a compromise. I changed the text according to objection 2 of the edit summary and explained why I did consider the Turkish newspaper a valid source. The block expired in 1 day and is now over, but with a remnant. Because of that I want to oppose the block afterwards.

Decline reason:

This block appears to have long since expired and you are editing normally. I'm not clear what "with a remnant" means; if there is some technical effect preventing you from editing, please be more specific. If you'd like to discuss a past action that you did not agree with, please contact the blocking admin directly. Kuru (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

April 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]