User talk:Tilting their heads slightly to the left

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to R8C, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Onorem♠Dil 13:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Brisa, you will be blocked from editing. Onorem♠Dil 13:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Onorem♠Dil 14:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reverting

It's not up to the person reverting to locate a source. That responsibility lies with the person who wants to add the information. Your edits so far have consisted of unsourced trivial information and flat out blatant vandalism. I don't think it's unreasonable to request that you source your additions. --Onorem♠Dil 14:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Windehausen. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 14:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to see WP:NOT#INFO. Thanks! Gscshoyru 14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable, how?

I gave an f'n source. It proves notability. Um, why do you keep removing it? Tilting their heads slightly to the left 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because some random fictional character that almost no one knows about being named after a place is simple not notable enough to be put in an article about that place. Put it in the article about that character, on in the article on the book or whatever that includes that character. Not in the article about the city. Thanks! Gscshoyru 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alf has a large cult following in Germany. How on earth do you know that he is a character "almost no one knows about" Where you get your f'n info? Tilting their heads slightly to the left 14:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, with the current level of technology and ability for anyone to put up a website in this day and age, if he doesn't show up in google he can't be that notable. Google is an excellent test. Not all information can be found through google, obviously. But most, if not all notable information can. Gscshoyru 14:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google is very limited, and is further inhibited by poor searching techniques. You are searching for the German version of the name I assume? Tilting their heads slightly to the left 14:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google is hardly limited -- but you can think that, if you really want to. I was under the impression that names of people didn't change when translated from one language to another. But ok then, what's his name in German? And note that this information still does not belong in the article unless he's very, very notable. And that you've now violated the WP:3RR. Gscshoyru 14:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you violated the WP:3RR vandalising my spiffy Alf Windehausen edits. You don't even know the German version of Alf Windehausen, and yet you claim that he's not notable? Um, that's madness! Go read Neuerwerbungsliste. You base your entire claims for non notability on a faulty Google search. No wonder Wikipedia has got this bad. Dude, that's disturbing. PS TWINKLE sux. Tilting their heads slightly to the left 14:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by your reference "Geschichte Neuerwerbungsliste 4. Quartal 2001". A "de:Neuerwerbungsliste" is a list of recently acquired items, typically for a library. Not a name for a journal, book or magazine I'd say. This all sounds like a bad joke to me. Markussep ^Talk 14:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Violating the WP:3RR requires four reverts. I have three. You have eight or so, and thus have been reported. Besides -- information as trivial as the one you've added is not notable enough for addition to articles, unless the person is very, very notable. Very, very notable implies at the very least showing up in an internet search. Which he doesn't. Why don't you tell me his name in German so you can prove me wrong? And I'll ignore your baseless crack at twinkle. Gscshoyru 14:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my Bob, you can't find the guy in Google so he can't be real!!!!!. Google has everything!!!11111! TWINKLE does suck. I reported you too, or you did.

XX Tilting their heads slightly to the left 15:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. More like you can't find the guy in google, so he can't be special, i.e. notable. Gscshoyru 15:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find him in Google. He is special and so are YOU. xoxox. Tilting their heads slightly to the left 15:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then prove that you can. Baseless claims have no weight. Gscshoyru 15:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got me banned. I never should have married you! Mother warned me!!! Ever since you started using TWINKLE, it destroyed our marriage Tilting their heads slightly to the left 15:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Talk:Windehausen

A tag has been placed on Talk:Windehausen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Talk:Windehausen|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hammer1980·^talk 15:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of WP:3RR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Ronnotel 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Tilting their heads slightly to the left (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

ban Gscshoyru too. She started it

Decline reason:

We don't care who started it. — Yamla 15:21, 16 November 2007 (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.

It was my fault. Please ban me so we can be together again. Gscshoyru

Minor note -- I didn't say that. Just in case anyone looking at this page cares. Gscshoyru 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You heard him. Tilting their heads slightly to the left 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll indefblocked. Duja► 15:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right. Endorse. Ronnotel 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]