User talk:UweBayern

Please note: I remove disruptive comments from this talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, UweBayern, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Vlad|-> 13:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor of Germany

Your solo action was not appreciated. Please see the talk page. --KarlFrei (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, whatever the outcome of the talk page discussion may be, please never try to move a page to a different title by cutting and pasting, use the move button instead (but only after an appropriate consensus has been reached). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't possible. There is no consensus to move the page, so it should stay at the title where it has stayed the last 6,5 years (the stable title). UweBayern (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  - Not necessarily, the move you instigated caused disruption as has been your subsequent actions. Might I suggest you take a step back and reconsider the situation and go back in with a fresh approach? Your triple revert of multiple editors and discussion tone may push some to the limit of WP:AGF. Gavin (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, it was the move undertaken by you/Abe which caused disruption, as just demonstrated at the Chancellor of Germany page. The article history is now located at the wrong place, and the article Chancellor of Germany (German Reich), the content of which is from the Chancellor of Germany article, has no article history, which constitute a GFDL violation. UweBayern (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, examine the history- I did not take part in the move. Fact is you are causing disruption not by suggesting a merger but by being aggressive towards other editors. Also, you seem to keep making Legal threats? Gavin (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - You untrue accusations are unacceptable. It's completely legitimate to point out that Wikipedia's own policies are to be followed. If someone are making "Legal threats", it must be you. UweBayern (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Must be? There is a difference between observing policy and gaming the rules. Again I suggest you step back and reconsider your approach. Though i recognise you are trying to help the project, you might find you have better results if you try a new approach. Gavin (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ministers-President of Bavaria

I think, there is quite a few issues with your edit at the above article. First of all, a fair bit of data was lost by replacing the old table with your new one, copied accross from the German wikipedia, and secondly, it left a couple of names red linked even so there are articles about those people, these being Johannes Hoffmann and Heinrich Held. You need to check your work after you have done it, I think. Thirdly, its common practise on the English wikipedia to leave an edit summary. I don't edit much on the German version so I don't know what is custom there, you may be used to a different set of rules. EA210269 (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the red links for you. EA210269 (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown

you are being disruptive by giving undue weight to a minor aspect of a biography of a living person which violates both WP:BLP and WP:SOAPBOX. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are the one being disruptive. UweBayern (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Brown (entertainer). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Σ xplicit 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uwe.
Can you discuss any further to this article on its talk page first? It seems as if there are differing opinions on the best way to present the abuse case, and from a glance editors previously came to some agreement on the talk page there, and aren't agreeing with your edits. I believe that if you want to make changes, the most promising way would be to present your arguments on the talk page so that it can be discussed.
Thank you, Amalthea 00:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?

What are you talking about? Loosmark (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of a category and other relevant additions to the expulsion article. UweBayern (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you have a problem with my edits i think it would be much more constructive to explain your disagreement clearly rather than writting criptic messages on my talk page. Loosmark (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've been mentioned on a thread at WP:AN/I. You might want to look at it, though my advice is to let it go away. My personal advice, taking off and putting aside my admin hat, is to avoid comparisons to the Holocaust, they generally do not lead to productive debate. JMO. Good luck, I've read After the Reich and am probably more aware than the average person that this is not a trivial tragedy.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark is a Polish nationalist POV pusher who is only engaged in disruptive editing, and frankly, I couldn't care less about his opinion of me. UweBayern (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just be careful. Whatever you think of Loosmark, it is wise to look good when the admins knock on the door.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Federation of Expellees. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

User:Piotrus has already attempted to start a discussion at the article's talk page; you would be wise to continue discussion there rather than to keep on reverting the article. Once a disagreement like this has arisen, it is not appropriate for editors to keep undoing one another's edits—even if you are thoroughly convinced that your version is right, you must seek consensus from other involved editors. If you continue edit warring, you will be blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't accuse other of vandalism, if you disagree with their edits. Content disputes are not the same as vandalism. If you keep accusing others, and violating policies such as WP:NPA/WP:AGF you may find yourself subject to restriction under this sanction. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hans Krüger. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your comments made after the close of this CFD. It is expressly verboten to make changes to the CfD after closure, but you can take your comments to WP:DRV, if you wish. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello UweBayern! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 459 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Christina Rau - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Members of the Bavarian Order of Merit

Category:Members of the Bavarian Order of Merit has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Sitacuisses (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Weingut Reichsrat von Buhl for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Weingut Reichsrat von Buhl 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/Weingut Reichsrat von Buhl until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Ahmetlii (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]