Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! LizRead!Talk!21:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Sweepy,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! LizRead!Talk!21:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
June 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arles may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hello, I'm Vrac. Your recent edit to the page Guadalajara appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vrac (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Merrimack River may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
com/Merrimac|title=Merrimac|accessdate=2011-03-21|publisher=1911encyclopedia.org}}</ref>) is a {{convert|117|mi|km|adj=mid|-long}} river<ref name=NHD>U.S. Geological Survey. National
Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! Compassionate727 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
July 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sigmaringen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leap year may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
A '''leap year''', '''intercalary''' or '''bissextile year''') is a year containing one additional day (or, in the case of [[lunisolar calendar]]s, a month) in
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Duchy of Athens may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
The '''Duchy of Athens''' ([[Greek]]: ''Δουκᾶτον Ἀθηνῶν'', [[Catalan]]: ''Ducat d'Atenes'' was one of the [[Crusader State]]s
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Heya, your recent editing history - with just redirects - seems to indicate that this account may be a bot account. Are you a human? (If so, I'm amazed at how fast you're making these redirects!) Thanks, | Naypta✉opened his mouth at12:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm a person. Best regards -- Sweepy (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to UIC may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* ''UIC'', {{lang-fr|Union Internationale des Chemins de fer}}), see [[[[International Union of Railways]]
The '''Uppsala Astronomical Observatory''' ('''UAO'''), '''Astronomiska observatoriet i Uppsala''') is the oldest astronomical observatory in [[Sweden]]. It was founded in 1741, though there was a
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sound effect may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
'''Sound effect(s)''' or '''audio effect(s)''') are artificially created or enhanced [[sound]]s, or sound processes used to emphasize artistic or
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lawsuit may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
laws still in effect today, such as the [[Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution]].}}) is "a vernacular term for a suit, action, or cause instituted or depending between two private
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sankt Georgen an der Gusen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lit.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I noticed your recent edit to NLM CityHopper does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! (Microsoft Service Messanger.) Ben7cullimore (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Edit warring over the extra "or" at the Sexual intercourse article. After we discussed that extra "or" (see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19#Sexual intercourse), you went ahead and re-added it anyway. And very recently, you re-added it again. Stop it. Even a slow edit war is still an edit war. And repeatedly adding contested additions without discussion can be WP:Disruptive. You clearly are not willing to discuss this matter, which is why you are being disruptive in this regard. The aforementioned discussion isn't even a discussion; it's you briefly commenting on my talk page, me replying, and you ceasing to reply. If you want to contest that extra "or," then make that case here at your talk page or at the Sexual intercourse talk page. There is no need to reply at my talk page, especially since your talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. As I stated in my latest revert of you, I'm more annoyed by your edit warring than you removing that extra "or" at this point. It feels like you are trying to WP:Game the system with the a slow edit war. Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Flyer 22, I disagree, my edit is/was an edit-warring. So much "or" are written as my edit. Please look at my preferences, how much dates I've adapted and only a few of them became reverts. I do good work for en-WP and you can see it on this user-talk. Therefore your blame don't pertain...Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how much good work you are doing for Wikipedia, you are indeed WP:Edit warring in this case. This is because you keep restoring a contested edit without further discussion. See the links I listed above, which show that we already discussed this and that you keep reverting. There also appears to be a language barrier between us.
Hi! Please note that disambiguation pages should not be ordered alphabetically, but by relevance and/or importance of the linked article. Please see MOS:DABORDER "Within each group or section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. Entries are typically ordered first by similarity to the ambiguous title [...]". When in doubt, I generally take the length of the linked article and its number of sources into account too. -- intgr[talk]07:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello intgr, in all my alphabetical sortings, I observe the WP-rules. My take on finding the searching is faster with alphabetical than without sorting. Please can you tell me several examples, where I did'nt? Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Austrian schilling may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
The '''Schilling''' ([[German language|German: ''Österreichischer Schilling'']] was the [[currency]] of [[Austria]] from
7E2002_-_2nd_Republic_Schilling_Circulation/country/927-Austria colnect - catalogue by collectors > Coins > Austria (Österreich) > 1945~2002 - 2nd Republic (Schilling) Circulation (16), built 2003-2014]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spiš may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Slovak]]); [[Latin]]: Cips/Zepus/Scepus, {{lang-de|Zips}}, {{lang-hu|Szepesség}}, {{lang-pl|Spisz}}) is a region in north-eastern [[Slovakia]], with a very small area in south-eastern [[Poland]] (14
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. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Mass a-b sorting dab pages is disruptive. More than one of us has pointed this out. Stop now, else this will end in a block. Please revert them and discuss.Widefox; talk10:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, please discuss (at project above) before you sort another dab. In fact, the general warning shown when editing dabs has been ignored, as well as the specific not to a-b sort dabs. Ignoring WP:consensus risks being instantly blocked. Before you edit another dab, you must familiarise yourself with WP:MOSDAB. Other editors are now spending time clearing this up, so suggest replying there. Widefox; talk19:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Widefox; talk21:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ANSWER
Hello together, I'm very sure, my edits, alphabetical sortings and so on are correct. I wrote some users about their revertings. I will do it to all others reverters my correct edits. It's for me many work but I'll clear and explain it. Please give me time. I'm not a vandale! You can look at my 8,956 edits in your WP since april 2014! Not more than about 30 have been reverted...Why is my doing and helping in your WP now incorrect? When you are being of the opinion, I don't work correct, I've no problems when you will block me...Mentioned in passing you can look at my user page to see the awards from two other users. Best regards -- Sweepy (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You also can look at my corrections in infoboxes from towns etc. at very, very old dates and my corrections to the new dates! Inhabitants, areas, codes, car Registrations, mayors, parties and so on! I'm very wondering about checking this fact...Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, you're not a new editor, so you shouldn't need pointing towards WP:consensus. At least 4 editors have undone these dab/hatnote edits. You ignored it at WP:MOSDAB, and when two editors explicitly pointed it out above and when these edits were undone. (plus the hatnote at QBA, dab QBA (disambiguation) and those are just the edits we've checked so far). If you've read MOSDAB, then you need to familiarise yourself better before you edit a dab again. Your reply above doesn't convince me you're going to not do this again. You're convinced you're right, wrong. See WP:IDHT. Widefox; talk00:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First I thank for your answer. I don't know all your notices to ruls, in english not all the more. I think I'm not alone...Therefore say me please, shall I continue my work or not? Please be so kind to answer directly. Than I finish immediately because you've much better editors and volunteers...Congratulations for this...-- Sweepy (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you still indiscriminately sorting alphabetically after being asked not to? If you continue to do this then I will block you. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You ask "shall I continue my work or not?" Yes, please continue to make helpful edits to the encyclopedia, but please stop your disruptive A-Z sorting edits to disambiguation pages such as this one. The reader is much better served by the previous, carefully-thought-out, sequence in the "Music" section whereby there are people, bands, albums, songs, grouped together. A-Z by article title serves best the reader who knows the exact title of the target article ... but that reader will not have come to the dab page. The reader who does not know just how Wikipedia has titled the article they are looking for is better served by a dab page with a structured list, such as this one. So please do not continue to sort dab pages A-Z: there is no justification in policy or guidelines and it does not help the reader. PamD10:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As English isn't your native language...to be clear:
Do not sort another dab, agree?
Read/study in detail WP:MOSDAB again before editing another dab. Agree?
Your other edits are good, these are bad. (else I would have already asked you to be blocked, OK?)
A correct place to voice what you still appear to consider a good idea is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation (this is a second attempt to get you to discuss there - other editors are talking there)
If I see you sort another dab, I will ask you to be blocked. Repeat after you are unblocked, and I will ask to be blocked again. Eventually you will not be able to edit here. Please confirm you understand. If it helps, I speak German. Widefox; talk10:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your message at my User talk
Hello Widefox, may be I've max. two edits as written. Will you be so kind, to show me. When you are meaning to block me, I've no problem. Another user thinks differently, see my user talk: "You ask "shall I continue my work or not?" Yes, please continue to make helpful edits to the encyclopedia...Yes, I'll help and I think and know, I do it. I hope, you will point out my mistakes. Thanks and regards -- Sweepy (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
(moved here from my talk page Widefox; talk21:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
When you say "Another user thinks differently, see my user talk" - more of the quote from PamD "...please stop your disruptive A-Z sorting edits to disambiguation pages such as this one". I agree 100% with PamD. Is this an English language issue (see WP:COMPETENCE) or refusal/understanding/failure to get the point (see WP:CONSENSUSWP:IDHT)? All editors are in agreement that if you do this again you should be blocked. We are waiting for a sign you understand that, and you agree to stop immediately? Widefox; talk21:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you forgot my question. I beg you, to let me know the examples as above written. Hoping to await a reply with regards -- Sweepy (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't or can't understand, then you haven't convinced me at this point that you can effectively communicate in English. Per WP:COMPETENCE, suggest you don't edit another dab page, and edit only .de WP disambiguation pages. Agree? I note my questions are, as yet, unanswered. For instance, you've been reverted on the same dab Joseon (disambiguation) over months. This is longer-term disruption. Are you going to stop? Widefox; talk01:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You avoid my question! You miss my answer to your question once more. I tell it: Your meaning is illogical because all users find it faster when I sorted alphabetical or not? Provided the user dominated the alphabet...Therefore, your absolut wish -don't correct the existing system- is very good, therefore I'll respect your meaning to find the words/texts etc. But my system is better!!! Ask the users please...Good luck for your meaning, don't hoping, the en-WP will in future not be THE GREATEST!!! Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello once more. I found following by chance: Please look at Pune and you can see (the same meaning as me): ==Notable people== What do you say now? Will you write him as written me? Will you block him as threatened me? When not, please be sure, I refuse to accept your fact as written with the notice "to block me"... All clear? I wish you the best hoping to have success then -- Sweepy (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be so kind to inform the limited they will not accept explain my course of action in this respect. I'm sure, they are still in the minority...Therefore I do as further as until now and I'm looking forward your blocking... -- Sweepy (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The dates in the infobox as p.e. population, etc. are not correct, as shown is the date of the year of them with 2014. I corrected i at 2015 (s. edit-site) and therefore are old numbers shown. If you can't do you no another editor? Thanks and regards -- Sweepy (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen the report against you. Please stop making these edits against consensus! That fact that you personally prefer alphabetical sorting means nothing when the general agreement is that topical sorting seems best. Why do you want to end up blocked for something so silly? LjL (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:LjL: First another question remaining unanswered: Why can I see at some abbreviations the notice about alphabetical sortings? And my question, how to procedure with them? Where are'not there the deletions? Why only with me? That's not correctly or shall apply the rules not for all? Thanks for answer and regards? -- Sweepy (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While mass fixing the dabs, I noticed there's more issue with these mass edits than just the mass a-b sorting of dabs. Here [1] is not correct per MOS:FORLANG. What's the purpose of creating Nuculeus, and why redirect to Cell nucleus ? You need to slow down and follow the WP:MOS on each and every one of these, rather than implementing your preference of mass creation of bold, sorted, alternative titles. Slow down, read and follow the appropriate MOS. Widefox; talk08:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at Cell nucleus and the text beginning: In cell biology, the nucleus (pl. nuclei; from Latin nucleus or nuculeus, meaning kernel)...Therefore I redirected so...-- Sweepy (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:DMacks that there's no primary topic for the term - see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As you do not agree with DMacks and I, see WP:CONSENSUS. Secondly, this is English WP, and it is Latin and not an alternative title - see MOS:FORLANG. Applying a single-minded redirect to all these non-alternative titles is against MOS and consensus and disruptive. Mass changing them is a further issue. Widefox; talk08:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on Widefox's comment and emphasize why I changed that redirect.. Why did you not pick the first of the meanings of nucleus? If you had actually looked at that specific article, the one whose mis-spelling you redirected, you would instead first land at Atomic nucleus and there read that "The nucleus is the small, dense region consisting of protons and neutrons at the center of an atom." It's almost like there are several different meanings for a term, each a major concept in its topic-area, and we need a way to disambiguate among them for so that readers with substantially different interests can still find what they want. DMacks (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DMacs, (I was wrong) it isn't a misspelling, but the Latin name that's defined in cell nucleus (but not in nucleus). While there's some merit in having Latin terms for science (certainly my school used that line to sell Latin to me as a kid), in physics it's really not that useful unlike biology, so doubt it's in common usage (I've never seen it used up in English uni physics up to PhD level, and not seen it in my travels post-doc in computational molecular biology). My point is, we could redirect to the dab, but why? The logic of mass creating Latin (and other language) redirects which aren't bold alternative titles is the issue here, rather than the slight merit of this one. Mass creation against MOS. Widefox; talk11:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sweepy, I am not sure which alphabetically-sorted dabs you are referring to, can you give me an example? I am not exceptionally familiar with dab style, but that's not the point. "If me, why not others too?" isn't a valid objection, since the ANI was filed about you and so you are naturally the one under scrutiny. Wikipedia is a work in progress, so naturally there are things to fix, but that's different from actively breaking things en masse. LjL (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't understand
Sweepy,
{ in English }
I didn't understand what you wanted me to do. Can you explain a bit better , please ?
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for your alphabetizing edits to disambiguation pages are clearly controversial, you have repeatedly been asked to stop, but today I still see you doing it, and being reverted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SpinningSpark14:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spinningspark This blocks not right. There's no consensus that this activity deserves a block. I've commented on ANI that this should be considered IAR as he's not damaging wikipedia by doing this, his opponents sole and only argument is it's against MOS:DAB, nothing else. I say it's IAR and WP:BURO as well! KoshVorlon15:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is rough consensus, with only you disagreeing. His edits are damaging Wikipedia because your claim that he's only doing it to articles where other, better sorting orders don't exist are not based in reality. I hope he can resume editing and stop going against consensus, but your insistence on endorsing his current actions is just likely to convince him he's "in the right" when he isn't, and cause further blocks impeding his ability to edit elsewhere. You are not helping him. LjL (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KoshVorlon, I'm not very interested in the rights and wrongs of alphabetical sorting. The issue is, that to plough on with it in the teeth of mounting opposition is disruptive. IAR is not for things that will generate substantial controversy. That does not help build the encyclopaedia. Your characterisation of the objections as "sole and only argument is it's against MOS:DAB" is patently falsifiable from the evidence of the posts on this talk page. SpinningSpark15:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
request for examination
Hello together, my blocking is not correct, because some questions and examples from other users/editors are alike as my doing without blocking. I think in WP must be equality of treatment. Why not in my case? Thanks and regards -- Sweepy (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As think I already said, "other people behave badly too" is not a justification. Anyway I suggest if you want to appeal your block, you follow the instructions in the block notice. LjL (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
@User:LjL, I'm wondering, that this great minority make a decision with this consequences...PS: I'm not adapted at the rules on top of that, I'm a German and not so good to understand all. -- Sweepy (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say first that, Rothenburg ob der Tauber is a lovely town. I visited it a couple of times some years ago. Now, in the discussion there was precisely 1 user who agreed that what you were doing was good. Virtually everyone else who participated disagreed. Having everyone agree is not required on Wikipedia. What is important is consensus and the consensus was that what you were doing was disruptive and that you should stop. Consensus does not require a fixed number of participants nor does it require a majority of the project members to have a say. In fact, I would say that the those who comment at the administrator noticeboards make up less than a fraction of 1% of the total number of editors.
In any case, you continued to be disruptive and thus blocked as a preventative measure. This is not about equality or fairness, every user who gets blocked will point at examples of people that do similar things but are not blocked. Your block is about you not about them, focus on understanding why you were blocked. Blackmane (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering. I wrote this to the English Wikipedia Account Request and therefore I'll stop any discussions: "Hi return, thanks for answering. I think, I'm waiting for the end of blocking time. I shall consider it to edit further in the en-WP because any handfull persons doesn't see all my good edits with 9,615 Preverences...I explained why I sorted DABs so as I did and generated a neutrality. But no answer from my few censors...That's in all WPs unusually and I'm disappointed". My spare time and costless assistance is too bad for the endless discussions at the en-WP and feeling misunderstood as written, why I sorted DABs so! But no answer is an answer, too...Regards also @User:Spinningspark -- Sweepy (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the general principle "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor", "proxy editing" in WP:BLOCKEVASION[2][3] . Although those edits are good and not the reason for the block, please be aware of it. Widefox; talk12:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't understand the English. You seem to be literally translating into English (e.g. "kostenlos" is "free" not "costless"), but even trying to read it as literally translated it isn't clear. Widefox; talk23:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sweepy:, das sieht momentan wirklich nur nach einer Prozedursache aus (zumindest nach der Diskussion in ANI zu urteilen). Der erste Schritt ist die Nutzung der template, die oben schon zweimal reinkopiert wurde: {{unblock|reason=Begruendung Deiner Anfrage nach Entblocken ~~~~}}. Bevor Du die verwendest, wird sich hier nichts ruehren - da kannst Du argumentieren, bis Du schwarz wirst :) Nicht dass es danach unbedingt eine positive Reaktion gibt, aber das ist die Prozedur, und die ist Grundlage. Setz die Template, dann kann's weitergehen.-- Elmidae (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi zurück, danke für deine Erläuterungen, die mich nicht wirklich überraschen. Deshalb habe ich ja auch geschrieben, dass ich diese drei-Tages-Sperre abwarte, weil mir das klar war. Die Admins (oder Höhere) halten in jeder WP zusammen und auch das ist nicht regelgemäß, wie es der Gründer der WP nie wollte! Die Regeln wurden daher durch die Communities so "nichtsaussagend und schwammig definiert", dass qua alles richtig oder ebenso falsch sein kann und in meinem Fall eben immer falsch ist! Es liegt eben im Auge des Betrachters (der Admins als "verschworene Gemeinschaft"!) so zu handeln, wie sie es tun. Sperren, sperren, das ist der einfachste Weg, sich damit unangenehme user "vom Leib zu halten", da es ja nur Arbeit gibt...In diesem Sinne harre ich der Dinge, die von den paar Wenigen in Zukunft weiter auf mich zukommen werden..., denn deren Augenmerk wird jetzt voll auf mich konzentriert sein. Mir ist dennoch nicht bange, denn langweilig wird mir dadurch garantiert nicht, denn es gibt genug "Zwergen-WPs in anderen Sprachen", die sich freuen, ihre Daten "hochgeschraubt zu bekommen"!!! -- Sweepy (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Und immer wieder wird proklamiert, dass WP EINE FREIE ENZYKLOPÄDIE SEI!!!) "Ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denkt..." In diesem Sinne grüße ich alle WPler der Welt, von denen sich speziell die Jugend -mit Recht- von der FREIWILLIGEN MITARBEIT verabschiedet, wobei joch JEDE immer wieder beklagt, zu wenige Autoren/Editoren zu haben. Und die, die seit Ewigkeiten dafür tätig sind und Beschimpfungen und Beleidigungen dafür hinnehmen müssen, sind meistens aus der Generation 50 oder 60+. Wenn das nicht langsam zu denken gibt!?! -- Sweepy (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please consider and learn that you cannot and should not go against broader consensus in a collaborative project like this; ask for a review of your block promising to stop making controversial edits, and stop making them. You have other things you can do to help build an encyclopedia. --LjL (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet investigation
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Werddemer, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Hello, Sweepy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Борис и Глеб, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
Hello, Sweepy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Борис і Гліб, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
Hello, Sweepy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Рю́риковичи, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
Hello, Sweepy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Рю́риковичі, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
Hello, Sweepy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Ру́рыкавічы, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
Hello, Sweepy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Галицко-Волинскоє князство, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
Hello, Sweepy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Королѣвство Русь, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
Hello, Sweepy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Галицько-Волинське князівство, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
