User talk:Urban XII

Userboxes

4This user page has been vandalized 4 times.

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Urban XII! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 13:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Hi Urban XII, welcome to Wikipedia!

I see you are a new user and I was wondering if I could ask you something. You recently nominated the article Boris Malagurski (which I have contributed to as I am a sincere fan of his latest film Kosovo: Can You Imagine?) for deletion and have not taken into consideration that not only does this article have far more references than the average article dealing with this area of interest, but the sources include some fairly high-profile ones, such as a state Ministry, National television, radio, newspapers, and many other media sources. Due to all this, it is very likely that the article won't be deleted, but I just wanted to better understand your motivation behind your actions, since I saw you were active on articles dealing with the Pope and the EU, which have nothing to do with this filmmaker. So, if you could let me know your thoughts, I would greatly appreciate it.

Also, if you need any help with anything on Wikipedia, feel free to drop me a line :)

All the best,

--Cinéma C 01:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, now it seems to be you're here to push an agenda. Your recent edits to Boris Malagurski have had a clear POV pushing attitude. This is why I am now asking you to stop and respect the five pillars of Wikipedia:

	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verified with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents: that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects.
	Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
	Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. Respect copyright law. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article: all your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed.
	Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks, and generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 6,908,314 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.
	Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in updating articles and don't worry about making mistakes. Your efforts don't need to be perfect: prior versions are saved by default, so no damage you might do is irreparable.

Also, it would be nice if you replied to my posts on your talk page, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I was doing my best to resolve the problem in a polite and civil way, so I would appreciate the same from you. Thanks, --Cinéma C 18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Grow up, Boris. Urban XII (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski article

You could add the original court transcript to the external links. I guess there would be no objection to that.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: Have a good night, Mr. or Mrs. "Rubbish".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gefängnis Zürich

The article Gefängnis Zürich has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stub about a non-notable building. I can find no sources that discuss the actual building, its function, its history, its architecture; its only claim to fame seems to be that Polanski is in it. That is not enough, and buildings such as these do not have inherent notability, as far as I know.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Laurence J. Rittenband

Assuming from your edit history that you understand German, here is an interesting source I found[1]. It sure is not at all a reliable one but might be helpful in finding more information as it is based on other (reliable) sources. I think it would be worth to find, screen and confirm or debunk those. I would do so by myself but I don't think I will have the time to do so soon. Take it or leave it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Gefängnis Zürich

I have nominated Gefängnis Zürich, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gefängnis Zürich. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Swiss TV query re Polanski

Hello,

I am a journalist for Swiss National Television preparing a report on the fact Roman Polanski's wikipedia page was frozen over an "editing war". I would like to interview you by webcam about your opinion on this and the whole case. My deadline is urgent: i would need to have your contribution by Thursday morning 10 am Swiss time.

If you are open to this, could you please email me at the following addresses:

laurent.burkhalter@tsr.ch and laurent_burkhalter@yahoo.com

or call me, if you are in the US: 011 41 79 570 37 17 or elswhere at ++41 79 570 37 17 thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkhala (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Burkhala (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. Urban XII (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for dispute resolution

There was no reason for you to remove my contribution to Talk:Roman Polanski. Rather than start a war over this, I suggest we discuss dispute resolution. Physchim62 (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of the template:vandal when referring to another user constitutes a personal attack and is in violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attack policy. Besides, your comment was a straw man, you responded to the comment by another editor who said something about censorship. I didn't say that. Urban XII (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pirate party

Please stop your one-man crusade to include the pirate party in the page for the German federal election, 2009. You have now been reverted by six or seven different people. Nobody supports your position. KarlFrei (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

Wrong There is no such consensus to be found on the talk page, quite to the contrary. Please self-revert, as this edit is in violation of WP:BLP policy. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, I'm going to defend the consensus version. Your edits are not supported by the BLP policy. Urban XII (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Your edit was in clear violation of BLP policy. I'll await your self-reversion, or your evidence on the talk page. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to you by multiple editors on the talk page that the BLP policy does not apply in this case (i.e. the removal of the description of Polanski's crime) for a number of reasons. We've been through this already, the information is supported by numerous sources and has been thoroughly discussed at the talk page. The wording has been uncontested for a long time until you started your arbitrary actions. Urban XII (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. No one has answered to the application of BLP 4.2 to the victim. There have only been straw man arguments that suggest I meant Polanski was "the victim". The information is supported by one source, and the wording is and always has been anything but uncontested since its first inclusion. You may consider my actions arbitrary, but BLP policy leaves little room for doubt. Anything that is impeached under legitimate BLP concern must be thoroughly supported before being added back into the article. Please stop claiming a consensus where there clearly is none, and explain how the addition of this information is in compliance with BLP 4.2. Thank you for taking this up at the talk page. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed this issue several times on the talk page. For instance, I've pointed out: "Of course "primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" doesn't apply at all in this case, Wikipedia is hardly the "primary vehicle" for making the world aware that Polanski is a child rapist. " BLP 4.2 does not apply in this case. Urban XII (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You can repeat that all you want. It doesn't answer my question any more now than it did the first time you said it. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning 3RR

Please stop reverting on theFrédéric Mitterrand article, you are on the verge of a 3RR violation, please stop and take it to the talkpage,.Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Urban XII. You have new messages at Verbal's talk page.
Message added 23:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Verbal chat 23:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion

Hello, Urban XII. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is request BLP related block. Thank you. - Bilby (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA

Hello, Urban XII. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Verbal chat 16:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Linking

Hi, your last edit to polanski to link to justice ministry, there is already a link to the ministry in that paragraph, we only link to one such situation in each paragraph, would you remove it please. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the first link when I made the edit. Urban XII (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for removing it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Your most recent edit of Polanski

Whu? I didn't add anything to the article, an editor removed copy, claiming that it was not supported by the reference, and I reverted because everything they deleted was stated plainly in the article. WookMuff (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, it all starts to look alike after a while. Please ignore this :) WookMuff (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to explain that I removed a paragraph added previously by a different user when I had an edit conflict due to your last comment. No problem. Urban XII (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, somehow my brain interpreted the paragraph you removed as the paragraph containing the text I reverted. Sorry bout that. WookMuff (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This?

Mitterrand's autobiography "The Bad Life"

Mitterrand's autobiography "The Bad Life" or "La mauvaise vie" the original French title was a best seller in 2005. In the book he details his "delight" whilst visiting the brothels of Bangkok. In the book he wrote, "I got into the habit of paying for boys ... The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire I no longer needed to restrain or hide." At the time Mitterrand was applauded for his honesty, but since he publicly defended Roman Polanski when he was detained in Switzerland on an American request for extradition for having sex with a thirteen year old girl, he has had to defend his writings. On October 5th 2009 Marine Le Pen of the French National Front Party quoted sections of the autobiography on French television, accused him of having sex with underage boys and also of "sex tourism" and demanded Mitterrand resign his position as culture minister. Amongst others he was also criticised by the Socialist party spokesman Benoît Hamon, who stated: “As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking.” Some Conservatives supported Mitterrand, a close aide to Nicolas Sarkozy said the French President backed his Culture Minister and described the controversy around him as "pathetic." Mitterrand also insists the book isn't an autobiography, The publisher describes it as a "novel inspired by autobiography" and the BBC refers to it as "autobiographical novel" In his own defence Mitterand stated, "Each time I was with people who were my age, or who were five years younger — there wasn't the slightest ambiguity — and who were consenting," and that he uses the term "boys" loosely, both in his life and in the book, he also stated, "I condemn sexual tourism, which is a disgrace. I condemn paedophilia, which I have never in any way participated in."

Minor edits

In the future, please do not mark reverts or page moves as minor edits. These are not minor edits, and marking them as such is generally considered an abuse of the feature. The guide to using this feature can be read at WP:MINOR. Thank you. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, reverts are by default marked as minor when using the rollback tool. I don't consider this a big issue, I pointed out in the edit summary what I was doing anyway. Urban XII (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback tool? You don't have rollbacker privileges, and these are not the edit summaries generated by the tool. These reverts [2] [3] were done manually using the (undo) button. Even if you did have rollbacker privileges, these reverts would have been considered abuse of that tool. It is intended to be used for reverting vandalism, not for edit warring in content disputes. I wasn't suggesting the "minor" issue was a big issue, but I don't understand your response. While reverting blatant vandalism is considered a minor edit, there is a bold, bright line separating page moves and content disputes from minor edits. Either you understand and agree with the policy, or you don't. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing the tiitle at the Mitterrand page

You have changed the title of the section without any discussion or consensus to do so, I suggest you revert it and take any issues you have to the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also edits like this which is totally uncited is not correct.You should remove it or cite it, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there has so far not been any consensus to use a particular title. I already stated my concern at the talk page that your proposed title is not an adequate description of the section, which largely deals with the 2009 controversy rather than the book itself. My edits regarding his studies and work experience, which I have translated from the French Wikipedia, are indeed correct. I suggest you behave in a more constructive way. Urban XII (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was Walter Sobchak0 [4], Bilby [5], Don't get this [6], Robofish [7] and Off2riorob [8] agreeing to the proposed passage and only you disagreeing, although nearly all your objections were added to the passage anyway, before it was accepted as a consensus view by an administrator and added to the article. Please could you revert your against-consensus change and discuss it on the talk page first. Don't get this (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Herta Mueller

Please see my comments on the discussion page. First you deleted the reference to criticism of Mueller, then you deleted the critical opionions in the reference, saying that they were unreferenced. This is improper. Please be more careful. --Zeamays (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See additional rebuttal. --Zeamays (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have reported you for 3RR violation on Herta Mueller here . Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please undo your last revert at Herta Müller

You've made four reverts on October 11. If you will undo your last revert, where you removed once again the "little-known outside Germany" passage, you may be able to avoid a block for violating WP:3RR. In addition, please agree to stop edit-warring on this article. If you do so I would close the 3RR case with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope someone else will remove the inappropriate material. Urban XII (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 

Edit-warring at Volksdeutsche, and Digwuren notice

You and User:Feketekave have been edit-warring on Volksdeutsche. At the moment you appear to have stopped reverting there, which is a good idea.

I'm officially notifying you of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Remedies which allows admins to use discretionary sanctions on any topics involving Eastern Europe. You should be especially careful to obtain agreement on talk pages before reverting hot-button articles like Volksdeutsche.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines

Discretionary sanctions are usually more severe and need less review than the usual admin actions. This is your Digwuren notice. Let me know if you have any questions on how you can edit so as to avoid sanctions under this case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this. Urban XII (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Kiderlen-Waechter

Who? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. If you have to change spellings or create articles, have the courteousy to check whether the link in the template is correct. As it is, it isn't! Str1977 ^(talk) 18:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to this article which you moved to a different spelling which wasn't correct. Urban XII (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Kiderlen-Waechter was actually succeed by Kiderlen-Waechter? I am referring to the mysterious note you left on my talk page!

Regardless of the spelling, article title and template must match or things won't work! 18:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I don't understand what you refer to. 1) You moved the article from Kiderlen-Waechter to Kiderlen-Wächter. 2) I left you this note explaining that his name actually is spelled Kiderlen-Waechter, not Kiderlen-Wächter. Urban XII (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I misread the verb. Sorry! Str1977 ^(talk) 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Federal" is a translation of "Bundes-" - Ministers in the Weimar Republic were not called Bundes- but Reichs- but because the latter cannot be translated properly it is omitted. There's no reason to omit "Federal" post 1949. And why are you saying the Weimar ministers were Federal - the Kaiserreich was just as much federal! Str1977 ^(talk) 19:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Both Bundes- and Reichs- mean federal, as opposed to state level. Yes, there is a reason to ommit "federal", and that reason is the fact the German foreign ministers are in English most widely referred to as Foreign Ministers, not "Federal Foreign Ministers. Yes, the Empire was also federal but did not have federal ministers, so that's really irrelevant. Germany has had federal ministers since 1919. Urban XII (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I have even the slightest knowledge of whatever ya'll are talking about, but does reichs really mean federal? I thought it meant like imperial. Learn something new every day :) WookMuff (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not have a proper English translation, but in that context, it means "federal" (the Weimar Republic wasn't an empire). See Reich. Urban XII (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Reichs- does not mean "federal". Sure, the Reichs-level 1871-1945 and the Bundes-level are equivalent but it is not justifable to translate Reichs- with "federal". Imperial doesn't cut it either as the Reich in question was not an Empire in one sense (as in British Empire) and only until 1918 in another sense (realm ruled by an Emperor). Yes, the Kaiserreich and, to a lesser extent, the Weimar Republic were federal states too but they weren't called that way. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What is correct is the foreign ministers were referred to as simply Foreign Ministers of Germany in English. Urban XII (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kriminalfall von Amstetten

Hello Urban XII, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Kriminalfall von Amstetten - a page you tagged - because: valid alternative search term and thus valid redirect. Also, please not blank the content when tagging. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 11:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Klaus Iohannis

Please, do not misquote sources. [9] I am sure you can find other sources that say the words you want to put there. Changing what a source say is very serious. Please, chose to be a content contributor, not a reverter and misquoter. I sincerely hope we can agree to disagree opinion-wise but edit constructively, without problems. Thank you very much. Dc76\^talk 14:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely believe we are almost there to solve everything. Can I respectfully ask you a technical thing: to comment below every time. I just discovered I did not read a number of your comments because you added them no top. If you are replying to something I said, just copy some of my words. Dc76\^talk 01:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to insert your latest version in the lead for Klaus Iohannis. I agree with it. Our experience today reminds me of:

Anakin: You call this a diplomatic solution?

Padme: No, I call it an aggressive negotiation.

Look, now honestly, I think we got a wrong start. I have assumed you were Romanian and had a certain bias. I was almost sure you were a member of the PSD. But tonight I realized you had access only to western press, and many things when translated, especially out of context, look very differently. I am sincerely sorry about my part in this misunderstanding. Should there be future disagreements between us in any article, let's remember how we misunderstood each other these days, and how easily we arrived at a solution when we realized we got on the wrong foot. May I ask, just out of curiosity, what is your general background, and why are you interested in these particular articles? Also, you can ask me anything about my background. You know already I am Romanian. Dc76\^talk 02:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you also to look over the paragraph starting with "After the second round of talks..." The two possible version can be compared here (only referring to this particular paragraph.) If you would edit it to the way you see best fit, chances are it would be just fine by me. So, may I ask you to give it a try tomorrow. I can translate the Romanian sources if you need. Just mention it. Thank you very much. And, again, I am sorry about our past misunderstandings. Dc76\^talk 02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look at these articles later today and implement agreed changes. Thank you for your constructive cooperation during the last couple of hours. I'm happy that we were able to sort these issues out. Urban XII (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 

I am very glad as well. Perhaps I would be saying this for the third of forth time, but I believe it's the king of thing better said too many times than too few: I am sorry I have misunderstood you at the beginning. It takes two to arrive at an understanding, and I cannot but remark that immediately as I extended my hand you took the opportunity, which makes me wonder what if you were ready to compromise before me, and I wasn't. I am sincerely sorry if I made you wait too much. :-) Dc76\^talk 17:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop moving pages without any reason!

History of Germany since 1945 is named that way because it includes events past 1990, don't move pages without even reading the article!--Nero the second (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion - 2

Hello, Urban XII. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Nero the second (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Urban, please be careful with editing your comments (specifically, the one referring to the coverage of the history of Germany article) after people have replied to them. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not make changes that changed the meaning of my comments, only expanded them, which is a common and accepted practice at Wikipedia. I made these edits immediately, before I had seen any replies. Urban XII (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I answered each of your comments in the relative talk page.--Nero the second (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Page move of templates

Hi there, please be aware, that if you move a template (like {{Infobox German State}}), you should move the documentation page (.../doc) too. This will help other users to edit the template and using the infobox. (Although IMHO, this move was not necessary.) Thanks. Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The template was moved because Bundesland is an incorrect term (see States of Germany). Urban XII (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it, and the talk pages were it is discussed. I believe, the common use it is Bundesland, even if the constitution states Land. But I think these questions is minor, so I don't participate in those discussions. Sebastian scha. (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Angels and Demons (film)

Your edit to Angels & Demons (film) was reverted for two reasons:

• A) Your apparent reason for editing was to restore an unsourced and thus unreliable trivia-like section
• B) It undid many intermediate edits - seven of them.

If you would like to include the "errors" section, take it to the talk page. Do not revert a week-old edit. Thank you. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 02:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

a) I reverted vandalism content deletion. The section was not trivia, insisting on "sources" is trolling because this is uncontroversial material covered in depth by other articles on Catholic issues.

b) I did not revert any other edits than than content deletion. Welcome to Wikipedia, you probably haven't noticed that reverts using "undo" only remove the particular edits. Urban XII (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans Filbinger

At Hans Filbinger, someone recently added an infobox with a field "Political party". It was incomplete, since it showed only CDU, but not NSdAP, which is one of the key points for understanding why he was so controversial. You need not agree with my opinion about the relevance of NSdAP membership of Filbinger, but – just in case nobody has made you aware of that before – accusations of vandalism such as this one [10] are completely inacceptable in a genuine POV conflict. Hans Adler 21:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding the Nazi party to Infobox politician under the heading Minister-President of Baden-Württemberg, which makes it look like he represented the Nazi party as Minister-President, may easily be interpreted as vandalism. The Nazi party does not belong to the infobox for very obvious reasons stated at the article talk page. Urban XII (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not supposed to interpret the actions of fellow Wikipedians in the worst possible light. It's not just bad form and hazardous for the cooperative editing environment, it's actually forbidden. See WP:AGF. And your very obvious reasons turn out to be very dubious on closer examination, see article talk page. Instead of retracting your silly vandalism accusation against me you have sort of repeated it. I must ask you to read the policy section WP:Vandalism#What is not vandalism and then retract the accusation properly. Hans Adler 21:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding the Nazi party to the party parameter, before the CDU, was non-standard and inappropriate. The Nazi Party addition was only identified as vandalism after you added it repeatedly (with the edit summary "reverting whitewashing", which looked to me like an attempt to smear the subject of the biography), after it had already been removed once and the inappropriateness pointed out. I don't intend to continue this discussion. Urban XII (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

With what I consider your second unfounded attack against me in an edit summary [11] you have forced immediate escalation. I have asked for feedback from admins at WP:ANI#Urban XII, Hans Filbinger and Hans Adler – Request for feedback. This notice is required by process. Hans Adler 12:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your wiki-stalking of me. I have better things to do than taking part in this childish and unproductive game. I have explained why I used a particular rationale for a particular reversion in the past. I don't see any reason to continue a discussion on that or your previous reverts of that article. You should be satisfied that the information you wanted to include was eventually included in a more appropriate form, that you accepted, and move on instead of beating the dead horse. There are thousands of articles waiting to be written. I routinely revert comments that are threatening or harassing in nature at my talk page. Reverting threatening comments at my own talk page is not an attack on you. Urban XII (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in ANI quarreling. Urban XII (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, Urban XII, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, and come to the Project talk page, where you can join in our discussions about Catholic-related articles. It is also a good place to come if you have any questions. Feel free to discuss anything on the project, but please remember to sign all your comments, and help us to make all of the many Catholicism-related articles much better. Again, welcome, and happy editing!

Blocked

For your overall pattern of disruptive editing, I have blocked you for 48 hours. The disruption includes: tendentious POV editing on Hans Filbinger and elsewhere; aggressive revert-warring; making repeated false charges of vandalism against content opponents; using BLP violations (at Horst Ehmke) as a WP:POINT tool to enforce your preferred outcome at the Filbinger article; disruptive wikilawyering, and a general pattern of treating Wikipedia as a battleground. See also the related ANI thread with complaints about your editing here.

Don't bother crying admin abuse: Since I have never been in a dispute with you except in my role enforcing BLP on the Ehmke article, which is a privileged admin action under WP:BLPSE (see warning here [12]), I am in no way barred from taking administrative action with regard to your editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

A user involved in a content dispute with me at Horst Ehmke (and Talk:Horst Ehmke), over whether to include the well sourced NSDAP membership of Ehmke in the infobox, has abused his admin privileges to block my account. He has also made inappropriate threats of using his admin tools to enforce his POV.

The user makes a false claim claim of "BLP" violation. There is no BLP violation. I did not even introduce the fact that Ehmke was a Nazi Party member in the article. The fact was already included and sourced (see page history). Adding this to the "otherparty" parameter in the infobox, even with indication that he was an "inactive member" (a solution already agreed upon in similar cases), is no BLP violation. I did never edit-war at all to include this information either. These are all the edits I made to the article, I never reverted it.

The other allegations are utterly false; my edits at the articles referred to were constructive edits and clear improvements of the articles in question. The POV charge would apply equally to the edits of the user who blocked my account, for instance his revert-warring at the Horst Ehmke article.

The block is clearly politically motived and grossly abusive. See Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools, particularly the paragraph on conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute. I intend to make a request for de-adminship due to abuse of admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute over whether to include certain sourced information in an infobox.

Also note that the user in question, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, has a history of trouble and has been blocked himself in the past.[13]

Thanks for reading.

Decline reason:

No admin is going to unblock you if you insist on besmirching the blocking admin (or any other user, for that matter) - all it does is prove that the block in the first place is valid. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Urban XII (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not "besmirching" User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, it's the other way round (see above). Pointing out that the user in question was involved in a content dispute with me at Horst Ehmke, that there was no BLP violation, only my constructive edits which clearly improved the article, that the block is a violation of Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools (the section on conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute) for reasons evident at Talk:Horst Ehmke, and hence an abuse of admin tools, and that the allegation of POV is utterly false and at least applies equally to the user who blocked his opponent in a content dispute, is not "besmirching". Urban XII (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a fair response to the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Urban XII, Hans Filbinger and Hans Adler – Request for feedback, linked above. When this expires, please take care to seek collaboration with your fellow volunteers. This is an encyclopedia, not a not a battleground. Please also read Wikipedia:Vandalism - good faith attempts to improve an article, even those that are ultimately rejected by a consensus of the editors at the talkpage, should never be described as vandalism. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No, the block was justifified with alleged "BLP" violation at Horst Ehmke. There was no BLP violation as demonstrated above. The user who blocked me was involved in a content dispute with me. This content dispute had nothing to do with the other discussion referred to. The fact remains that a user who was involved in a content dispute with a different user uses his admin tools to block his opponent in that content dispute. Urban XII (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My edits to Horst Ehmke, the alleged "BLP violation" and reason for the block, were a constructive improvement of that article. The block is not "necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" because these edits were no BLP violation, but perfectly fine and balanced edits which improved the quality of the article. If you think these edits were somehow a BLP violation, please explain how. I introduced no new information in the article, this was more or less a copyedit. 2) I have never caused damage or disruption to Wikipedia, quite on the contrary, I'm a productive editor who has written/improved countless articles and never been blocked for anything. I invite you to review my contributions. 3) Users involved in content disputes are not supposed to block their opponents in the content dispute, no matter. 4) While my opponents in some content disputes seem to use Wikipedia as a battleground and frequently attack their opponents at pages like WP:ANI, I have no interest in such quarreling (see for instance User_talk:Urban_XII#New_ANI_created) and concentrate on contributing productively, i.e. writing articles. Urban XII (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The request is moot because your block has expired.  Sandstein  20:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

• To make an unblock request you need to add it as per the instructions on the template, so it appears inside the box, also you should read wikipedia guide to appealing blocks as it gives some good advice. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the advice. I tried and it did not work. Urban XII (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I can put it in for you if you want? Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks :-). Urban XII (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski

Hi Urban XII, how is going?

I remember that you have nominated Boris Malagurski (on September 2009) for deletion and it was deleted. Seems that it has been re-established. Were you aware of it?

Thank you. kedadial 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

As you seem to have tangled with this lot in the past, perhaps you might have something to contribute at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bormalagurski Opbeith (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Boris Malagurski

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Boris Malagurski. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Malagurski (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

German federal election, 1928

Next time, when you think an article unbalanced, don't let its content disappear, but instead add {{unbalanced}} to it. Thank you. --bender235 (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Category:Foreign Ministers of X

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Category:Foreign Ministers of X on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)