Hello, Wikiwiserick, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- PBS ( talk) 06:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the link to the Klier review. I have used a quote from it in 2 recent edits: [ [1]], and [ [2]] and I will look for other material that might be added. It will be most interesting when the English version of Kreiler's book comes out. It is sure to contain much useful material for these pages to consider! Smatprt ( talk) 04:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me about your concerns about the name of the Ruhr article. As you will see I have changed the RfC into a WP:RM as that is the best forum to discuss article names. I am curious about your comment "not 'Ruhr', as in Germany only the river is called 'Ruhr', not the region." Are you a native German speaker, because I don't see what the German usage of the term name has to do with English usage? -- PBS ( talk) 06:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikiwiserick ( talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Or to rephrase "The Ruhr ... which every Anglo-Saxon schoolboy has heard [is] the industrial basin now named after [the river]" it may be a "mistake" but it is the common usage in English and in English (unlike French) there is no right or wrong there is just usage. -- PBS ( talk) 23:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.
Rhode Island Red (
talk)
21:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Rhode Island Red (
talk)
15:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.
You were already cautioned about canvassing once, [7] so why are you still doing it? [8] [9] Rhode Island Red ( talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you
vandalize
Caspar David Friedrich again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. ...
Modernist (
talk)
19:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 20:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
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.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
I took a break from Wikipedia for several months because of your behavior, as you frequently acted disruptively and reverted my contributions, although I provided (and still provide) material from many reliable sources (art books, catalogues, art magazines, art-related webpages) and you admitted that you are unable to read German texts and have no specific knowledge of current German art. Now I see that nothing has changed. Moreover, you are showing the same kind of aggressive behavior on other Wikipedia pages as well (see, for instance, Frank L. VanderSloot, where you are deeply engaged in edit wars with several other users). I don't know whether your habitual "watchdog" attitudes are neurotic or part of a play. What is certain is that they represent conflicting tendencies and tend to put other editors off. Blind reverting to older article versions of inferior quality is an offense against Wikipedia policy, as is the deliberate inclusion of wrong dates. Indeed, it is a good way to get blocked. You are the big problem here, Rhode Island Red, not me. Therefore, I am reincluding the well-sourced additional information. Wikiwiserick ( talk) 16:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
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.
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Museumsinsel Hombroich, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://voices.yahoo.com/insel-hombroich-unique-nature-art-preserve-neuss-52127.html.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot ( talk) 04:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Anatol Herzfeld 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(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 02:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erwin Heerich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
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. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 21:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Willibald Sauerländer, Wikiwiserick!
Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This page is reviewed
To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hello, Wikiwiserick. A couple editing suggestions for you to consider:
Regards, Eric talk 02:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Wikiwiserick,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kurt Badt for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TRL ( talk) 03:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Wikiwiserick. I think, you should know this, cause you're involved: [11]. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 11:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas W. Gaehtgens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Please do not continue to remove article cleanup tags [12] [13] on Charles de Tolnay. The notability of the subject is in question, in part because of the lack of secondary sources demonstrating notability (only 1 source is cited and it's an obscure offline source in German), and the tags must remain in place until the issue is resolved. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 01:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 01:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please do not continue to remove article cleanup tags on Julius von Schlosser as you did here. [14] [15] The notability of the subject is in question, in part because of the lack of secondary sources demonstrating notability (only 1 source is cited), and the tag must remain in place until the issue is resolved. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 01:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max Dvořák, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Prague. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you move new posts to the bottom of my talk page, otherwise it takes me a while to find them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the rule we have is that the article should be titled simply with the person's name unless there is another person with an article already. If you are intending to create an article on the other Werner Hofmann, then we will need to have a bracketed disambiguation - probably for both as neither is obviously much the more famous of the two. If an article is created on the other Hofmann, then the one on the art historian can easily be switched back. On the "Friedrich" issue, I agree with you in principle, but there will always be judgement calls. I'm not sure that Schult's work is sufficiently close to Friedrich to mention him. Part of the problem is that many artists get compared to Friedrich. Any artist whose work deploys references to the sublime; people isolated against landscapes; etc, gets compared to Friedrich. BTW, thanks for creating ther Hofmann article. Paul B ( talk) 10:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been undone.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Wikiwiserick. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Wikiwiserick. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Museumsinsel
Thank you for quality articles around art, mostly in Germany, such as Museumsinsel Hombroich, Ludwig Heinrich Heydenreich, HA Schult, Anatol Herzfeld and Chen Ruo Bing, based on scientific knowledge, for defending sources, - art lover, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
A year ago, you were recipient no. 2210 of Precious, a prize of QAI! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Wikiwiserick, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- PBS ( talk) 06:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the link to the Klier review. I have used a quote from it in 2 recent edits: [ [1]], and [ [2]] and I will look for other material that might be added. It will be most interesting when the English version of Kreiler's book comes out. It is sure to contain much useful material for these pages to consider! Smatprt ( talk) 04:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me about your concerns about the name of the Ruhr article. As you will see I have changed the RfC into a WP:RM as that is the best forum to discuss article names. I am curious about your comment "not 'Ruhr', as in Germany only the river is called 'Ruhr', not the region." Are you a native German speaker, because I don't see what the German usage of the term name has to do with English usage? -- PBS ( talk) 06:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikiwiserick ( talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Or to rephrase "The Ruhr ... which every Anglo-Saxon schoolboy has heard [is] the industrial basin now named after [the river]" it may be a "mistake" but it is the common usage in English and in English (unlike French) there is no right or wrong there is just usage. -- PBS ( talk) 23:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.
Rhode Island Red (
talk)
21:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Rhode Island Red (
talk)
15:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.
You were already cautioned about canvassing once, [7] so why are you still doing it? [8] [9] Rhode Island Red ( talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you
vandalize
Caspar David Friedrich again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. ...
Modernist (
talk)
19:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 20:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
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.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
I took a break from Wikipedia for several months because of your behavior, as you frequently acted disruptively and reverted my contributions, although I provided (and still provide) material from many reliable sources (art books, catalogues, art magazines, art-related webpages) and you admitted that you are unable to read German texts and have no specific knowledge of current German art. Now I see that nothing has changed. Moreover, you are showing the same kind of aggressive behavior on other Wikipedia pages as well (see, for instance, Frank L. VanderSloot, where you are deeply engaged in edit wars with several other users). I don't know whether your habitual "watchdog" attitudes are neurotic or part of a play. What is certain is that they represent conflicting tendencies and tend to put other editors off. Blind reverting to older article versions of inferior quality is an offense against Wikipedia policy, as is the deliberate inclusion of wrong dates. Indeed, it is a good way to get blocked. You are the big problem here, Rhode Island Red, not me. Therefore, I am reincluding the well-sourced additional information. Wikiwiserick ( talk) 16:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
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.
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Museumsinsel Hombroich, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://voices.yahoo.com/insel-hombroich-unique-nature-art-preserve-neuss-52127.html.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot ( talk) 04:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Anatol Herzfeld 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(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 02:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erwin Heerich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
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. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 21:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Willibald Sauerländer, Wikiwiserick!
Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This page is reviewed
To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hello, Wikiwiserick. A couple editing suggestions for you to consider:
Regards, Eric talk 02:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Wikiwiserick,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kurt Badt for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TRL ( talk) 03:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Wikiwiserick. I think, you should know this, cause you're involved: [11]. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 11:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas W. Gaehtgens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Please do not continue to remove article cleanup tags [12] [13] on Charles de Tolnay. The notability of the subject is in question, in part because of the lack of secondary sources demonstrating notability (only 1 source is cited and it's an obscure offline source in German), and the tags must remain in place until the issue is resolved. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 01:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 01:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please do not continue to remove article cleanup tags on Julius von Schlosser as you did here. [14] [15] The notability of the subject is in question, in part because of the lack of secondary sources demonstrating notability (only 1 source is cited), and the tag must remain in place until the issue is resolved. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 01:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max Dvořák, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Prague. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you move new posts to the bottom of my talk page, otherwise it takes me a while to find them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the rule we have is that the article should be titled simply with the person's name unless there is another person with an article already. If you are intending to create an article on the other Werner Hofmann, then we will need to have a bracketed disambiguation - probably for both as neither is obviously much the more famous of the two. If an article is created on the other Hofmann, then the one on the art historian can easily be switched back. On the "Friedrich" issue, I agree with you in principle, but there will always be judgement calls. I'm not sure that Schult's work is sufficiently close to Friedrich to mention him. Part of the problem is that many artists get compared to Friedrich. Any artist whose work deploys references to the sublime; people isolated against landscapes; etc, gets compared to Friedrich. BTW, thanks for creating ther Hofmann article. Paul B ( talk) 10:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been undone.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Wikiwiserick. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Wikiwiserick. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Museumsinsel
Thank you for quality articles around art, mostly in Germany, such as Museumsinsel Hombroich, Ludwig Heinrich Heydenreich, HA Schult, Anatol Herzfeld and Chen Ruo Bing, based on scientific knowledge, for defending sources, - art lover, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
A year ago, you were recipient no. 2210 of Precious, a prize of QAI! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)