Clumpytree
RM edit
WP:RM, good luck. - dwc lr (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- No the current titles are correct according to English language usage. I'm sorry you are so sensitive to royal titles but English language sources use them, that is a simple fact. - dwc lr (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I strongly encourage you to write titles are not reconsigned in Germany. But what you are doing in calling people by names that they are never known as in English to suit your anti royal POV. Ludwig Rudolph Prinz von Hannover, Ludwig Rudolf Prinz von Hannover, both nothing. Prince Ludwig Rudolph of Hanover, Prince Ludwig Rudolf of Hanover, both something. Princess Ortrud, something, Ortrud Prinzessin, nothing. I suggest you revert yourself as it reflects very badly on you pushing a POV. - dwc lr (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I am making the article conform to a NPOV, by mentioning titles and a footnote on legal name, what is your problem with this. In English titles are attributed to them. - dwc lr (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You are clearly editing from a POV as one can see from your user page. If you don't have respect for Wikipedia policy of a NPOV you should stop editing, its as simple as that. This is not the place for you come and impose your own personal view. If you don't change your attitude you will probably end up getting blocked for disruptive editing. I suggest you stop and think before you revert again, the Hanover's are known by titles that is a simple verifiable fact. - dwc lr (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
May 2011 edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. - dwc lr (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - dwc lr (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
As you have reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours, you should probably revert yourself otherwise you could get blocked. - dwc lr (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Legal names edit
Could you supply a reliable source for the German legal names of the Hanover princes. As you mentioned at the requested move the surname could be Prinz von Hannover or Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig-Lüneburg so really we need to back this up with a reliable source, otherwise it would constitute WP:OR. - dwc lr (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, as you are involved with the Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) article, would you like to comment on a proposed resolution of the issues concerning the article? If so, please visit the Talk:Prince_Ernst_August_of_Hanover_(born_1954)#Proposed_resolution talk page. Thank you. - SudoGhost 18:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Please unblock me edit
Clumpytree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a puppet of anyone. Please unblock me again. Clumpytree (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Behaviourally I am 110% inclined to agree that you are socking in order to try and get your way on at least one article. Even if you were not (which is doubtful) your non-WP:CONSENSUS edits are wholly disruptive. We have a policy of be bold, revert once only, then discuss - you're violating the most vital of Wikipedia's tenets (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 5 September 2011 (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.
Clumpytree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Good morning. I am not sure what evidence I should give you to prove that I am not a puppet. As to the new accusation. I am sorry if I have broken any Wikipedia policies, I am only an occasional Wikipedia editor and not that familiar with them. The last time I tried to stop vandalism at some articles I was told that there is a 3-reverts rule (that I should not revert more than three times), I tried to keep to that rule from that time, I was not aware that there is now a one-revert rule. I do not think this justifies an indefintive block. The article I have been most active over the last days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Ernst_August_of_Hanover_%28born_1954%29), I have stopped edit warring and joined the discussion to solve the question in consensus, even though the article was still faulty during the time of the discussion. Most of my points then actually became part of the consensus solution (which might count as an indication that they were not just disruptive). The one disruptive edit I did in the heat of the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Ortrud_of_Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gl%C3%BCcksburg I reverted myself. Clumpytree (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See my rationale at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dbpjmuf. AGK [•] 18:11, 5 September 2011 (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.
Clumpytree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Good morning, I am still no sockpuppet, and as I am no sock-puppet this account is my only way to participate with the Wikipedia. So, ironically if your reasons for blocking me were right, I would not care and could still edit Wikipedia, but as they are wrong, I am still excluded from participating... Anyway, as said before, my IP address gave no indication that I actually was a sock puppet, and my repeated questions what else I could do to prove my innocent are still unanswered. I was banned solely because I was involved in a controversial topic and was supporting the same position as others that were involved in that topic. The only ″evidence″ brought forward against me, was that I used a similar language than others. I still think this is not a good reason for an indefinite block. You decide Wikimedia Foundation Inc, do you want broad participation or not? Best wishes, Clumpytree (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Socking aside, your behavior here consisted almost entirely of disruption, including repeated edit warring, incivility, and in at least one case, outright vandalism [1] to make a point. I see nothing in this request to indicate we could expect anything different on another go of it. (Please note that I am not an employee or representative of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor would the WMF normally handle unblock requests.)Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:39, 11 December 2012 (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.
Comment on the last unblock rejection: "entirely of disruption, including repeated edit warring, incivility, and in at least one case, outright vandalism [1]" - I have discussed those points in my previous unblock request. As said, I apologised for the one occurence of vandalism and have reverted it myself. I have kept to the edit warring rules as soon as I was alerted to them, and my edits were not disruptive but mainly became the consensus of a highly controversial topic. "employee or representative of the Wikimedia Foundation" - I know that most work on the Wikipedia is not done by employees by the Wikimedia Foundation, but they are ultimately responsible and given my experience with their product I will object whenever I hear them or anyone claim that the Wikipedia is about truth and wide participation. I am clearly not allowed to participate. I was blocked because I objected to plainly wrong assertions. "I see nothing in this request to indicate we could expect anything different on another go of it." - It is true I have a controversial style and I won't bent over and apologise for asking for fair treatment, but as also discussed before I learn and am willing to keep to the rules. I still think it is strange that each time I ask to be unblocked new different reasons are given to reject it, that have nothing to do anymore with why I was initally blocked. Best wishes, Clumpytree (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)