Eintracht123

Please answer on the article's talk page!

That's the place to answer the other user's concerns. Talk:Checkpoint Charlie Museum#Disputed edits and NPOV ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. IamNotU (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Your addition to Checkpoint Charlie Museum has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. IamNotU (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Eintracht123, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Checkpoint Charlie Museum have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Please refer to WP:PARAPHRASE in particular. Thank you. IamNotU (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Checkpoint Charlie Museum, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Please discuss your concerns on the talk page, and see also WP:EDITWAR. --IamNotU (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Your recent editing history at Checkpoint Charlie Museum 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Eintracht123. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

I'm not certain that a COI applies to you, but I'm concerned that many of your edits have problems with WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY, and having a personal relationship with the subject is a common cause of that. You are not required to reveal your real-life identity, and I will not try to find it out. But if you do have a conflict of interest, you're obligated to follow the above rules. Please also see the talk page at talk:Checkpoint Charlie Museum where I've written a response to the concerns you wrote in your edit summary, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Checkpoint Charlie Museum

Hi there! Can you please explain why the content you removed here is "defamation" as you described in the edit summary please? I don't understand, as you didn't explain it in-depth. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a) about the tone of your text and b) about the accuracy - haven't seen any disclosures of financial statements etc. - this is fake research and fake information you are providing to users. I urge you to desist from spreading fake information and fake news. Stay true to the facts. This is what wikipedia is all about.

March 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Checkpoint Charlie Museum. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Immediately after your block expires for edit warring, you're going straight back to the article and continuing exactly what you were doing. Please stop this. If you continue to do this and you do not start a talk page discussion or explain your removal of content in-depth, your block will be extended. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please answer on the article's talk page!

That's the place to answer the other user's concerns. Talk:Checkpoint Charlie Museum#Disputed edits and NPOV ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked indefinitely because your first edits after your previous block were to continue a slow burning edit war. You also don't edit frequently enough for a shorter block to really have much impact. To be unblocked, you will need to explain to the reviewing administrator that you understand what the issues that led to the block were, and how you would go about resolving them in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)