Mr. Mustard

Hello, you reverted an edit of me, not sure why because I added a reference for the statement? HectorSanchez (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And I could add 1000 references for the statement, that Hayek is called ordoliberal himself. He was a good friend of Walter Eucken, the founder of ordoliberalism. Hayek himself was the founder of the Mont Pelerin Society, there Eucken and Ludwig Erhard were member. Hayek was president of the Walter Eucken Institut, the most important ordoliberal think tank.[1].--Mr. Mustard (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the point above. Please don´t delete text that cames with a proper source. This is considered vandalism in Wikipedia. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't pull my leg. You know the answer from the German Wikipedia. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Mustard, I have not seen any explanation for your repeated revert (you might see that generally reffering to "German Wikipedia" or NPOV is not much of an explanation). Unless you do so there is no place for dispute resolution. If I don´t get a reasonable explanation I suggest the reverts to be an mistake. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

Pass3456, du hast die Wahl: wenn du den Text bezüglich Streit und Wohlgemuth erneut einsetzt, werde ich diesen durch Pies Widerspruch ergänzen und zudem Texte von Streit [2][3] und Wohlgemuth [4] hinzufügen. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Ordoliberalism, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Neoliberalism, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Pass3456 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)--Pass3456 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I would be grateful if you would answer here Talk:Neoliberalism#Germany. --Pass3456 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Neoliberalism, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. -> Deletion of 4.000 byte text without any argument. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)--Pass3456 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neoliberalism. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Social market economy". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My edits are proved by sources. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Related to the message you just deleted. Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Pass3456 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Pass3456. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Social Market Economy without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Deletion of sourced text is blanking which is forbidden in Wikipedia. Furthermore you did not give any notice why you think that User:Christian L. Glossner and others contributions have to be deleted.--Pass3456 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Grüße

aus der alten Heimat... --Grindinger (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)