User talk:Albin Schmitt/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Albin Schmitt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Talk:Las Vegas Strip shooting

Kindly refrain from making false accusations of antisemitism. In addition, please don't make or propose edits on Wikipedia based on conspiracy-riddled unreliable source. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There was no false accusation of antisemitism. If people are deleting a quote from a newspaper (Israel National News) and that was removed together with the link from the TALK PAGE (violation of the WP guidelines) with the reasoning, that all Israeli news are bullshit, that is called antisemitism.
I have not used any conspiracy-riddled unreliable source. I have always used reliable sources and suggested edits in the article on the talk page. If you don't think that the sources are good enough, well, what about you use the discussion page to argue against it!?--Albin Schmitt (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dude. Your source is so reliable that the article you linked doesn't even exist anymore, and the article that replaces it says "While initial reports claimed Paddock was a recent convert to Islam, Clark County Sherrif Joseph Lombardo said he had no knowledge of Paddock's religious beliefs"--which is also a lie since no "reports" claimed that--only a few fools, and a couple of fools believed it. I don't know what you're yelling in this edit summary, but it's a falsehood, just like the summary in this one. On the other hand, the edit summary here is incorrect as well, but that doesn't make you the victim of anything; it just makes you a whiner (just like that ridiculous warning on my talk page). Should have listened to what User:Wnt and others told you on that talk page. Drmies (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Schmitt was right to complain loudly about this edit by @Ansh666: claiming that his reference should be removed from the talk page. The idea that it is a "BLP-violating ref" and we can't cite it even on a talk page is dangerously absurd. If a news source posts an allegation, then it is not a violation of BLP to cite the news source. How can we possibly decide, as a group, whether the information in it violates BLP without citing it? So I am 100% in agreement with him about that edit. I also don't know if the initial reports were serious or not, whether INN is fools or not, etc., and see no way that a responsible editor should know.

Where I will agree is that (a) the other editor was not specifically targeting Israeli newspapers, but seemed to have a general belief, with which I disagree, that only local papers would be reliable for such a thing. Caveat being that someone talking about "purging Israeli" news sources and flashing a Maltese Cross in his signature might raise the hackles of even the nicest dog in the park - but a bad feeling is not proof of anything. (b) I absolutely hate those templates and have argued for their deletion in the past; no good can come from those canned hostile messages no matter how many thousands of times they are used, even if those using them mean well. Wnt (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wnt, I do not know what the other editor's opinions or editorial philosophies are. If you think that they have a questionable bent to them, there is a place to bring it up, especially if that bent becomes disruptive, and I encourage you to do so. But this still wasn't the antisemitic targeting of a person. But the BLP is not set aside or becomes inapplicable if something is cited--next thing you know we can cite whatever we want to Breitbart or Infowars and say "well it's cited"--even if this involves pizza parlors etc. I believe that that reference was a BLP violation of sorts (not the worst of em) because that source was lousy, and/or cited lousy sources. Yes, we are under some obligation to investigate, especially if we are always in such a ridiculous haste to beat the newspapers to it. We have apparently decided that we want to be the up-to-date, go-to source for everything in the world--well, that brings along extra responsibilities. It also means we really shouldn't name that foolish news person who got fired after a really dumb tweet, and we certainly shouldn't name anyone until we are sure: I assume you know about the poor schmuck who was misidentified on Facebook and various other sites, and whose life must have been hell, at least for a day.

Albin Schmitt, I hope you understand why I was a little upset with that warning, and why I urge care and restraint with posting anything that hasn't gone through rigorous fact checking. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I think there are some mistakes on all sides here; so far the one I disagree with most is redacting talk page comments. I definitely believe it is appropriate to mention this widely reported story about XXXX. I feel sympathetic toward this man because he was simply venting in a way that people in a freer decade, like the 90s, wouldn't have thought twice about; that doesn't mean I feel reluctant to provide a WP:WELLKNOWN story about him. I am actually considering including it in a "reactions" section for the article. I mean, historically speaking, it would be inaccurate if Wikipedia reported that Stalin was the most popular politician ever because everybody was always so eager to clap and cheer -- likewise, if there are object examples made out of people who show an "inappropriate" reaction to the Mandalay shooting, then the article should convey that point to provide a more balanced view of what overall attitudes were.

The fake news is indeed important - I bet the Israeli newspaper was suckered by some early fake news reports. It is even possible that Israeli newspapers are more vulnerable to not recognize the difference between fake and real American news, though that is not in my mind sufficient justification for a blanket prejudice against foreigners. That said, it isn't clear that the fake news is truly "about" the shooting - the shooting affected it (and the reputation of Google/Facebook) but I'm not sure it affected the shooting, even in terms of cultural reaction. Last I looked I think it was actually a big section in the article; I didn't take it out mostly because that's not usually what I do around here. But bear in mind that conflict among all parties here was initiated by people trusting an AI to do journalism; taxonomically that can be fairly described as a demonic influence. So it's best if all involved take a step back and stay clear of what would have been an unnecessary conflict. Wnt (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That you had to include her name here with a redlink (which I'm redacting) is just incomprehensible to me: the BLP requires us to err on the side of caution. You "mean" that somehow this is in any way like Stalin? Sheesh--and don't pretend to feel sympathy. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: This man's name is all over the news, all over Google, everyone knows what happened. Bear in mind that when you mentioned him I didn't know his name, but that certainly was no obstacle to searching Mandalay fired. He is already set to receive the full measure of bullying over a melodramatic comment that the cowards of the corporate world have so far talked themselves up into meting out. For Wikipedia to redact his name is not sympathy - just censorship. If it were not your example I might keep arguing here, but we should save that for the article. Meanwhile ... you've actually agreed with my point, because you didn't see fit to remove the citation itself, which is what was done to Albin Schmitt. The call to be careful and reliably sourced about what we say in articles must not be converted into a drive to be timidly censored about when we report what the rest of the world knows. Wnt (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You are still not convincing me that you actually understand the BLP. If you can't understand that removing the name does not automatically mean removing the link, I can't help you. As for your dropping that c-word so continuously, yeah, whatever. Kindly stop pinging me, and stop using this talk page as a forum. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Drmies has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 12:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mario Mieruch

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mario Mieruch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. PK T(alk) 11:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Albin Schmitt! Thank you for your contributions. I am Menaechmi and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! menaechmi (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I first met you at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle, but for some reason it took this long for me to realize that no one had welcomed you to the project yet....so welcome! I hope you enjoy :) menaechmi (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas shooting talk page archiving

Please do not archive sections which are unresolved, especially not those which are only a few hour old. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please mind your manners

Please WP:AGF and refrain form flinging accusations like this: [1] at fellow editors. If you see actual, inappropriate behavior, take it to ANI rather that posting it on an AfD discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Albin Schmitt.

I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing

Please do not edit (Milo Yiannopoulos) or create (Gertrude Pressburger) articles for which you either cannot or will not provide reliable sourcing. Pink News, for instance, is not a reliable source. Do not use Wikipedia to push a political or partisan agenda. Quis separabit? 18:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

RE: Milo Yiannopoulos

@Albin Schmitt: You state, correctly, that "Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view."

-- I am afraid you have not succeeded in that. Your reliance on Pink News, an inherently unreliable source, violates RS and POV. As only one revert is permitted on this article I cannot undo your revert, however I am hopeful that these improper citations in such a widely-trafficked article as that of Yiannopoulos will be corrected. Or I may take the issue to ANI. Quis separabit? 19:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is also under consensus required, so it should not of been reinstated in the first place. PackMecEng (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who put an "allegedly" in front of a Donald Trump quote, indicating that he might not have said it, isn't that right?--APS ^talk 19:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that you might have a not to pleasant agenda. While the article is full of sections with sources like Breitbart, YouTube and Twitter, you do not consider an editorial media reliable? And that you are criticizing the one article I wrote on a holocaust survivor using a book as source material does leave a bad taste behind, though I am not indicating anything. Please consider your behaviour or I, sadly, may be forced to having a talk with the admins about this issue.--APS ^talk 19:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

SPI

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atrix20 in which you are reported in addition to me.Icewhiz (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

1RR

Please note Milo Yiannopoulos is under WP:1RR and as you've already reverted once if you revert again you could be blocked, I have no idea where to find the template so pinging coffee who I believe issues this template, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Civility note on my page

Hi, when accusing somebody of something, pleas be specific. Otherwise it looks like tag-trolling. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, User talk:Staszek Lem, I think the title of the section I linked to was wrong. It seemed like you picked on a user instead of debating the topic. Kind regards --APS ^talk 20:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No. the title correctly and neutrally describes the set of edits I was disputing. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tinglev case

The article Tinglev case has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Misnomer" or not?

Your input would be valued at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%22Polish_death_camp%22_controversy#RFC_on_%22misnomer%22 Zekelayla (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Helena Scheuberin

Hello! I'ts wonderful that you have given Helena Scheuberin a full name, but you forgot to name the source for that name. Please put it in - because, of course, it can only be there if it really was her name, otherwise according to Wikipedia rules it will have to be removed again. At present, there are no sources in the article which proves that she was really named Helena. The current source for the article does not mention her name.--Aciram (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.--APS ^talk 12:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Flensburg stabbing incident

The article Flensburg stabbing incident has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Holden Nowell

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Holden Nowell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Flensburg stabbing incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flensburg stabbing incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flensburg stabbing incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of shootings in Sweden for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of shootings in Sweden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shootings in Sweden until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Are you writing an article on the the Malmo shooting? you also might want to tone down your recent AfD comment. folks last longer here if they bite their tongues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Openbook (network) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Openbook (network), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 20:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sammelbewegung „Aufstehen“

Hello Albin Schmitt,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sammelbewegung „Aufstehen“ 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.

Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Sammelbewegung „Aufstehen“

Hi, I'm Slatersteven. Albin Schmitt, thanks for creating Sammelbewegung „Aufstehen“!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. NO sources, needs a lot of work (and may well fail, Crystal as well).

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sammelbewegung „Aufstehen“

The article Sammelbewegung „Aufstehen“ has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wait until it exists, instead of crystal-ball gazing. DeWiki article has already been proposed for deletion on similar grounds.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 13:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of MeTwo movement for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MeTwo movement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MeTwo movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Fox News

Just a heads up, the article is under the consensus required provision of WP:ARBAPDS. Objective3000 challenged your addition via revision and it should not be reinstated without consensus on the talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC) @Objective3000: curses wrong brackets! PackMecEng (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Asia Argento. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Openbook (network) (August 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drewmutt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Openbook (network) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Openbook (network), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Albin Schmitt! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Abuse of administrator rights

I was blocked, because an admin claimed that I had counted one vote of a user that hadn't taken part in the discussion. I could prove that it wasn't true: and he agreed on it. I was still not unblocked: the administrators didn't even mention the reason I was blocked.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits, especially claiming opinions for an editor not in the discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

There is no reason to block me at all.APS ^talk 18:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ok, found the claim against me. "notably giving opinions for someone not in the discussion, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asia_Argento&diff=856076805&oldid=856076645. His claim is that the user Sandstein wasn't part of the discussion at all. But that is not true. If you take a look at the given link and scroll down till the end, you can clearly see, that Sandstein did comment on the subject. This is a clear abuse of admin rights. Furthermore I would like an admin to undoe the disruptive edits by the admin. Evaluating the submissions into agreeing, disagreeing and neutral is not disruptive at all.APS ^talk 22:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Having reviewed the page in question, I think the disruption warranted a block and concur with SarekofVulcan's assessment. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2018 (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.

Yes, I eventually saw that, once I unwound everything. However, since you went from Sandstein's actual quote, my view is that the material at issue here is indeed excessive and trivial detail to your summary as neutral, my point stands.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

So you agree that you did a mistake. But you are not correcting it anyway. Well, at least thanks that you agree that you did a mistake. Secondly: if you think that I was wrong to place him under neutral, well, go and ask him what he meant and if he would be on neutral or the agreeing / disagreeing part. That is not that hard. But instead, you are using your admin rights to block a user. Oh, another thing: Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear on one thing: you should never ever remove content of another user on a Wikipedia talk page unless it is vandalism or illegal.--APS ^talk 22:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The only way for me to "correct" my mistake would be to reblock you with the same expiration date, but with a better description. It wouldn't add to your block length, but it would make the block log look longer at a casual glance. Your call. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You know that you are abusing your power and you seem to like it. Well, not bad that this is actually possible on Wikipedia. You delete whole sections on a talk page - which is illegal according to the laws of Wikipedia. Because what? You are disagreeing that one comment could be interpreted as neutral? Like that would be disruptive, lol.--APS ^talk 22:24, 22 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Um, I just did prove that the block was based on false accusations. Even the blocking administrator agreed on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Albin_Schmitt&diff=856104494&oldid=856104058 ... I am still blocked? How could that be? The admin 331dot claims to have reviewed the block - but how can he have a different opinion than the admin who blocked me and who AGREED THAT THE BLOCK ACCUSATIONS WHERE UNTRUE? I mean, it is not that hard to see if Sandstein has commented on the subject or not. It is just a question of fact: did my claim that Sandstein did discuss on a section is true or false. It is that simple. Not to mention: even if Sandstein hadn't voted on the subject, it wouldn't mean a disruptive edit. It would only mean that I did an honest mistake.APS ^talk 22:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nope, what you did was still grossly inappropriate. Talk page access revoked. Max Semenik (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2018 (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.

Albin Schmitt (talk · contribs)

Admins admitted wrongdoing

Still, I wasn't unblocked and the log wasn't corrected. A shame.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is no way available to administrators to "correct" a block log except by appending to it. That is, the description of a block cannot be changed, the only way for them to note in the log anything about the block is to reblock with block description that refers to the previous block. Sarek of Vulcan offered you that option in the hatted discussion above, and you did not replto his offer. Again, changing a log block entry is not possible for admins to do.

You might do well to read WP:Drop the stick, because your behavior at AN/I could have negative repercussions for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, Sarek did not admit "wrongdoing" Sarek admitted to having made a mistake, something that everyone does occassionally. We are an encyclopedia, and we need to get the facts straight, so please be more careful when yopu are editing articles then you have been in these discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So it is all right for him to block people with no reason at all. But if a user should ever make a mistake, like accidentally counting a poll wrong, which could be solved in a sentence, that is worthy of blocking. Nice environment you have here.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Templating the regulars

This [2] was in no way a personal attack. This [3] is not harassment. Acroterion (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

To keep the record straight, I posted this after he posted the unwarranted template to my talk page, which was, I assume, in response to this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right. That's not harassment either. Acroterion (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Acroterion beat me to it. He's right. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Persistent disruptive editing, BLP issues, disruptive templating and generally uncollaborative editing..

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Hostile Takeover: How Islam Impedes Progress and Threatens Society) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Hostile Takeover: How Islam Impedes Progress and Threatens Society, Albin Schmitt!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for you new article on the book "Hostile Takeover: How Islam Impedes Progress and Threatens Society". Note that other editors have questioned whether the book is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. This could be alleviated with evidence that the book has been professionally reviewed or otherwise discussed in the mass media. Click on that notability link for pointers.

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Openbook (network)

Hello, Albin Schmitt. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Openbook".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire

The article The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY2008 14:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

BOVINEBOY2008 10:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of 2018 Malmö shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 Malmö shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Malmö shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

/Julle (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)