User talk:Fritz Fehling

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Philosophy.

Talk page commentaries

Hi, Fritz. Welcome to Wikipedia. Having looked at some of your recent postings to various discussion pages, especially Talk:Constitutional democracy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, I think you have misunderstood what is expected for these pages. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such its articles are intended to summarize the existing state of knowledge as expressed in previously-published sources. Discussion on Talk pages is intended to be about how to accomplish that -- what are the most respected existing sources, for example, or what wording most accurately summarizes those sources. Discussion of new ideas or arguing about which beliefs are right is not our focus here. Your recent postings seem to be more about the latter rather than the former. Before posting further, I would suggest reading the explanations at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more insight into what is appropriate content for the site. --RL0919 (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your extended reply to my unusual edit; I finally found your talk page...

Cross referrals to strongly-related Wiki talk sites should have been systemically embedded by Wikipedia itself, and I hope that you will arrange such general neutral systemic cross referral, independent of my edit...: eg. on talk: Politics the 2nd or 3rd contribution does exactly the same as mine, referring to another site worth visiting, while my invitation even refers to a Wikipedia talk site that is politically fundamentally more important than politics itself (but strangely receives only a "high" instead of "top" on Wiki's importance scale; I will make an edit on talk: Constitutional Democracy accordingly, and your supporting input would help...), dealing with the neutral constitutional-democracy foundation that enables democratic politics rather than propaganda.

Thank you for your info regarding "Altruistic Hedonism"; According to my memory it was indeed mentioned as an individual philosophy in that >50-years-old encylopedia; Even though its constituents are apparently listed independently in philosophy literature, their combination means something quite different due to the apparent inherent contradiction that requires optimisation, much like the related democracy issue. I would like to make a well-adapted edit on Wiki talk: philosophy in the futurealso using the above, after I have loaded Universal Democracy Constitution onto Commons for referral. It would be helpful if you could comment on this before i am wasting my time...

It would be more constructive to point at precise shortcomings of my edits for corrections rather than waving them off in their entirety, because I am certain of their relevance at least in part (I am generally not participating in shallow internet talks, as I do not live on the internet...); I do realise that explicit replies are time-consuming for you, but some issues are too important to fall through the cracks of silence that sometimes appear as arrogance. Greetings, -- Fritz Fehling (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to note that although you have inserted these remarks below my earlier post, these were originally comments you made to MPants, who is a different person from me, and they reference things he said to you that I did not. In any case, the relevance of your commentaries to improving Wikipedia is unclear at best, and the nature of your responses is such that I doubt whether it will be possible to explain that to your satisfaction. --RL0919 (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Thanks for reply; The changing administrators got me slightly confused --Fritz Fehling (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add: The reason you can't find references to "Altruistic-hedonism philosophy" in modern philosophical words is because it is not a philosophy, nor a branch of thought, nor even a principle. It's a descriptive term for the juxtaposition of hedonism and altruism. Since both of those terms are well-defined, there is no need for modern philosophers to discuss the impact of their juxtaposition.
Listen, I don't want to be rude, but Wikipedia is not the place for you to discuss your take on philosophy with others. See WP:NOTFORUM. All of your contributions thus far have treated our talk pages as forums, and that's not cool. You're disrupting the project. WP is not like other sites: It don't exist for the use of our members. In fact, our members exist only because we are of use to the project. The goal of WP is to provide a comprehensive, free encyclopedia for the world to use. As an editor, we have no rights, only responsibilities. If you want to discuss philosophy with others, start a movement, hash out some stuff to publish, you are free to do so. But you can't do it here. I'm sorry, I don't intend to be rude, but there is no room for discussion about this. Even if you think your philosophy discussions will end up being useful to WP, even if they are all about WP, they simply don't belong here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be more constructive to point at precise shortcomings of my edits for corrections rather than waving them off in their entirety, because I am certain of their relevance at least in part (I am generally not participating in shallow internet talks, as I do not live on the internet...) You may be certain of their relevance, but I (being the far more experienced Wikipedia editor of the two of us) am quite certain of the opposite. I suggest you defer to my judgement. If you don't, I will ask an admin to force you to stop making such posts, and I assure you that my request will be granted. I will cross-post this to your page, in case you aren't watching this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Fritz: The next time you feel like commenting on my talk page, I want you to notice that bright red banner with the big bold text and the large white graphic in it at the top of my page, to carefully read it, and to understand that yes; it applies to you. If you decide to share more of your philosophical thoughts, I want you to go ahead and click "edit" on my talk page, do the same thing, and then realize that it applies to all those other pages, as well. In short: if you're not here to write accurate and verifiable facts about the subjects of our articles or to create new, notable articles by collecting and summarizing accurate information from reliable sources: You shouldn't be here. I'm not being arrogant or rude: I'm being straightforward. You are more than welcome to start contributing productively, and I will be more than happy to take a great deal of time out of my life to help you do that. But only if you're here to write encyclopedia articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Also, you should respond here. Not at my page. It's just confusing to anyone trying to follow the conversation to split it up like that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I responded on your talk page, because I am not a Wikipedia professional and I am not familiar with all varieties of pages; That your messages contain the info 2 lines above only now is not my fault -- I do not know how your complex system is set-up and distributes task to the administrators (I am an electronic engineer knowing about but not being specialised with computers, thus my wrong usage of program-specific user talk pages could indicate a lack of clarity for the general public...) -- I thought that the "Talk" label top right deals with common virtual talk/chat rooms.

I respond to you despite of your last reply that seem to have insulting character, because the reason for my time-consuming effort with Wikipedia is too important for the general public, which will be informed in any case -- the internet has far more functions than Wikipedia. I have noticed that my contribution to Talk: Constitutional Democracy has been deleted, and no message incl. reason was posted in this respect; It appears that Wikipedia through you wants to present the unnecessary inherent proof that it can control its program and encyclopedia contents in an arbitrary at-will way with regard to constitutional-democracy information, which differs from an encyclopedia based on reason and facts to enhance the public's democracy and wisdom. Maybe this is what the public needs to know... --Fritz Fehling (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is New editor here for promotional reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Replies to MPants' complaint on Editing Wikipedia: Administrators’ Noticeboard/Incidents (section):

Edits are made by humans who are always prone to expressional faults, no matter how professional! Such mistakes do not necessarily make their expressions useless, incompetent or unprofessional, but in need of correction/improvement. This is one major reason for the talk sites – otherwise there is no point of having them, and Wikipedia would be throwing out the baby with the bath water…

It should be remarked that MPants is even intentionally using unprofessional insulting displays and language in talk communications; see my user-talk page. I am referring to MPants' talk entry where he writes that [the uncivilised American middle finger on top of his edit-source page; You can only understand the meaning, when you follow this trail, because he avoided to literally mention this finger...] also applies to me; I was at that time unaware of the administrator-contact function of the user-talk pages.

Proposal below was embedded in Talk: Republican Democracy - Wikipedia and in Talk: WikiProject Politics on 2/3/2018, but reverted by MPants:

Talk: Constitutional Democracy/Republic

Please visit Talk: Constitutional Democracy/Republic for discussing a detailed draft Constitutional-Democracy/Republic (a pre-condition for democratic politics versus dictatorship propaganda) design!

There appears to be a need for WP to introduce a clear signature info (abbrev.) when a talk-page entry is from an administrator; Otherwise some correspondents (on payroll of their government) may enjoy the power-play of indirectly pretending to be a competent administrator , preventing valuable contributions.

"Constitutional Democracy" is currently redirected to WP"Liberal Democracy" and thus not available for editing -- For developing any new complex main encyclopedia article from scratch the related high-importance talk site appears to be most suitable, apparently allowing for the correction of mistakes / formulations / omissions through the wider public, rather than expecting finished articles (plus a donation?) by paid government officials having to tow the double-speak-propaganda line of their undemocratic governments). --Fritz Fehling (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no need whatsoever to "archive" your responses from ANI on your talk page. It will remain at ANI (in it's actual context) until it is archived there, at which point you can find it in both the page history and in the ANI archives. It is a waste of your time and our bandwidth. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Fritz Fehling, I'm sure there are other websites/messageboards out there where your anaylyses will be appreciated and useful, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. (Please click on that policy and read it.) Wikipedia is not, for instance, for enhancing the public's democracy and wisdom; it's purely for information. You're simply in the wrong place, sorry. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC).

OOPSY. Yeah. No. Like Bishonen said. You are obviously adept as a writer and have put a lot of thought into this, however, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia. You might want to look at WP:alternative outlets. One of those might be to more suitable. Cheers, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

To elaborate further on what the two above me have said, we just summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. And we can (and do) block people who are not here for that reason but for others. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I can hardly trust my eyes: did I really make a valuable contribution, despite all that previous negative feedback from other administrators? Question: if one comments to another entry, is it not better to build it in under that entry section, as others seem to do? Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The "thank you for your contributions" bit is part of a template message, which you find here. You really need to quit taking everything so personally, in either direction. See our policy WP:Assume good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I found some of them interesting, though many of your comments are very poorly formatted and on topics not relevant to an encyclopedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia

Hello, Fritz Fehling, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The five pillars of Wikipedia explain the most basic mission, and WP:NOT explains some of the things that Wikipedia is not. A couple of major core principles are verifiability of content, which boils down to providing footnotes for everything you add using citations from reliable sources, and maintaining a neutral point of view.

I'm curious what brought you here, what your interests are, and how you think you might go about improving the encyclopedia. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A challenge: create your first article

Hello Fritz,

Would you like to actually write an article and contribute to the encyclopedia? You've made quite a few comments now on various article talk, user talk, and project talk pages, without actually contributing any article content of your own. I just saw this comment of yours at Talk:Constitutional_democracy, and it gave me an idea which I hope you'll like. In that comment, you complained about the fact that a redirect is blocking the creation of an article on "Constitutional democracy" due to the current redirect to Liberal democracy. But actually, that does not block you (or anyone) from creating the new article, it's just a bit more involved.

So, I throw down the gauntlet to you: if you accept this challenge to create your first article, I will tell you how you may begin to work on an article on "Constitutional democracy." I will also be available to answer any technical WP questions you may have, or point you in the right direction to get them answered, while leaving you in peace to create the article itself on your own. (Upon request, I'll even provide an article skeleton for you with headers and things in the right place, so you can concentrate on just creating article content, without having to stare at a blank page and worry out what goes where according to Wikipedia.) There are some fundamental rules of Wikipedia you will have to observe, such as Verifiability, providing Footnotes, and using reliable sources, but I can point you in the right direction on that. I'm pretty sure that other experienced editors will help you as well, if they see that you are making a realistic and good faith effort to create the article you wish to see here.

Do you accept this challenge? If you say "yes," then I will explain how to proceed. (Please respond below; let's keep this discussion all in one place. To respond, click the little blue "edit" token in brackets to the right of the "Challenge" section header above; add a colon (:) at the beginning of every new paragraph, and end your comment with four tildes (~~~~.) Looking forward to your response! Mathglot (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes! But: 1. My computer time is very limited 2. I also make proposals to vary some WP article layouts slightly according to the topic and need, and WP should show some flexibility with at least seriously considering them 3. Only bi-lateral discussions can achieve an optimum, not authoritarian cut-off, and I generally listen closely to good arguments, as this is a pre-condition for my philosophy to discover things... 4. Ultimately all my contribution(s) are proposals only, as WP administrators naturally (must) have control over WP encyclopedia; However, even when I do not agree with some of your arguments, you should not delete the whole work, but edit it as you find necessary... 5. I was just saving my message below, when your message crushed it:

Thank you for your interest! Nature appears to aim to reach a higher collective state of mind (complex lifeforms in themselves are a reflection of this), and consequently this appears also to be the underlying summarising purpose of an encyclopaedia that is a reflection/description of nature. In other words: a neutral truth-describing encyclopaedia logically serves the common good and contrasts self-interested propaganda. Wikipedia has become history’s biggest and easiest-to-use encyclopaedia/library, and is the obvious no.1 medium to counter propaganda that no search engine can ignore! Such propaganda/conditioning has until now even prevented the establishment of the definition of democracy/republic/constitution etc. This is especially surprising, because these definitions can be easily established/verified using existing (Wikipedia) encyclopaedia/dictionary knowledge and not needing much further research, only holistic/big-picture compilation!... An encyclopaedia deserving this description must correct such failure; That's what brought me here!

My ultimate interest is literal/practical philosophy (love of wisdom), which is more than accumulated [Wikipedia] knowledge but needs it for further discovery. What else is there to say?

The creation of a correct all-encompassing "Constitutional-Democracy/Republic" article is the maximum Wikipedia improvement possible, because only optimised constitutional democracies would enable neutral encyclopaedias in long term! Remember: there exists already a perversion of Wikipedia called "Conservapedia", pretending to be an encyclopaedia while even explicitly limiting it to American (far-)right "values".

My proposals that I make on top-important Talk:Constitutional Democracy, and which are also part of the complete-draft-"Constitutional-Democracy"-design layout, aim to make the creation/correction of Wiki articles more accessible, structured, efficient and faultless; They are designed with this efficiency in mind as an example, so that I do not need to repeat them over and over again on multiple Wiki sites, which the administrators would dislike (see "essay"-explanation and draft design on my user page soon; I am still working on it)... As the creation of such complex far-reaching article(s) is extreme time-consuming, I therefore rely on the multiple-person-input structure of Wikipedia for optimising this draft design; without such input Wikipedia could have never reached the present status.

However, I was quite surprised of earlier counterproductive uncompromising authoritarian replies I received, and wondered how their deletion of competent contributions could have led to this status... Talk sites should be protected from sabotage deletion of contributions that are disliked by undemocratic individuals/governments; WP should consider installing a minimum amount (quorum) of administrators’ agreement required for deletion. WP should also consider adopting principles of the Universal Democracy Constitution for its own constitution in order to prevent creeping take-over by fascistic interests as happened so often (esp. with internet/high-tech companies…). I am waiting for your reply before posting/developing further details; Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) <-- See, it happened to me, too!

Hi Fritz, I'm going to respond to your points at length, but going forward, try to keep your comments down to a few paragraphs at most; this much material is too much for most editors to read, and they would refer to it humorously as a Wall of text, and probably not even read it at all. I'm going to respond in kind, since you expended that much effort, but going forward, please: conciseness is a virtue. You can end up saying everything you want to say in the end, after some exchanges, but if you do it all at once, you'll just drive people away. Okay then, so, here we go:

• :Yes!
  • Great! I'm glad you have accepted the challenge. Point by point:
• 1. My computer time is very limited.
  • You needn't worry about this at all. You may go as fast, or as slow, as you like. Sometimes, if an article that is being prepared has not been touched in six months by anybody, an admin may query you whether they can delete it, or are you still working on it. But given your prolific comments on Talk pages to date, I don't expect this will be an issue.
• 2. I also make proposals to vary some WP article layouts slightly according to the topic and need,...
  • That's fine; you can always make suggestions of that type on the Talk page of the article concerned.
• ...and WP should show some flexibility with at least seriously considering them.
  • Wikipedia is an all-volunteer encyclopedia, so there is no monolithic "WP" that either accepts, or doesn't accept your contributions, or is, or is not flexible. The idea of consensus is a key principle of Wikipedia; more about this later.
• 3. Only bi-lateral discussions can achieve an optimum, not authoritarian cut-off, ...
  • Well, that might be one approach, but based on Wikipedia's consensus-based approach, most Talk page discussions about how to improve articles are multilateral. This is such a fundamental principle of Wikipedia's approach to building articles that goes back to its founding, that there is no hope of changing that basic approach. I hope you are able to work with multilateral discussions, because if you're not, we probably shouldn't go any further with this.
• and I generally listen closely to good arguments, as this is a pre-condition for my philosophy to discover things...
  • That's a very good characteristic, and will help you in the inevitable discussions with other editors that will ensue at some point or other, and the inevitable disagreements and conflicts that are inherent in human nature.
• 4. Ultimately all my contribution(s) are proposals only, ...
  • That actually lines up quite well with Wikipedia's principles; because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and *all* of our contributions, yours, mine, everybody else's, are in a sense only proposals, since anyone else may come in after us, edit our contributions, add to them, or even remove them (for good cause). This is part of the consensus-based approach of Wikipedia, so I'm glad you view your contributions as only proposals, this will help a lot.
• ...as WP administrators naturally (must) have control over WP encyclopedia.
  • Here I must correct a misunderstanding on your part: administrators exist to ensure the smooth functioning of the consensus-based approach of developing articles on encyclopedia. Administrators do not either approve, or reject content. There is no concept on Wikipedia of "submitting" a contribution, and getting it "approved" or "rejected." (Well, there a few cases like that in special corners of the encyclopedia, but we need not be concerned about that here.) There's really no such concept of a submission being "accepted", other than seeing it survive over time, without being removed or substantially altered beyond recognition by other editors. And as long as the other editors' changes improve the quality of the article, then we should cheer them on, not take offense at changing/adding-to/removing our contributions. This is a crucial point for you to understand: anything you write in this article, may, and very likely will be changed by other editors, who are trying to improve the article, just as you are. If you feel possessive about your words and do not like to have them changed, then Wikipedia is the wrong place for you; try Amazon direct publishing instead. Any words you contribute to Wikipedia become part of Wikipedia (under its CC-BY-SA License), and are not owned by you. But I hope you will continue with creating your article, with the full understanding that other editors very likely will change it, and that you may even disagree with some of the changes. Consensus trumps whatever any individual editor might think.
• However, even when I do not agree with some of your arguments, you should not delete the whole work, but edit it as you find necessary...
  • Another guiding principle of WP is to assume good faith on the part of other editors. One side of this, is that other editors who see your contribution will assume you are trying to improve the article, even if they don't agree with your words. There are specific techniques for dispute resolution in the inevitable occasions of editorial differences among editors, the primary of which is to talk things out on the article's talk page. But we're getting ahead of ourselves, here. The other side of AGF, is that if, or I should say, "when" some of your contributions are altered in ways you don't approve of, you should *also* assume good faith on their part, namely, that they also are trying to improve the article. It's natural for a new editor to feel possessive about their words, and feel their feathers ruffled when someone comes along and changes their carefully chosen words, but this is an inevitable consequence of contributing here, and you really should decide before you even get started, if you have the temperament for that. Because it will happen. If you feel that that will cause you to get apoplectic, rather than calmly talk it out with the other editor(s), then once again, we should stop now. Normally, however editors will not simply delete an entire contribution you've made, but try and discuss it with you. Sometimes, even the most prolific and assiduous editors get some contribution reverted, which means someone else comes along and just removes it, because they thought the contribution made the article worse, instead of better. This has happened to me (and to everyone) and a good predictor of your ability to be a good long-term editor here, is not to let reverts bother you unduly, just pick up and continue your improvements to the article, or to other articles.
• 5. I was just saving my message below, when your message crushed it:...
  • I'm sorry to hear that, it sounds like you ran into what's called an edit conflict. Even if this happens, your words are not really "crushed" or lost, WP saves them in the bottom half of the page, where you may retrieve them, and try again. See Help:Edit conflict.
• My ultimate interest is literal/practical philosophy...
  • That's great. There is an active WikiProject (a group of like-minded editors) on philosophy, which you might want to explore, here: WP:PHILOSOPHY; as well as Portal:Philosophy. The portal is more of an organizational taxonomy which you can browse to find articles about philosophy, and the Project is more about organizing editors to find the work that needs to be done to improve the encyclopedia in the area of philosophy, and to discuss the topic with other editors on the talk page.
• The creation of a correct all-encompassing "Constitutional-Democracy/Republic" article is the maximum Wikipedia improvement possible, ...
  • Lol, well, that's quite a categorical statement, but if it motivates you to create the article, all the while paying attention to WP's fundamental guidelines about sourcing and a few other important criteria, so much the better.
• ...design layout..., ...efficiency..., making articles more accessible, structured, etc....
  • Without getting into any of this in detail now, I'll just say that you have some pretty far-reaching ideas here, and while it might be possible to do something about it to help WP down the road, you have to remember that there are people here who have been editing for five, ten, fifteen years or more and the encyclopedia has evolved greatly in that time. In order to make rather sweeping proposals about how to improve efficiency of the entire process, you're going to have to "pay your dues" a bit first, write some articles, show that you know what you are talking about, write some more articles, and learn the ropes around here a bit. Elon Musk didn't get NASA to pay him to launch rockets into space in a new way, when he was a sophomore in college; he's been around the block. If you want some friendly advice, save your sweeping reform ideas for later, after you have some contribution history under your belt. If you try to propose any of that stuff now, you will likely be ignored, or end up annoying people. Let's just get one article written, then two, then.... you get the point. You can come back and change how everything is done everywhere in Wikipedia, after you've shown that your output merits that kind of consideration, but not now.
• I was quite surprised of earlier counterproductive uncompromising authoritarian replies I received, and wondered how their deletion of competent contributions could have led to this status...
  • It's troubling to hear you say that. While conflict does sometimes break out, civility is another core WP principle, in the area of editor conduct. Given what I said earlier about assuming good faith and consensus, your first reaction should not be that "they are uncompromising authoritarians," but rather, "what have I said, done, or written that would incite someone who is here to build the encyclopedia just like me, to respond in this fashion?" I urge you to take up these three principles (civility, assumption of good faith, consensus) very seriously, or it probably just won't work out for you here.
• ...adopting principles of the Universal Democracy Constitution...
  • Let's leave this for now, in the "sweeping reforms" category; i.e., put it on the back burner, or write about it if you wish on a subpage of your User page. I don't recommend discussing it with other editors until you have a substantial track record here.

Okay! I think that does it for the point-by-point; I had a couple of other things to comment on, but I'm exhausted. let me just poll you for your feedback (briefly, please!) so far: do you see anything in what I said above that would be a dealbreaker for you contributing to Wikipedia? Because I don't want you to waste your time, and I don't want to waste my time, either. I'm especially concerned about your ability to deal with other editors coming along and changing your words in ways you might disagree with; if that is troubling or worse to you, then we really should stop now.

Otherwise, do we still have a green light to create the Constitutional democracy article ? If "yes", I will explain what to do next.

P.S. I see you know HTML. Wikipedia has its own markup; for example, to bold something, instead of writing <b>bold words</b> you use three apostrophes and write '''bold words''' instead. Italics are two apostrophes, and bold italic is five. (There is also the visual editor, as well.) You can find more basic editing rules here. (In this response, please use three colons at the beginning of each paragraph; see WP:TOPPOST and WP:INDENT. And four tildes at the end, again and always.) Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow! You've put a lot of energy in your very detailed reply, and it is good! I am glad that WP knows the deeper authoritarian meaning of "submitting"/"approving" articles, and rejects it in favour of "multilateral" etc... I can say yes to everything in theory, but I need such committed brainy support your above article indicates. However, my computer access is limited, but the "Constitutional-Democracy/Republic" article should come out earlier than in years! Besides: I just visited WP's no-rules page, which describes that if rules (like WP articles are not sufficient as reference) prevent improvement of WP, the latter should dominate... --Fritz Fehling (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The policies and guidelines ("rules") were created with the purpose of improving the site, including ones that prevent us from citing WP articles as sources for other WP articles (such as WP:USERG and WP:CIRCULAR). "Ignore any rule that prevents improvement to the encyclopedia" does not meat "ignore any rule that is inconvenient" but rather "where the spirit and letter of the law conflict, break the letter and favor the spirit." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

So, I'm mobile now and can't type much with my thumbs, but just wanted to acknowledge your comment and let you know I'll get back to you.

One other thing: it's actually quite a responsibility to help someone new to wikipedia get on board, and I have no official capacity here, I'm just an editor like you, although I do have years of experience. I think it would help (me, and hopefully you) to have more than just one voice advising you, here. There's an editor who I trust who has been very helpful in the past mentoring new editors. With your permission, may I invite her here, to see if she's willing to offer her thoughts? It would also help me to divide the work a little. Would that be okay? Mathglot (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course; the more truly committed contributors create this article, the far better...--Fritz Fehling (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I am waiting for a sign (e.g. starting-direction/-signal advice). I intend to delete/archive my user-talk page for clarity and direct constitutional-democracy matters, if that's o.k. --Fritz Fehling (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, have been busy with other things; please stand by a day or two, and I'll create an article skeleton for you, and show you how to proceed. Mathglot (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft feedback

Well, I see that you got tired of waiting, and created an article, and embedded it on the Talk page of Constitutional democracy. That wasn't really the best way to do it, as talk pages are reserved for discussions among editors on how to improve an article; see WP:TALK for details. In any case, I've removed your draft from the talk page, and placed it instead at Talk:Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal, for the time being. Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi! But there exists no article to improve -- The redirection article "Liberal Democracy" is not "Constitutional Democracy"! I didn't know that there is such Talk:Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal page (out of public view -- out of public mind...), but may be it does the trick... I again got deletion problems with the Universal-Democracy-Constitution front-page picture for the draft, and could not even use the counter-argument-provision page, so I used the normal page instead; the usual authoritarian WP deletion/censor practice without any detailed reasoning! I am off for a week, so you can freely study it and overcome any remaining conditioning... Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I made a very few changes, mostly stylistic (boldface or not, straight not curly quotes) so that the article renders in Wikipedia's conventional format. I made a change to one paragraph that you called out as coming from de-wiki; it appeared to be machine-translated, so I redid a paragraph of it.

I haven't gone over it in detail yet, but there is one main point you will have to deal with, in order to have any chance of having the article accepted on Wikipedia. In its current state, I think the chances are close to zero. What you need to do, imho, is:

1. Find multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources for the content you have written
2. then add footnotes for each one.

Much of the current version sounds like original research, and having footnotes to sources will be the first step. There are others, but this is the starting point. Be prepared that finding adequate sources and adding the footnotes, will likely take you considerably longer than just writing the article text, but it is what it is.

Have a great week! Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Back again, couldn't wait. Thanks for your advice. A few minor matters: No, not machine-translated, I translated it better than any machine could, but dropped irrelevant parts [...]. I would like to rename the draft-Proposal to Talk: Constitutional Democracy/Republic -- Draft Article with regard of its future relevance incl. possible redirects, but I do not know how to access the header for editing -- please do it for me/us, and then change also your hyperlink edit in the talk page accordingly. (It is not ‘’’my’’’ page, I only initiated a concise basis/structure for this most important topic, and future democracy developments worldwide will find their way into the final article somehow (esp. as additions into “Roughly-Summarised History”)…). I have newly added a few relatively minor issues like STV voting and correction of India section.

References: It is wasteful and repetitive to re-research all other WP articles that I referred to, and other WP articles do not make such effort either! However, as there are some logical shortcomings/conclusions in some of those (like e.g. the India article mentions STV being approximately proportional, which is plainly false (any proportionality effect is rather random, like in Australia!)), so I added in this case a neutral STV description under the headline "...majority..". One must remember that the multiple authors are naturally sometimes also conditioned by their systems and cannot see their own mistakes -- this is one reason for my draft... Other small statements (e.g. Irish Sinn Fein being unable to claim British parliament seats because of oath-of-allegiance requirement) should not require references, as they are relatively minor and are known in the English-speaking world (I as a technological person am not very familiar with political/social reference research). Please point explicitly to those parts that appear to absolutely require further referencing, so that I can explain some background for us to achieve a teamwork solution with minimum of effort.

I have realised WP's unbold headline uniform, but decided to offer a change for special articles for these reasons: Constitutional Democracy/Republic is one of the most fundamental/important articles and should be very easily readable even for people with some visual impairment, and bold headlines make a very clear structure; In addition, this bold style also appears in the Table of Contents, so that sub-headlines remain unbold and minor in view, increasing visual clarity! I also tried to achieve a light-beige TOC and thumbnail-picture background, because the standard pink is insufficiently visible as a frame; I know that this is generally disabled, but WP should consider to implement an unchangeable palette of bright colour background for different topics, i.e. light beige for state systems/political articles, light yellow-green for nature/environmental/ biological articles, etc. Good feedback... Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• The article needs to be in Draft: or as a subpage in your user space not talk space. This is so the article and its associated discussions are together and form a connected page history if it is promoted to Article space. I have moved it to Draft:Constitutional Democracy (Republic). (Backslashes indicate subpages so are not used in article names. ) If you would prefer that the article be housed in your user space you can use the Move page function and then tag the resulting redirect with {{db-g7}}. When/if you are ready to propose it you can provide a link to the proposed draft. Jbh ^Talk 02:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Remarks to contents in [ ]: TOC 1. I added [power] structure, because a democracy constitution refers also to this rather than the mere constitutional structure; The long addition [ ] at the end is meant to be temporary until sufficient readers/reviewers have accepted that fundamentally language is defined according to the truth instead of deceiving pretence -- currently parts of the public seem not to have realised such general paramount neutrality purpose of definitions, independent of some language use. TOC 6. "...differing grades of [constitutional] democracy". Here I intent to explicitly also include the constitutions, not just democracy itself. TOC 9.6 (Italy) Detailed [human] rights: I saved words by fudging rights and human rights; Secret [fascistic] associations were forbidden: The link to Italy's constitution does not contain "[fascistic]", but it is obvious (I added the Mafia and Mussolini reasons) that this was the purpose of this constitutional restriction -- the Mafia is most secret and most life-threatening dangerous, and Hitler's ally Mussolini is publicly connected to the word "fascism", although it is older, deriving from a tried Italian revolution (close-knit association, gang; common dictionary). Please make alternative proposals, if these [ ] are not acceptable. --Fritz Fehling (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• I archived the top part of this user talk page, but could not clear it afterwards.

Advice needed to obtain speedy release of the Universal Democracy Constitution.pdf from Commons

Wiki Commons is still keeping the (Universal) Democracy Constitution.pdf under guard, not even making it temporarily accessible for Draft:Constitutional Democracy (Republic) -- it is meant to appear as thumbnail picture top right. It is a neutral example for the draft contents and explains/exceeds it, and it would be counterproductively limiting to use any of the existing constitutions, most of which are falling short of known safeguards, clear structure, neutrality, etc. This is not helping insight, and reduces necessary discussions of the draft article (I don't want to appear arrogant or so when saying that the English-speaking culture under the monarchy naturally has a pre-judicial rejection tendency of continental constitutional democracies (see Brexit), so that this examination could help to overcome any conditioning (please forgive me!)). Please help; Should I stick this to the Administrators' Noticeboard? This draft discussion/examination appears to be the most appropriate forum to examine also the Universal Democracy Constitution.pdf... Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please examine/add to/correct the latest addition titled “Open-Source Constitutional Democracy/Republic” just above “References” for correctness (esp. regarding the constitutional character, the basic definitions, and required references), as I do not know enough about all the workings (incl. hidden) of WP/Linux… This area is just too new for me and most others.
• Proposal for drafts and for final articles (of course esp. for Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic)): It would make sense to embed just above “References” a permanent redirect-recommendation coloured-template bar as you did in Talk:Constitutional democracy pointing to “Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal”; I can’t achieve a proper inserted link etc., so I leave it to you…:

== Talk:Constitutional democracy ==

For discussing/examining this Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic) please visit:

Moved to Talk:Constitutional democracy

– but instead of “Moved to” insert “Visit”

A similar coloured template bar should be inserted in Talk:Project Politics top or bottom:

== Talk:Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal ==

For discussing/examining the Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic) please visit:

Moved to Talk:Constitutional democracy

– but instead of “Moved to” insert “Visit”

Following could also be added somewhere there, similar to Talk:Constitutional democracy:

Proposal: To keep contributions updated, clear & structured, please move your contribution to headline “Resolved Contributions” at the bottom, when you feel that it has been sufficiently resolved

== Resolved Contributions ==

(please move your/any resolved contribution(s) here :)

I noticed that the TOC turned dark green while editing; It's nice, but too dark to read the blue contents; how about light orange (complementary colour to blue)? Looking forward also to Mathglot's reply, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi Fritz. I've blocked you indefinitely as your goal here seems to be incompatible with our no original research policy. Several editors have attempted to communicated this to you and Bishonen said it most succinctly: "...there are other websites/messageboards out there where your anaylyses will be appreciated and useful, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. (Please click on that policy and read it.) Wikipedia is not, for instance, for enhancing the public's democracy and wisdom; it's purely for information. You're simply in the wrong place, sorry." Unfortunately you haven't taken this onboard and have persisted in the same type of editing. To request an unblock, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below here: {{unblock|reason=''your reason here''}} Your reason should include an explanation of how you will change your editing (including posts in draft and talk space) to comply with our no original research policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 23 March 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I had just written the following when you blocked me: Thanks for the advice; I am still learning... It (sh)could have come from the established awarded editor himself in the first place in order to achieve an examining discussion -- I have posted a copy to this editor, and will also post copies to the articles' user pages. Besides: not every false phrase in WP articles is backed up by references, and those should be able to be reverted with clear obvious proof and without references either -- the article proves itself wrong...! Greetings, Now I cannot even post it according to your advice onto the articles' pages! For example, German-Wikipedia's "Übertragbare Einzelstimmgebung" describes STV as identical to "instant runoff voting", and explicitly says that it is not a proportional voting system!!! This is not my original thought/reference that you disable from English-Wikipedia!... You consequently also blocked me from editing/developing the Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic). As this is a complex draft open to correction/fine-tuning/discussion/teamwork needing further work (user Mathglot advised earlier that he will provide further constructive advice/input), your block fundamentally goes against WP's encyclopaedia improvement purpose/provision -- a draft is not a finished encyclopedia article. (The last addition "Open-Source Constitutional Democracies" headline is just a proposal inviting established WP editors for input, because I do not know enough about WP's internal democratic workings as I described yesterday on my user page above, and your blocking action rather disproves its WP-democracy-describing contents...). Please reconsider the block, as the constant authoritarian easy pre-emptive deletion of edits and indefinite blockings are counterproductive (They will not prevent publicity of my work that also receives proof/references through existing democracies' constitutions (although there exists a language barrier that is partly overcome through the use of WP articles)) -- In other words: if WP were so unreliable regarding the truthful contents of its articles and prefers to support dictatorship propaganda, then it should fold up rather than wasting the public's time and endangering democracies; As I have obtained many good truthful objective info (except some political issues) from WP, I still want to believe that most established editors are acting in good faith and good knowledge. Could it be that WP is already taken-over by fascistic interests and pretends internal democracy similar to nation states? Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 00:48, 24 March 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. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thoughts or concepts. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 24 March 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.

For reviewing admin: ANI thread --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Fritz, do you understand that Wikipedia is not a place for new theories? It's for encyclopedia entries... --Tarage (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Fritz Fehling: Let me try to explain why you got it all wrong, and why you should read Wikipedia policies.

You say: ...not every false phrase in WP articles is backed up by references... - Then those obviously false, unreferenced claims should be removed. It doesn't justify adding more unsourced material.

You say: German-Wikipedia's "Übertragbare Einzelstimmgebung" describes STV as ... - WP:WINRS says: Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

You say: This is not my original thought/reference that you disable from English-Wikipedia - WP:NOR says: The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research

You say: ...if WP were so unreliable regarding the truthful contents of its articles... - WP:TRUTH says: Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them

You say: ...and prefers to support dictatorship propaganda... - WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS says: ...Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them.

You say: Could it be that WP is already taken-over by fascistic interests and pretends internal democracy similar to nation states? - not sure what you mean by that, but maybe Wikipedia is not a democracy will help. byteflush _Talk 15:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of what "blocked" means

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. While you are blocked, you -- the person behind the account "Fritz Fehling" -- may not edit Wikipedia at all, under any account name, or using an IP number, as you did today here. The block is for the person and not for the account. Your edit today was WP:Block evasion, and continuing to evade your block can lead to your being permanently banned from editing. If you have hopes that your current block -- which is not permanent, but only "indefinite" in length -- may be lifted in the future, every time you evade that block will be counted against you. I suggest that you not do that anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And I've blocked the IP. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

April 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.

 NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

This is a response to the request made at User talk:Mathglot#Ref: Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal by IP 210.48.190.71 (talk · contribs).

First: though you edited my talk page as User:210.48.190.71, you plain-texted your sig at the end of your post as "Fritz Fehling"; and since I also recognize your unique style in both places, I am confident that User:210.48.190.71 and User:Fritz Fehling are one and the same, and I feel justified in responding to your IP request here at your user talk page. So I will address you here as "Fritz".

Fritz, I wish you all the good will in the world and don't mean to appear unfriendly, but the fact is, you are currently indef-blocked, as you yourself said. However, it was not for "no justifiable reason" as you claimed, but for cause. Section #Blocked above on your talk page explains why you were blocked, with both the blocking admin NeilN and three others weighed in with additional, detailed explanations of what it means to be blocked, and why you were blocked. This is more than most people get.

Following your original block, subsequent actions of yours led to your talk page access to be removed. I am aware that you can read this but not respond while logged in, so I just wanted to leave you with a few things you need to know, if you don't already know; my intent is to be helpful to you, not to goad a response:

1. when you are blocked, this means you, Fritz, as a person are blocked. It doesn't mean that this one account is blocked, and so you can just open another account to respond; and it doesn't mean that you can edit as an anonymous IP address while not logged in. These would be considered sock puppetry or block evasion, and may make it less likely that an admin will accept a future unblock request.
2. I cannot engage with you right now about your democracy proposal, as I don't want to do anything that would make it likely you would attempt to respond, thus evading your block. I'm sorry.
3. An "indefinite" block is not necessarily an "infinite" block. But you are not helping your case by leaving talk page messages or attempting to edit while not logged in. Please don't attempt to edit again while you are blocked.
4. If you wish to appeal your block, there is a way to do it. If you want to try that, please carefully reread section #April 2018 above, which explains how. In my opinion as a non-admin, if you appeal now, you will almost certainly be declined, and it could hurt your future chances for an unblock. Instead, you should give it a rest and not appeal right now. I think the admins will probably want to see evidence of your understanding and good faith in adhering to policy by not attempting to evade your block for a long enough period of time to demonstrate that you fully understand the rules. Again, I don't make the rules, but if I were you, I would not make any attempt to appeal for at least six months (mid-February 2019), and a year might be better. If you do decide to appeal at that point, I think it's really important to demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked, and how to play by the rules going forward.

I do wish you the very best of luck, Fritz. Mathglot (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot!

WIKIPEDIA’s ruling class knowingly prevented public info about basics of democracy “due to lack of references”. This enabled recent removal of Human Rights, with propaganda for mandatory/compulsory Covid vaccinations, Ukraine war, and Chinese artificial-intelligence-dictated (by its programmers and their paymasters) social-credit-example system (that is creepingly installed in the West, too) — all in the direction of installing and fortifying fascistic dictatorships.

What better references for the deleted Constitutional Democracy article could possibly be provided?...

The slightly improved Universal Democracy Constitution .pdf article can be seen here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebshn4iijKR52BMobQOE_0bVtD3DXIhP/view?usp=sharing

I am not begging for unblocking my editing, knowing that anybody knowingly preventing correction of dictatorships weill experience true Natural Justice, also called Karma…

You can leave a positive constructive message on User talk:Fritz Fehling

Greetings, Fritz 210.48.190.71 (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)