User talk:Kulturdenkmal
Welcome
[edit]
|
PRISM edits
[edit]Hi Kulturdenkmal. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits to PRISM (surveillance program). Wikipedia does not allow original research. Additionally, the information added wasn't of the type you'd find in an encyclopedia, which Wikipedia is. Please see WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTMANUAL for more information on these policies. I'm sure people searching for such methods will be able to find them at the appropriate sites through any search engine. Thanks for joining! Capscap (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- First, naming counter measures is just not "original research". Software such as GNU Privacy Guard or open source alternatives to Skype such as Jitsi are all well known. Its just important to name these counter measures in the PRISM article to increase awareness in the general public. Second, Wikipedia is an Open Source plattform - ofcourse you would expect to find open source alternatives in an open source encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize the relevant information in the article and not to tell the users: Go and use Google (which is spying on you by the way) to find counter measures yourself if you have the chance to name the measures in the very article. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not for advocacy. See WP:NOTADVOCATE. I know you have good intentions, but as an encyclopedia, there are some things that Wikipedia WP:ISNOT is not]]. (likewise, because wikipedia is open source does not mean that anything goes.-- it's an encyclopedia, not a repository. Without your section, the article does summarize events. It doesn't advocate using google, hiding from google, or anything of the sort. It describes what google is allegedly doing. Capscap (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but WP:NOTADVOCATE is jut not applicable. Read and answer on the articles discussion page. EOD here. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not for advocacy. See WP:NOTADVOCATE. I know you have good intentions, but as an encyclopedia, there are some things that Wikipedia WP:ISNOT is not]]. (likewise, because wikipedia is open source does not mean that anything goes.-- it's an encyclopedia, not a repository. Without your section, the article does summarize events. It doesn't advocate using google, hiding from google, or anything of the sort. It describes what google is allegedly doing. Capscap (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 202.71.129.154 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
@202.71.129.154 - if you delete the media coverage paragraph regarding counter measures again I will report your activity as vandalism. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
ANEW
[edit]I have reviewed the report filed against you at WP:ANEW. You are wrong as a matter of policy. You have in fact breached WP:3RR by making four reverts within a 24-hour window. It doesn't matter that they were on different days. However, you are a new user, or at least you are editing with a new account. Therefore, if you wish to avoid a block, you must agree not to edit PRISM (surveillance program) for seven days. You would still be able to contribute to the talk page. Please respond whether you agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I will not edit the article for 7 days. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have closed the report as "warned".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Order of New Templars moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Order of New Templars, is not suitable 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Shirt58 (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 2
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Military order. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)