User talk:Schinkelburg

Reverted due to unfounded assumption

Reverted due to a rude, bossy as unfounded reasoning. Who are you to perform in that way? That is the assumption of German Wikipedia, inveterate enemies of Atrott like the Germans were such on the Jews. Atrott is not a bachelor, but a big family of several generations outside Germany. You presume to be able something to do, the N.S.A. even cannot provide. In the Internet is A. partly categorized as Lithuanian, Prussian or (by the Germans) as German. An encyclopedia should explain why this happens. Schinkelburg

GERMAN WIKIPEDIA LAWLESSLY USES A PICTURE OF MINE

When German Wikipedia, for its article on Hans Henning Atrott, started to use the picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Henning_Atrott#/media/File:Hansatrott.jpg I donated to Wikipedia.commons it became informed that everybody can use this image but the German branch of Wikipedia.org. The formula CC BY-SA 3.0 of Wikipedia.org does not allow to specialize, respectively, confine the copyright in that way but the copyright does. The latter is decisive. Even according to German law, one is allowed to withdraw any donation due to gross ingratitude within ten years after presenting the gift. Regardless numerous acts of ridiculousness, in particular, the protection of the homosexual, pedophile and criminal Protestant Pastor Emil Zimmerningkat and his sexual crimes by German Wikipedia within the English version of Wikipedia (in the German one they conceal everything of that), I regard as such a case of gross ingratitude. I expressively prohibited German Wikipedia to use this image, right from the outset. As copyright owner I can cut the copyright as I want to do it and those who do not respect the designed copyright act lawlessly. I never demanded benevolence, in exchange for the picture and never will do, but what the Germans do is unrestrained hatred (dubbed: "love") and war on Atrott. Especially, the protection of a sexual criminal on children puts German Wikipedia outside civilization. Nobody is obliged to join such abhorrence by donations. In case that the Germans continue to use the image, it is to reckon that I withdraw the image completely in order to achieve lawfulness. If English Wikipedia should ban me as co-worker on account of this decision with regard to its very questionable German branch, in that case, I hereby simultaneously withdraw the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Henning_Atrott#/media/File:Hansatrott.jpg completely from whole Wikipedia. As mentioned, this is my right within ten years, according to German law, which at least is applicable to the German branch. German Wikipedia is sheer hatred (dubbed: "love to the enemy") and presumably occupied by Christian fanatics. They are not teachable and not admissible to arguments. And if they have not died, in between, they still are hating, hating and "infallibly" lying...

Schinkelburg (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schinkelburg, if I look over the posts you have made over time, I cannot help getting the impression that there's a lot of emotions involved. I'd recommend to seriously reduce the emotional component of your posts for the benefit of the information you want to communicate. Wikipedia is not about bashing folks who do not share your view of the world. Just my two bits, no offense meant. Best regards, Lost Boy (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans' New World War on Self-Publishing

Here, the German edit-warriors fabricate rumors and insinuations but never reply to the precise criteria...

Firstly, there are two different matters, the phony (edit) warriors defy grasping:

1.) In its article on Hans Henning Atrott, Wikipedia (Holocaustland) uses an image of mine against the expressed prohibition (of the owner). This is an infringement of the copyright and, consequently, a crime. No wonder, that the people from the Holocaust pretend to be ignorant about the copyright! (In addition, there are facts indicating that they (the Germans) intruded in my computer, what would be an additional crime. Investigation is on the way).

2.) Regarding the article of Hans Henning Atrott in English Wikipedia, the contumacious warriors from the Holocaustland pretend to having discussed something what they always turned out as unable to do so. In my judgement, they comply with the average German as he is known in Europe, commonly: Faking to be the best, superior to everybody and each has to comply with them (the self-appointed leaders). For example, judging whether something is published or self-published there are rational criteria:

a) Who published the book, e.g., the author himself, a company the author owns or a publishing company, the author does not keep and having the authority to accept and reject the book?

b) Who is keeping the copyright, the author or the publishing company, which the author does not owe and has not staked in it? Unless it is about German Wikipedia - publishing an image despite the copyright owner's prohibition - nobody can publish something of which he does not keep the copyright! The folks from Wikipedia-Holocaustland contumaciously refrain from arguing these criteria because they have no arguments on these topics but their indocile will with which everybody has to comply against better knowledge. They cannot complain that people abroad see their behavior in a context known to the world by German history.

3.) Pertaining to emotions, the inveterate enemies from the Holocaustland conceal why they fanatically insist on the term self-publishing, even as if self-publishing is no publishing. Please answer to the exactly given criteria or refrain from romping around the English version. Please, tell me what do you have to answer to the facts that

a) the publisher is not Hans Henning Atrott but PublishAmerica, respectively, America Star Books,

b) the copyright keeps PublishAmerica, respectively, America Star Books and

c) why do you so-to-speak start a third world war to graft your folly upon the world that it is about a self-publishing? You fabricate rumors and insinuations but never replied to the mentioned questions... In particular, point c answers the question about the emotions...! Once more: Why do you persist in this term of self-publishing? Because hypocrites "love the truths"?

4.) The allegation of a "lost boy" that there puportedly is no publisher involved in the books of Hans Henning Atrott is nothing but a sheer joke newly cracked in the Holocaustland! Those folks from the Holocaustland do not want to know what is true. This speaks volumes. By the way, there is evidence among you war editors, there is a certain Kurt Fritz Schobert, who became fired by Hans Henning Atrott as D.G.H.S. employee on account of support of NS-euthanasia among you. Insofar speaking about the Holocaustland in this context is appropriate. Since that time, he is an inveterate enemy of Hans Henning Atrott and apparently succeeded in getting you, too... The one that is not admissible in arguments that one is fanatical, i.e. emotional. This is apply to the mentioned phony edit warriors from Holocaustland.

SchinkelburgSchinkelburg (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Schinkelburg! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 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 {{helpme}} 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! Marek.69^talk 15:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Marek69 I found your mail in my spam folder, surprisingly. So, it took a tad time to read it. Your advice I appreciate very much. It helps me. Schinkelburg (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Your edit deliberately misinterpretes the source and your violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks is inacceptable. Please stop. This is the first warnings. --Seewolf (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Vandalism warning

This is the second warning, same reason as above. --Seewolf (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Seewolf (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC==Vandal

"Seewolf" only has severe "evaluations" ("condemnations") but no arguments

One only can see permanent psychological projections of "Seewolf" accusing others of vandalism what he exactly is perpetrating. For this job he is infamous, internationally! Since everything is saved here: Where's an argument of "Seewolf"? Psychological projections are the very arm of deceivers and fraudsters! "Seewolf" you should warn yourself! Schinkelburg (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Hans Henning Atrott. This is the last warning: Please respect [WP:No personal attacks]]. --Seewolf (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Seewolf (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETION - THIS IS SEEWOLF'S KIND OF "REFUTATION"OF ARGUMENTS ON HIM

Seewolf, first refute the objections on you, not only given by me. If you confute them, I will be the first pleading to wipe out your shame... Schinkelburg (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Atrott's abode

Thank you "Seewolf" for compromising. Concerning the abode of Hans Atrott I "only" know that (and where) his descendants live in Switzerland. Getting in contact with him, one has to apply to them. They always know where he and his wife are dwelling. In my judgement, in a biography there only could be mentioned a location that has become characteristic to the personage. To my knowledge, this is not given. I am not authorized to pass the address of the Swiss Atrotts to someone else. By the way, authors often like to change the locations, on account of "locus genii." I.e., this is nothing unusual. Schinkelburg (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even rudimentary skills would've told you that I am NOT Seewolf. I did what I did in order to give you an excuse to stop your sorry crusade; hopefully you get the message. Lost Boy (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source

Hi Schinkelburg . I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER OF SCHINKELBURG

It might be that famousbirthdays.com is not reliable. However, I did not only refer to it and do not need to do so for evidence. I could quote about a dozen!!! By the way, I did not know, yet, that Mr. A. has a fan club. Confining A. only to voluntary euthanasia does not tally with the most articles and mentions of this personage in worldwide wikipedia. For exampe: Wikipedia, German edition: Hochschule fuer Politik Muenchen, Bekannte Absolventen und ehemalige Studenten, i.e., among the notable alumni A. is called "Kritiker des Christentums" i.e., critic of Christianity, last call 01/19/2017 p. 2, electronically on: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hochschule_für_Politik_München - the same is done on the page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langgoens in the rubric:"Weitere Persoenlichkeiten", i.e. notable residents. En.wikipedia.org - January 12, Births 1944, mentions Hans Henning Atrott as "German author and theorist", i.e. refers to him as critic on Christianity and not to voluntary euthanasia electronically on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_12 If there is no compromise possible to get this article in accordance with the most ones of thole Wikipedia, I'll reset all the text to the torso, before. Schinkelburg Schinkelburg (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was remove unreliable sources and content based upon them. I'm not fluent enough in German to be of much help with the ongoing dispute, but if you need help with English language references, let me know. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz, I saw the image on you wikipage and regretted that there is no "like" button. I think, we both can work together! When I am in need of help, I'll ask you. Have a nice day! Schinkelburg Schinkelburg (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it. You can add the Picture of the Day to your user page with {{POTD}} --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]