User talk:Zeit Totzuschlagen

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page to follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring and sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Religious studies, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to The Reverend. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Religious text, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Racial Socialism

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

A tag has been placed on Racial Socialism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. RolandR (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Racial Socialism for deletion

The article Racial Socialism is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial Socialism 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Beach drifter (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Creativity Alliance article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Creativity Alliance. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

--SCochran4 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Religious conversion. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RolandR (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

An accusation is being made that I am the same personage as a "KarlKrafft" fellow, which isn't necessarily true. I wish that my wiki account be unblocked and all my edits be added back. It's the right thing to do. I know not why accusations are being thrown my way.

Decline reason:

CheckUser and behavioral evidence both say that you two are the same. Favonian (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Admins: - please note that this is a checkuser block and that this account is Confirmed as being another KarlKraft (talk · contribs) sock - Alison ^❤ 22:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having the same IP may or may not imply that two accounts equal the same person, which is obviously not the case. As to supposed "similar" behavior, it's all very quite debatable. It's quite reasonable that on certain topics such as politics and religion, people that are close enough to have the same IP address more than likely have the same beliefs in those areas as well. That is why I am requesting an unblock. As to all of my edits on this account being unedited, that is uncalled for.

You aren't even denying that you are the same account. And as a block evader, you aren't allowed to edit which is one reason why your edits are being undone. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I denied the two accounts being maintained by the same user (me) when I stated that it is obviously not the case and not necessarily true in regards to having the same IP address. Zeit Totzuschlagen (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 'obviously' not the case, and it's a fact that you share the one IP address and have the same useragent; you are all using the same computer. Furthermore, I count three accounts now and a previously-blocked (and now reblocked) IP address that was used to edit war. And all with the same interests? Seriously, c'mon ... - Alison ^❤ 09:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Zeit, if you want to be a part of this community just ride out this block for as long as it lasts and then start making constructive edits. I'm sure that period will be much shorter if you start cooperating and being honest. There's no legalism here so don't try to bend the rules or talk your way around to get out of this. You obviously have knowledge of subjects being intensely reviewed right now and we would love your input after your block is up. In the meantime, read some WP articles about constructive editing, consensus, etc. (Someone feel free to Wikify those words). Hope to see you editing again soon. --SCochran4 (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]