User talk:Nov3rd17: Difference between revisions

Hello! --Nov3rd17 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRandomIP: Your re-addition of the word "vorläufigerweise" in quotation marks in the German article of Carles Puigdemont (see version history) isn't neutral and it should be discarded. One-word quotation marks have a negative meaning in this context. For example in the sentence: Mr XYZ, please don't be my "follower". the quotation marks indicate that I'm not pleased at all. Bye --Nov3rd17 (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And don't get me wrong. I do not mean that an article mustn't include criticism. But it should be visible to the reader, not hiding behind a "". So I want to say to you, too: I'm not pleased at all that you reverted my edit for revert's sake. You weren't interested in the article of Carles Puigdemont before, you only did it because of me. And that I don't like! --Nov3rd17 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocked by Kurator71 in German Wikipedia. I want to request a "Sperrprüfung" but I can't edit on German Wikipedia. So I use this talk page to inform the blocking administrator. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurator71: Hello, I want to request to lift the block. The cited reasons are invalid. The user RandomIP who requested the block (link) is an edit-warrior (see Version History of Peter Tauber) and now he reverts very edit I've made, even on English Wikipedia even on a topic edited over a month ago and where he has zero interest in besides reverting me. Do you want to give your hand to that behavior?! --Nov3rd17 (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you have misused the meta site Wikipedia:Third opinion for a discussion that has just started. However, the meta site makes it clear that "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page." I have therefore removed your inquiry. Of course you can add another inquiry later when we exchanged all our argument and indeed need a third opinion. However, I now have to warn you if you continue to misuse meta sites I have to report you as a vandal. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a discussion with you now. You aren't interested in the topic but only in "succeeding", when you want to evade 3rd opinion on these grounds. Isn't Talk:Sigmar_Gabriel#Third_opinion a good input from a third party? --Nov3rd17 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sigmar Gabriel is another example of you delegating work to others. I repeatedly told you what was wrong with the paragraph and how it could be fixed but instead of doing the work you just called for third opinion and let the other one do the work. I think this is not how Third Opinion is meant to be used. --TheRandomIP (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is forced to do work on Wikipedia. Those who react on 3rd opinion do it out of curiosity for the article or out of passion for Wikipedia as a project or because they want to resolve quarrels. In German Wikipedia, there are too many influential people who like to command others. I've logged in German Wikipedia first, but besides that and my German language, the German Wikipedia is now alien to me, I won't invest time in a project where authoritarianism prevails. I'll come back when German Wikipedia has changed. In the meantime bye, bye to all who want to command others in their free time. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]