User talk:Abzo

Numbering of Presidents of Germany
Dear Abzo,

personally, I do agree with you, but there is a consensus in the WIKI-community that numbering of politicians is rather an american thing. If you disagree, you should take your case to the Wiki Project Politics talk-page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics), if you do so, please let me know, I will support you then. If we start to number german politicians, we have to do it for all offices per consistency and this will not go without edit-warring, if we don't reach a consensus on this beforehand.Alektor89 (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Chiming in here: It actually would be wrong to label Heuss as 1st German President. He was the first president of West Germany after WW2, but there were German Presidents (pre-WW2) before him. And how would you number the Presidents of post-unification Germany? Ignore the Presidents of East Germany? European history is a bit more complicated than the straightforward US history. jfeise (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear jfeise, this has all been discussed before. The office of President of Germany (Federal Republic) is completely different from the office of Reich President of Germany (Weimar Republic). The Weimar Republic had a semi-presidential system of government (like France today for example) with the "Reich President" (his office had a different name!) sharing the role of executive leader with the Chancellor, while the Federal Republic has a "pure" parliamentary system with the Chancellor as undisputed executive leader, while the President is only a democratically legitimated constitutional monarch, so to say (apart from some special powers, the President holds exclusively, but which normally only matter during a severe constitutional crisis, some of them have as yet never been applied). The GDR-President, there was only one (Wilhelm Pieck, the office was abolished after his death) is not relevant for the numbering of the other german presidents, as the GDR was a seperate state, which has stopped existing in 1990 (you don't count Jefferson Davis, the one and only President of the Confederated States, with the US-Presidents, do you?). Your last point where the Presidents of so called "post-reunification-Germany", this is very easy: formally, the reunification of Germany was not a merger of two states forming a new one, but the former GDR (or better: the five reestablished states and East Berlin) joined the Federal Republic, which kept on existing like before, only with an enlarged territory. Richard von Weizsäcker did not have to be reelected, he stayed in office as his office kept on existing (you don't start numbering the US-Presidents, whenever new states join the United States, which is technically the same, which has happened in Germany in 1990). So Theodor Heuss was the 1st President of Germany, i.e. Federal Republic, while Frank-Walter Steinmeier is the 12th President of Germany, holding exactly the same office (this is, by the way, how this is handled in german WP). The Reich Presidents have to be counted seperately: 1st Reich President of Germany Friedrich Ebert, 2nd Reich President Paul von Hindenburg. There is no point numbering the GDR-Presidents, as there was only one.Alektor89 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out, Alektor. I do not agree with jfeise's point either and could not have said it any better. Furthermore, thanks for pointing out the actual consensus on the numberation. Unaware of such consensus, I find your revert of my edit legit. I still believe that this numberation is useful and should be put in place. We can speak about it on the talk page later you linked.--Abzo (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:District Attorney Investigator
Hello, Abzo. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:District Attorney Investigator, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:DA Investigator
Hello, Abzo. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:DA Investigator, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2019
Your addition to The Possession of Hannah Grace has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Ribbet, thanks for the hint. So what was the problem now? Did the previous editor (whose constribution I merely restored) copy and paste the plot form another source? If so, which? The link you had left in the description of your previous revert was dead. Thanks in advance. --Abzo (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The link wasn't dead. The copyright tool detected a copyright violation (over 90% certain) showing the plot section was copied verbatim from content from that website. There's always the possibility of error (for example, websites copy from Wikipedia all the time) but by and large, huge, unwikified contributions by anons are frequently copy and pasted from other sources; the anon should show authorship. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was finally able to make time to write a plot summary of my own now - problem solved! -Abzo (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)