User talk:KarlV

Bad Nenndorf
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer on the article discussion!--KarlV 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation WP:3RR on Bad Nenndorf. This includes the edit you made as an IP. pschemp | talk 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT
You have been blocked indefinitely for an egregious violation of WP:POINT concerning the article Bad Nenndorf. Wikipedia is not an experiment for you to play with. Your actions incited disruption and unneeded edit warring. The place where you admit that you used Wikipedia as an experiment is documented here. pschemp | talk 21:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this block: it's great when Wikipedians from other languages cross over to another language, but please don't use other Wikipedias for your experiments, thanks! --JoanneB 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I read your piece in German and it meant the same thing. Your experiment had nothing to do with imperfect English. If you'd like to apologize for getting decent hard working editors being suspected as neo-nazis, that would be a real start. You still haven't admitted that what you did was wrong, only said that people "took it the wrong way". That is not acceptable. pschemp | talk 16:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (English translation can be provided if needed…) Karl, dass du mit „experiment“ „Test“ meintest, ändert nichts an der Tatsache, dass dein Test völlig unangemessen war. Was mich, und sicherlich auch ein paar Administratoren, interessiert, ist, ob du, falls die Sperrung aufgehoben würde, bereit wärst, dich ausschließlich konstruktiv und unter gleichzeitiger Beachtung der Regeln zu beteiligen. Naja, und ein Zeichen deines Einsehens, dass deine Aktionen auch über die eigentliche Verletzung von 3RR hinaus falsch waren, würde helfen. Dein Englisch ist nämlich nicht so schlecht, dass du allein dafür gesperrt würdest, und da, wo du das gleiche auf deutsch und auf englisch gesagt hast, waren die Aussagen imho ähnlich genug. Die aktuelle Sperrung lag nicht an einem Übersetzungsfehler, und ich möchte dir raten, auf derartige Argumente, Andeutungen o. ä. zu verzichten, allein schon, um pschemp’s Nerven zu schonen. —xyzzyn 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Ich habe auf deutsch geschrieben, um meinen Kommentar für dich möglichst klar zu gestalten. Falls du dem Rest der Welt diesbezüglich etwas sagen willst, solltest du das natürlich wieder auf englisch tun (oder jemanden bitten, dich zu übersetzen). —xyzzyn 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do consider providing an english translation xyzzy_n, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Translation starts.
 * Karl, that by ‘experiment’ you meant ‘test’ does not alter the fact that your test was completely inappropriate. What I, and certainly also some administrators, would like to know is whether you, if you were unblocked, were willing to participate only constructively and under simultaneous adherence to the rules. Well, and a sign of your understanding that your actions were wrong beyond the actual 3RR violation would also help. Your English, however, is not so bad that you would get blocked just for that and where you said the same things in German and English, the statements were similar enough, imho. The current block was not due to a mistranslation and I want to advise you to desist from such arguments, insinuations etc., if only to spare pschemp’s nerves.
 * P.S. I wrote in German to make my comment as clear for you as possible. However, if you wish to tell the rest of the world something about it, you should of course do so in English (or ask somebody to translate for you).
 * Translation ends. —xyzzyn 22:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked
Karl, I have unblocked your account and 'commented out' the unblock request above. Hopefully things will go more smoothly in the future. --CBD 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad Nenndorf
Hi Karl,

Thanks for your kind comments about the Bad Nenndorf article! -- ChrisO 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you and Gancefort for 24 hours for edit warring on Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Continue to edit war without discussion and it will escalate very rapidly. Neil  ☎  10:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I think this is a misunderstanding. When I told you “unfortunately I should contact another admin (I did it already)”, I meant that I have contacted another admin and not that I enter in an Edit-War. Regards --KarlV 11:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not a misunderstanding, you are edit warring with Gancefort. See Edit war for an explanation of why these are not permitted to continue.  Neil   ☎  12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Neil, I sent you an email. Regards--KarlV 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alf-Maurice de Zayas
Hallo KarlV, I see that you've been editing the article Alfred-Maurice de Zayas before. If you still observe en.wikipedia, you may have a look at the article if you like. Since it appears to be entirely not neutral, I've recently added a paragraph about the reception of Alfred-Maurice's books on German history, and by the way re-added sourced bithdates of Alfred-Maurice to the first sentence, which had been deleted before. A user:Gancefort has reverted back my changes. After receiving a three revert rule-warning, this account has stopped editing wikipedia, but instead changing IPs have started to remove material. Other IPs have also continued to discuss on talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas in an entirely unpleasent style.The same group of persons or individual hiding behind the IPs also seem to control articles about Alf-Maurice's books Nemesis at Potsdam, A Terrible Revenge and The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945. In my last edit on Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, I've re-added a neutrality template, which I hope will stay for while. I guess that neutrality issues of this article can be resolved on the long term by drawing a wider attention to it. Perhaps you've another idea what could by done about this problem? --Schwalker (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this is exactly the same problem we have in de:WP. It seems that de Zayas has a strong lobby group pushing their point of view in an aggressive manner by hook or crook. A constructive cooperation is nearly impossible. Respectable users are involved in emotional battles. The unpleasent style is program. IPs are not interested in the project. The goal is not to tolerate any criticism which is well documented in reliable sources. The same problem occurs in the French WP (fr:WP). The solution would be that more respectable Users take care about this article. Kind regards --KarlV (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anton Maegerle
Hey, Karl, you still haven't answered to my suggestion here that you're lying. These are of course very serious accusations, 'ganz starker Tabak', and raise the question that perhaps my assumptions are correct. MfG, Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 13:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ??? How should someone answer to a provocation? As I understood it seems to be allowed in en:WP to insult others as liars, so I have ignored you (I do not like this insulting games). But perhaps you can teach me if I am wrong?-- ♥ KarlV 14:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On EN-Wiki, it is not allowed to insult one as a liar, no matter what the user's political views are, but call one a liar, if facts match and the user is really lying. Equal rights for all, this should always be borne in mind. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 14:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If this would be true, that it is not allowed to call someone a liar, you would have been rebuked by an administrator. And because nothing happened - it seems to me, that it is allowed. Despite this, if you would follow your own "facts" you should change in the article Labour Party (UK) (the sister party of SPD), or the SPD into the label "left-wing". But I think you would not dare to do so. So it seems to me that your "facts" does not match. Have a nice weekend. Cheers.-- ♥ KarlV 15:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)