User talk:Kvaiting

Schleyer Prize
Hello please use the talk page in the event you disagree with another editor's reversion of content. My reasons were stated in my edit comment. Please review WP:BRD WP:EW and other relevant site policies. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk  18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policies before editing articles. Your section blanking constitutes vandalism, and all prize articles list laureates. Your edit also violates the manual of style. Kvaiting (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Your "vandalism" warning template on my talk page is contrary to site policy and has been expunged. Please review WP:VANDAL to confirm that my edit was not "vandalism." Misuse of a warning template such as yours can result in you being blocked from editing. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  18:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Section blanking is vandalism and repeated section blanking may lead to your account being blocked. Kvaiting (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Nobel prize to convince yourself the statement above is false. Please review WP:VANDAL and WP:PA.  And chill out, my friend.  This is not a battle.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before embarking on deleting sections from Wikipedia articles. It appears you have engaged in wikihounding, frivolously claiming one of Germany's best known and most selective prizes over 30 years is "promotional", and disruptively deleting the list of laureates. All Wikipedia articles on prizes contain a list of laureates, in the case of the Nobel prizes, these lists are so extensive that they have their own articles. Kvaiting (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Schleyer
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
 * You have reverted properly sourced relevant text from the Schleyer article 4 times in the past several hours. Please undo your reverts. If you disagree with the edits added by others, state your concerns and seek consensus on talk.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion:
 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring.   Thank you.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Remarks: Neither the level three warning nor the EW notice are justified. The removal of the Nazi Youth/SS material was justified as it had nothing to do with the foundation. (Perhaps it should go in the biography article.) The only problematic edit was the removal of the 2013 award. I've posted a remark on the EW notice board asking that the thread be closed immediately.  – S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich, 3RR is a bright line, and it's been violated.  SPECIFICO  talk  04:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see what the admin decides. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich, why is the fact that this guy was a Nazi any less relevant than the fact that he was a Daimler exec or head of an employers organization or any other life fact about him. In fact, his Nazi affiliation is particularly important in the context of an prize being set up to honor his memory. SPECIFICO talk  04:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The best place for the history of what's-his-name is on the Foundation talkpage; e.g., whether it belongs on that page or on the bio page. In the above I was referring to the 3RR warning & EW noticeboard, which I do not feel is justified. My comment about the NY/SS was regarding the removal of the info from the article by Kvaiting, not the material itself. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Kvaiting What is your relationship if any to Schleyer?
Please state your relationship, if any, to Schleyer, the Foundation, its activities, and any of the Prizewinners. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk
 * Specifico, admin here. Drop this line of questioning, and refrain from even appearing to hound this editor. This is looking an awful lot like harassment, especially given the EW report which was thrown out of court instantly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Inevitable complaint
So the complaint that I called inevitable did indeed happen. After looking over your talk page, that discussion is incomplete without your input. Abel (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)