User talk:LMSchmitt

Do not announce deaths without a proper source !
I noticed your recent edit on the Uffe Haagerup page, announcing his death. I am here to inform you, that it is considered very rude behaviour to post anything of that nature on Wikipedia, without any proper reference.

Even if the info is true, Wikipedia is not a news channel and if no proper ref exist at the moment, we must wait until there is one available. RhinoMind (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Uffe Haagerups tragic departure has now been properly sourced by another user and the info is up on the page. Even though your edits was in good faith, I hope you understand why announcements of unsourced deaths is unacceptable? RhinoMind (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

ANSWER TO RhinoMind (talk): It is my impression that you consider the Wikipedia page "Uffe Haagerup" which you generated and mostly edited alone (according to its history page) somehow "your heartfelt property." Likely, we both like and admire Uffe Haagerup a lot, and it is difficult to accept that he is gone.

You alone have reversed independent, truthful edits by two of Uffe Haagerup's friends, and then claimed "Don't make an edit war" while, in my opinion, the edit-war was you. By projecting your personal views, you do not allow at least two other people to grieve their own way (by solemnly communicating the death of a friend and honoured colleague, and keeping correct data in Wikipedia). When I came along Uffe Haagerup's Wikipedia page on July 6, I was actually surprised that it had not been updated already. An honest, in-good-faith, truthful, and simple post under a full (my) good real name is labeled in a message by you as "very rude behaviour." Also, my post under my full name contained a reference where the information came from. What is "properly referenced" is debatable. For example, links as references disappear.

Your opinion that my actions constitute "very rude behaviour" is not stated in the Wikipedia guidelines which I have checked. I find it also a strange tone of communication that "YOU are here to inform ME.....", and "we must wait." It was obvious that under the circumstances a post such as "http://www.math.ku.dk/english/about/news/haagerup_obituary/" would appear, and could be added within days. I have initially posted (almost public) information within the scope of the information which was posted by The University of Copenhagen. (http://www.math.ku.dk/english/about/news/haagerup_obituary/). Just a few modest facts, no extensive details, no gossip or sensational reporting including a reference where the information comes from.

You succeeded in hurting me. I am still very sad that Uffe Haagerup is dead. You aggravated this for me.

PS: Your message "Wikipedia is not a news channel" contradicts the front page of Wikipedia which actually HAS a news channel in the upper right corner.


 * Hello. Wikipedia is built on sourced information. I will not "aggravate" this issue any further, as I find it unconstructive. Wikipedia is flooded daily by vandalism and unverifiable information on all scales and it is at the heart of WP editors to counter it. Of course it is considered rude to announce deaths unsourced. I will recommend or inspire you to ponder the following problem:


 * What would happen if Wikipedia allowed for death-announcements of living people without a proper source?


 * RhinoMind (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal comment to personal insults: I find it odd, that you are so eager to announce a death on Wikipedia. Why not wait a few weeks? By that time there should be proper sources on it and the family, relatives, friends and colleagues have grieved. In addition to this odd fixation, I find your comments above extremely insulting and offensive. I will take it lightly however, as I am convinced that you are completely green on editing? But I would like to take some time to inform you why your comments are so insulting and aggressive. This can help you to socially navigate Wikipedia in the future and hopefully avoid serious conflicts with other editors:


 * I took time to write up an article some time ago and because I reverted unsourced death-annoucements, you accuse me of article ownership? 1 reason to feel insulted, 1 sign you are overreacting and lacking in judgement. Read: Ownership of articles.
 * How you consider information about a death as a matter of "personal views" is devoid of meaning. I did not launch a personal attack against you, but you responded by launching one against me and at the same time accusing me of personally attacking you. 3 reasons to feel insulted, 3 reasons you are overreacting and lacking in judgement. Read: No personal attacks
 * You provided no verifiable source for the death-claims and yet you respond to the revert by stating that you did and What is "properly referenced" is debatable. You even hint that some links and refs was deleted? By me perhaps? 1 reason to feel insulted, 3-4 reasons you are overreacting and lacking in judgement.
 * I reverted an unsourced death-claim and you accuse me of edit warring? I even stated firmly that any edit warring should be avoided. 2 reasons to feel insulted, 1 reason you are overreacting and lacking in judgement. Read: Edit warring.
 * You write about your "sadness", that my intent was to "hurt you" and how I was "hurting you", that I stop people from "grieving", that my actions was a "projection of my personal views", etc.. 5+ reasons to feel insulted, 5+ reasons you are overreacting and lacking in judgement.

Even though it would indeed be appropriate, I will not ask for an apology for these groundless (should I say endless?) personal insults. Instead I hope that you will learn something from it and how not to communicate on Wikipedia. This is not a chat-room, a coffeehouse, a discussions forum or a news channel. I hope you will take time to learn about how to edit Wikipedia and what guidelines to follow when contributing to an encyclopedia. If you would like to respond to anything, I recommend focusing on my first response above, concerned with the editing issue. Thank you. RhinoMind (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature
You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.  (It might already be empty.)
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

BRD
Per WP:BRD, please discuss your proposed change on the talk page. I haven't looked into your claims about FTA; they may be correct. But "natural numbers" may or may not include zero. Any edit that starts them with 1 is going to get reverted. --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * one of the dummest, intolerant, opinionated statements I have ever encountered. YOU GET OFF ON YOUR STATUS AS "SENIOR EDITOR" WHILE NOT EVEN BEING ABLE TO JUDGE FTA. About 50% of the planet have IN start with 1 and anothe 50% have it started with 0. IN starting with 1 mimics true counting which starts with 1. That is what IN is about. A more modern "sophisticated" viewpoint is to start with 0 to make IN a semigroup and other gadgets. It's ok too. BUT THE THREAT TO DELETE ANY CONTRIBUTION THAT SEES IN START WITH 1 IS PERSONAL SELF-GRATIFICATION.

Wilhelm I
Do you seriously believe William I, German Emperor became German Kaiser in 1861 and replaced his older brother ? HerkusMonte (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:HerkusMonte ????? LMSchmitt 14:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You added the claim the image shows "future King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia who was also Kaiser of Germany, and his younger brother & successor (also the first Constitutional Monarch of Germany Kaiser of Germany and King of Prussia Wilhelm I)" and that he became Emperor in 1861.
 * Seriously? HerkusMonte (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the claerification. I did not. Please check the editing of said page. I only changed (recently) the layout of the page around one pic at the beginning, since the first sentence of text was chopped up unbearably through the automatic layout process.
 * You did much more than just changing the layout . I'm going to revert your changes, please seek WP:Consensus at the article's talk page. Thanks HerkusMonte (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You are lying (aka: not speaking the truth). I only changed the wording left to center in the placement of the first pic of the main text of the article, since I find the resulting fragmented first sentence unbearable. Anything else may be due to strange editor behavior. I'll check this again.
 * @User:HerkusMonte Most of what you reverted was NOT my editing.

October 2021
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Euclidean space, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOjs UI icon signature-ltr.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. — Anita5192 (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Haben Sie nichts Besseres zu tun als meine und Ihre Zeit zu verschwenden.?

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)