User talk:Schenkstroop

WP:HOUNDING
Before you decide to continue following me around and editing article that I've just edited, but which you never have before, it would be best if you read WP:HOUNDING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

When are references needed?
Regarding your question, "Since when does one need a reference for every edit one makes?" In a WP:BLP, it's been that way for a very long time, as the summary of BLP states, Material about living persons added to Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daniela Müller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church History. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Correspondences (journal)


The article Correspondences (journal) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Correspondences (journal) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Correspondences (journal) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Correspondences (journal) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Julius Evola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermetic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wolfi Landstreicher moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Wolfi Landstreicher, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. czar 21:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I object to this draftifying of the article, because in its current form it does in fact cite multiple reliable, independent sources. Schenkstroop (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Schenkstroop. Sorry to see your article was draftified, I understand it's frustrating. If I may offer my own comments on it, I think the issue here is less to do with the sources themselves and more the content of the sources. Just for example: Long 2021 only mentions Landstreicher in passing, without going into any detail; Kinna 2012 (this chapter was actually by Sara Motta) mostly talks about his book From Politics to Life. D'Amato 2021 goes into the most depth, but mostly on his political ideas regarding civilization.
 * Just looking at the sources, I don't see anything here that really necessitates an article for Landstreicher himself, and certainly not anything that could lead to a substantial article on him being built. But I do think information from these sources could be incorporated into other articles, such as anarcho-primitivism, egoist anarchism or contemporary anarchism. Sometimes an author is notable to a subject, without being notable by themself, if that makes sense. -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @CZAR @Grnrchst: I would like to notify both of you that draftifying an article "is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion."(WP:DRAFTIFY), and that "other editors, including the author of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest, have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD." (WP:DRAFTOBJECT). We can continue this discussion on WP:AFD. Schenkstroop (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Wolfi Landstreicher
Hello, Schenkstroop, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Actualcpscm, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Wolfi Landstreicher, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Wolfi Landstreicher.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Actualcpscm (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes
There's a discussion about this discrimination category and others at WP:BLPN. You should give your feedback there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Correspondences (journal) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Correspondences (journal) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Correspondences (journal)& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Star  Mississippi  12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Bolding redirects
As long as I have been on Wikipedia, it has been normal to bold not only the title of the article, but also any redirects to the article. When someone searches for Arcanorium College, they should immediately be able to see why they were redirected to an article with a different title. Before removing bold text from the lead, you should really check whether that is an alternate title of the article via redirect. I don't appreciate having my corrections reverted without even the courtesy of an edit summary saying what your rationale is. Skyerise (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not normal on Wikipedia. The article is about Caroll not about Arcanorium College, so the latter should not be bolded. Schenkstroop (talk)

July 2024
If you are going to remove information from the lead that is not in the body, you need to move it into the body. Leads are not restricted to "primarily known" attributes in any case; and redirects into the article always get bolded. And you are edit-warring against assumed consensus and not following WP:BRD: if you get reverted, you are supposed to go to the talk page next; not keep reverting. Skyerise (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Peter J. Carroll shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)