User talk:Ulritz

3RR warning on Zionist political violence
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Zionist political violence. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -- LeflymanTalk 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not remove legitimate warnings from your page; it is considered vandalism. See, Vandalism:
 * "[U]sers generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors."-- LeflymanTalk 19:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect; the section you reverted to non-neutral language has been throughly discussed:
 * Talk:Zionist_political_violence
 * Talk:Zionist_political_violence
 * Talk:Zionist_political_violence
 * You have now attempted to insert your disputed language four times. As is clear from your contributions, you appear to be on a POV campaign against Israel, akin to trolling, as particularly demonstrated by your recent repeated reversions in Qana shelling.— LeflymanTalk 20:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record the version I defended has survived to this day. Ulritz 12:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Qana Shelling edit warring. - 24 hour block

 * Block is unjustified, as this was reported as a revert. Compare with the previous version I was supposedly reverting to, as reported by Jayjg. Ulritz 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In all four edits, you were re-adding Image:Qana_massacre.jpg. The definition of "revert" used when dealing with edit warring is a commonsense one. Nandesuka 16:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Charles IV
Hi Ulritz! Yes, I've read the article. The "problem" with the number is caused by the fact that he changed his name from Václav to Karel. He should have become Václav IV. As we hadn't had a king named Karel before him, Karel IV. was a bit inappropriate. However, he has never been known in the Czech Republic as Karel I. I think this name would be rather confusing, because I doubt there are more than 1% of Czech people who know this. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 15:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Germans
I see you are an edit-warrior? this is not a nice edit, and shouting "vandalism" when you have no other argument is sad. We have talkpages on Wikipedia, you know, and if you want to object to what I said on Talk:Germans you are welcome to do that politely and backing up your conviction with your sources. dab (&#5839;) 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * natio is Latin for Greek ethnos. In any case, per WP:CITE, if you tell me the same thing not in your own words, but as the opinion of some published author, it will be no problem to mention it in the article. You seem to mistake Wikipedia for a discussion board. I am not interested in your opinion, I am interested in your sourced contributions. And once again, Schweizerdeutsche is not a noun. It may be an adjective, referring to the language, as in der schweizerdeutsche Dativ (or plural indefinite declension, schweizerdeutsche Romane), but it may not refer to people. Considering all the heraldry on your page, your German seems to be remarkably weak. dab (&#5839;) 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Ulritz. I concur with your view. Hopefully we can have a vote or something? Dunno. Antidote 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Germans
Sorry Ulritz, I was on vacation in Rome and had not read your message to me yet. I will look at the article Germans. By the way: I am not an ethnical German myself, but a Dutchman. Smith2006 10:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Regarding comments such as these:, , - Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Paul Cyr 16:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever your disagreements in content, calling someone a "troll" is a personal attack. Please stop or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  22:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ,

Please remain civil. It has been pointed out to you that administrative action may be taken against you if you do not treat your fellow editors with respect. It has now been noticed that you had no previous involvement with the Blue water navy article, yet you replied to User:Rex Germanus' post to the talk page of that article – a user you have had frequent antagonistic interaction with. Please keep your contributions constructive in future.

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Franconian
I tend to agree with you here, per de:Fränkische Sprachen, nl:Frankisch, af:Frankies (taal). dab (&#5839;) 16:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources for the concept of 'Low German languages'
Hi Ulritz. You seem to be knowledgeable about these matters, judging from your numerous edits. We have the problem that we haven't found any linguistic source yet that would show that this concept is really used, so the current article on Low German languages (or whatever it is currently called) is not acceptable to Wikipedia according to the official policy No original research. If we'd had at last any linguistic source for that concept, then it would be at last acceptable on Wikipedia. Otherwise, it should be converted into a redirection page to Low Franconian and Low German respectively. Maybe you can help? ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
I've made a request for mediation, if you wish to participate sighn it. link to mediation

Rex 17:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your dispute with Rex Germanus
Hi, I couldn't help noticing your dispute with Rex Germanus. I've often seen that he can be quite difficult to deal with in such discussions. Maybe you should consider a user-conduct RfC. I haven't found time to delve into the merits of this particular case as far as content is concerned. If I may give this advice, just keep in mind to keep cool, and try to get other people to join the discussion, rather than revert-warring yourself. I see this thing might sometime end up at Arbcom, and it'll then be crucial that your own behaviour should be blameless. I can't promise much at the moment (time constraints), but I'll try and watch the issue a bit. Take care, Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Low Germanic
Hi. I've seen you've moved back Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages to Low Germanic languages. That move you've reverted has been the result of a tedious and still ongoing discussion.

The first result of that discussion has been that the term Low Germanic is not common in English. I have seen your google book searches, but that cannot replace real references, see Search engine test.

The second question in that discussion is whether a group embracing both Low German and Low Franconian is a notable linguistic concept at all. As User:Pfold has shown, it seems that this concept is not in use for the modern stages of these languages, but only for older historic stages. The only reference we have seen so far that would use this concept for the modern stages is the ethnologue (where it's called Low Saxon-Low Franconian), but that's not deemed to be a reliable source.

Another and maybe more important issue is that in order to keep the version history of a page intact, you should never make a move by copy-paste, but using the move functionality. See at Meta:Help:Moving a page:

“The "move page" function keeps the entire edit history of the page, before and after the move, in one place, as if the page were always named that way. So, you should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that.”

So please make no copy-paste moves. I fear that after your copy-page moves, the page Low Germanic languages will have to be deleted before Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages could be properly moved there.

It's okay to be bold, but that particular move has been much discussed. We haven't found an appropiate name yet, but we have agreed that Low Germanic is not appropiate. Please take your part in the discussion about that concept. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 14:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've just found out, the proper proceding is as per How to fix cut and paste moves. So we'll have to wait until an administrator remerges the edit histories that have been separated by the cut-and-paste move. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 14:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

West Low Saxon
The edit warring here between you and Rex Germanus is unacceptable. You has been blocked for 24 hours for being uncivil after multiple warnings. Both this and this are uncivil edit summaries. Rex Germanus has been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR.You both need to stop and think before edit warring next time. pschemp | talk 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Dutch / Old Low Franconian
Hi Ulritz, I have no personal opinion about which of the two titles is more appropriate, but I think you are right with respect to the technicalities of the cut-and-paste move. But with your history of clashes with R.G., maybe it would be unwise if you kept challenging him about this issue. I've watchlisted the article, I'd suggest you let other users deal with the situation for the moment. I've also notified dab. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: your edits to Afrikaans
Hi, I appreciate your contributions to this article, but I don't know what you are talking about, as I am not an expert in the field. Please discuss this change in the article discussion, and provide references as to why we should believe you. For all I know you could just be damaging the article's content, however I am not suggesting that. The information you wsih removed has been there for quite a period of time, and I am sure it would be more appropriate to remove this information only after a there exist a definite conclusion in the article's discussion concerning this matter. --Adriaan90 13:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

The Ulritz vs. Rex thing
I saw you complaining about Rex and posted this in reply. I hope you'll both get the message. 

I saw he requested mediation and you did not accept. I'd recommend you don't let this bubble over, because not having accepted mediation will not work in your favour.

Regards,

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom
I believe you've gone far enough. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Ulritz Rex 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ulritz
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk FloNight 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on October 14 2006 to Stahhelm
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Temporary Injunction
A temporary injunction has been passed in Requests for arbitration/Ulritz which states that until the conclusion of this case, you and Rex Germanus may not make more than one content revert per article per day. Thanks --Srik e it (Talk 05:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila
I reverted your vote as it was after the voting deadline and so the voting "box" should not be modified. You're welcome to comment in a new section if you wish.  Andrius  22:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for breach of temporary injunction
I have blocked you for 24 hours for breaching the temporary injunction in Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. The block has been logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz. Cowman109 Talk 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I protest and ask that this block be lifted. I reported the actual breach, reverting only once in no violation of the injunction. Ulritz 11:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ulritz, the ArbCom suggested that you do not revert more than once within 24 hours. Reverting twice within 25 is obviously an attempt to game the system. In that light, I've reviewed your request, and the block will stand. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was supposed to reward the culprit with praise for reverting while on "parole". That's what you get for seeking justice . And who sets these arbitrary standards? Nov 1 and Nov 3, two days..."gaming"? By this type of uninformed and wholesale "verdict" you are undermining WikiJustice reputability. Ulritz 21:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ulritz
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on revert parole. They are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, they are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on probation for one year. They may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All blocks and bans and are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Ulritz.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srik e it (Talk 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion passed for Requests for arbitration/Ulritz
A motion has been passed for the case linked above.

The anonymous editor who edits from the 194.9.5.0/24 range and was also a part to Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz shall be subject to the same restrictions as Ulritz and Rex Germanus for edit warring at involved articles. See #Ulritz_placed_on_Probation and #Ulritz_placed_on_revert parole for the applicable restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned from editing Stahlhelm
Based on this edit summary at Stahlhelm and also this comment in this edit,  I am banning you from editing the article indefinitely. This is per the parole placed upon you by the arbitration committee at Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. Steve block Talk 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)