User talk:Wikiwiserick

Welcome
Hello, Wikiwiserick, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- PBS (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Shakespeare Authorship
Thanks for providing the link to the Klier review. I have used a quote from it in 2 recent edits: [], and [] and I will look for other material that might be added. It will be most interesting when the English version of Kreiler's book comes out. It is sure to contain much useful material for these pages to consider! Smatprt (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For a BBC review of Kreiler's views, see Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford: The real Shakespeare?. Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruhr
Thank you for notifying me about your concerns about the name of the Ruhr article. As you will see I have changed the RfC into a WP:RM as that is the best forum to discuss article names. I am curious about your comment "not 'Ruhr', as in Germany only the river is called 'Ruhr', not the region." Are you a native German speaker, because I don't see what the German usage of the term name has to do with English usage? -- PBS (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Although "the Ruhr" can be used both for the river and the area, English and American experts in the field often use the expression Ruhr region or Ruhr district for the area, as it is nearer to the German term "Ruhrgebiet". Some examples:

Ruhr district

 * Gordon Maskew Fair, Pollution abatement in the Ruhr district (1961).
 * "The territory through which the Ruhr flows is called the Ruhr district." See Edmund Jan Osmańczyk and Anthony Mango, Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: A to F (2003), p.1970.
 * "The iron and steel industry of the Ruhr district has 20 per cent of industrial turnover..." See Yves Mény and Vincent Wright, The Politics of steel: Western Europe and the steel industry in the crisis (1987), p. 664.
 * "Although the mining industry in the Ruhr District has collected a considerable volume of gas content data..." See Rodney A. Gayer and Ian Harris, Coalbed methane and coal geology (1996), p. 67.
 * "...at the end of the seventeenth century, and probably 70 or 80 per cent of this coal was produced in Saxony and the Ruhr district." See John Ulric Nef, The rise of the British coal industry, Volume 1 (1966), p. 127.
 * "For instance, the Ruhr district to the east of the Rhine, and north of Cologne, is one of the most important iron, steel, and coal regions on the Continent." See Sir John Lubbock, On Municipal and National Trading (1906), p. 133.
 * "In particular, industry in the Ruhr district (North Rhine- Westphalia) was based upon coal, iron and steel." See E. Owen Smith, The German economy (1994), p. 48.
 * "By the first decades of the twentieth century the Ruhr district was notorious in Germany as a region of enormous factories, polluted air, foul water, slag heaps, huge slums, and wealthy, hard-bitten industrialists." See Gary Backhaus and John Murungi, Ecoscapes: geographical patternings of relations (2006), p. 139.
 * "Within the context of a supra-regional 'division of labour' in water resources management, the Ruhr river was assigned the role of supplying drinking water for the Ruhr district, the most densely populated and industrialized area in Europe." See Robert Ferrier and Alan Jenkins, Handbook of Catchment Management (2009), p. 441.
 * "...the Germans have smelted the bulk of the iron ore produced in Lorraine in the Ruhr district..." See J. Ellis Barker, Economic Statesmanship: The Great Industrial and Financial Problems Arising from the War (2008), p. 290.
 * "There are many refugees from the Ruhr district – people, so I am told, driven out of their homes by the French. I shall not pass an opinion on this until I get into the Ruhr district and study the situation for myself." See David Jordan, A.B. Jordan - A Southern Editor's View of Europe Between the Wars (2007), p. 33.
 * "These properties have been exploited to the full in the Ruhr district of Germany, in Emscher Park, other woodlands in the Ruhr District, and in the Südgelände nature park in Berlin." See Nigel Dunnett and James Hitchmough, The Dynamic Landscape: Design, Ecology and Management of Naturalistic Urban Planting (2004), p. 441.
 * "Today mines are active in this area only in the Ruhr District..." See Tom McCann, The Geology of Central Europe, Volume 2: Mesozoic and Cenozoic (2008), p. 1367.
 * "The millers of Mannheim said that they had spent a good deal of capital in building up a big grain import business for the Ruhr district from Argentina and the United States of America..." See L. C. A. Knowles, Economic Development in the Nineteenth Century: France, Germany, Russia and the United States (2006), p. 222.
 * "For one important area, the Ruhr District, there exist however some valuable data..." See Claude William Guillebaud, The Works Council: a German experiment in industrial democracy (1928), p. 115.
 * "The Ruhr district, which stretched from Dortmund and Hagen on the south and east to Mülheim on the Ruhr and Hamborn on the north and west, had been the center of German heavy industry since the late nineteenth century." See Mary Nolan, Visions of modernity: American business and the modernization of Germany (1994), p. 137.
 * "... the Ruhr district, one of the most concentrated industrial and population centers of the world..." See F. Douglas Muschett and C. Lee Campbell, Principles of sustainable development (1997), p. 38.
 * "Although war has destroyed most of the surface features of the colossal industrial development of the so-called Ruhr District, the factors which caused that development are still in existence..." See Samuel Van Valkenburg, European Jigsaw (1945), p. 12.
 * "The Removal of the Ruhr District from the Jurisdiction of the Allied Control Council." See A. P. Campanella, Western justification of the North Atlantic pact (1952), p. 155.

Ruhr region
Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hans van der Cammen, Derek Gowling and others, Four Metropolises in Western Europe: Development and Urban Planning of London, Paris, Randstad Holland and the Ruhr Region (1988)
 * "Towards the end of the century, this northern area became known as the Ruhr region..." See Graham Hollister-Short, History of technology, Volume 22 (2000), p. 25.
 * "...the British view was that a much larger economic unit would effectively dilute the power of the Ruhr region." See E. Owen Smith, The German economy (1994), p. 54.
 * "The Ruhr region is one of the biggest conurbations in the world." See John Smith, Revise for geography: GCSE: AQA specification B (2002), p. 77.
 * "...the happy coincidence of two factors: first, the growing importance of coal, with which the Ruhr region was richly endowed, in the making of iron and steel and, second, the fact that there was no traditional steel making industry in the Ruhr region." See Gary Herrigel, Industrial constructions: the sources of German industrial power (2000), p. 76.
 * "The relation of crude steel production to manpower shows that the factories in the Ruhr region have above average productivity rates." See Yves Mény and Vincent Wright, The Politics of Steel: Western Europe and the Steel Industry in the Crisis Years (1987), p. 664.
 * "The importance of coal - and particularly that of the Ruhr region - in the development of Germany is without parallel in the history of any other modern nation." See John Gillingham, Industry and politics in the Third Reich: Ruhr coal, Hitler and Europe (1985), p. 5.
 * "There is, in the Ruhr region, especially in the [northern] Emscher zone, truly a difference between an East Prussian inhabited block of flats, one with mixed inhabitants, and the streets of the inner city proper." See Keith Bullivant, Geoffrey Giles and Walter Pape, Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural Identity and Cultural Differences (1999), p. 23.
 * "Some of this expansion had taken place in the old iron and coal districts of Upper Silesia and the Saarland, but the new power house of German and European industrial might was the Ruhr region." See Sidney Pollard, Typology of industrialization processes in the nineteenth century (1990), p. 50.
 * "Much of the coal in Germany had a high sulfur content and originated from the Ruhr region. In the 1920s, soot, sulfur dioxide, and chemical pollution became so severe and industry so powerful in the Ruhr region that around 1930, the school in Solingen had to shut down for 18 months to accommodate industrial emissions." Mark Zachary Jacobson, Atmospheric pollution: history, science, and regulation (2002), p. 231.
 * "The Ruhr region of Germany (D) built up its heavy manufacturing base of steel, chemicals and textiles using local resources of coal and iron ore." See Alan Bilham-Boult, People, places and themes (2001), p. 123.
 * "The EU has, therefore, been assisting the Ruhr region as an Objective 2 area since 1989." See John Bachtler, Coherence of EU Regional Policy: Contrasting Perspectives on the Structural Funds (2002), p. 254.
 * "There are some 10 million people in the Ruhr region's 4300 square miles — roughly one-third the size of the Delaware River watershed in the United States." See Allen V. Kneese and Blair T. Bower, Managing water quality: economics, technology, institutions (1984), p. 239.
 * "The Ruhr region has long been famous as the center for heavy industry in Germany, starting with coal and steel production." See William Whipple, Planning of water quality systems (1977), p. 153.
 * "Some of this expansion had taken place in the old iron and coal districts of Upper Silesia and the Saarland, but the new power house of German and European industrial might was the Ruhr region." See J. Lesourne, Economic History: Harwood Fundamentals of Applied Economics (2002), p. 50.
 * "The four powers could not agree about the future of German heavy industry, called the 'Ruhr question' because much of it was, and is, located in the Ruhr region." See David F. Patton, Cold War Politics in Postwar Germany (2001), p. 16.
 * "France sought ownership of the coal-rich Saar region and control over the Ruhr region to stifle German economic recovery." See Philip Arestis, Andrew Brown and Malcolm C. Sawyer, The Euro: Evolution and Prospects (2001), p. 9.
 * "But in the late 1950s the mining industries experienced a serious crisis in sales, which resulted in the shutting down of mines — mainly those that had managed to survive in the southern part of the Ruhr region." See Jeffry M. Diefendorf and Kurkpatrick Dorsey, City, country, empire: landscapes in environmental history (2005), p. 66.
 * "The title of one chapter was 'The Ruhr Region as Tourist Destination,' a wording that signaled how unusual it was to consider this, one of the greatest mining and steel centers of Europe, as a site of leisure travel." See Rudy Koshar, German travel cultures (2000), p. 107.
 * "In January 1923 French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr region, the center of Germany's coal, iron, and steel production..." Dennis Crockett, German post-expressionism: the art of the great disorder, 1918-1924 (1998), p. 26.
 * "Many industries were built in the Ruhr region, where both iron ore and coal were found. ... Many of the Ruhr region's factories and mines have been abandoned." See Kathryn Lane, Germany: The Land (2001), p. 24.
 * "As has been noted, the geography of the Ruhr region provided RWE with the opportunity to mix brown-coal and hard-coal generation... The iron and steel works of the Ruhr region also loaded the RWE system economically..." See Thomas Parke Hughes, Networks of power: electrification in Western society, 1880-1930 (1993), p. 418.
 * "Just like the UK coal and steel industry, the Ruhr region went into a rapid decline." See Gary Cambers and Stuart Currie, Geography for Avery Hill (2002), p. 237.

Or to rephrase "The Ruhr ... which every Anglo-Saxon schoolboy has heard [is] the industrial basin now named after [the river]" it may be a "mistake" but it is the common usage in English and in English (unlike French) there is no right or wrong there is just usage. -- PBS (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied on the article talk page. It seems to me better that we make those comments there as it keeps it centralised and easily available to other editors. -- PBS (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. However, the industrial basin now named after the river is called "Ruhrgebiet", i.e. Ruhr region or Ruhr district (not Ruhr). Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

HA Schult
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you are selectively cavassing specific editors for support in a dispute we have been having regarding the article on HA Schult. This is inconsistent with WP guidelines, so kindly retract the comments and stop doing it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Biased users? Are you joking? What I have tried is to find some users who have experience in art-related fields and another one who can read German texts in order to prove that my translations are correct. This may be very useful for a third opinion. Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part of my post could have led you to believe, even for an instant, that I'm joking? Which part of WP:CANVAS did you fail to understand? Please take the time to absorb what I posted and comport yourself accordingly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These endless personal discussions are now going in the "wrong" direction. Let's both wait for a third opinion in order that the article may be improved. I am happy to have a break to cool down. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, what I posted was a generic WP canvas warning template -- that template includes the words "biased users", so don't take special umbrage to that, as it's just the boilerplate wording in the template. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

You were already cautioned about canvassing once, so why are you still doing it? Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I feel, your question to me, for a third opinion, is without bias, just a friendly human communication. I like clear words, while respecting the other. Regarding the HA Schult stuff I am sorry that these days I have too much work in RL, to solve the knot in the discussion about citations and stuff immediately.
 * On the other hand, HA Schult is on my screen since the black Cessna crashed near the Manhattan towers, and by the way, I know his concepts and his standing in the international art scene, as well as in the german-speaking art scene, and the controversities around his work. As an experienced author in the german wikipedia I have sympathy for both of your approaches. In your dispute about the sources it is obvious that both of you cannot find no general line to work together. Therefore it might be neccessary for me, to dive into the sources, to judge single arguments. I cannot promise that during the next weeks I will be able to do so. My active account in the german WP is Erfundener, member of a club of „quality writers” Atelier der Autoren.--fluss (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Troll
...Modernist (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not trolling here, as I have much knowledge about Caspar David Friedrich and German art of the second half of the twentieth century. My edits are well sourced according to Wikipedia's policies. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, since this was a case of edit warring and going against WP:CONSENSUS in an ongoing dispute, rather than a case of vandalism per se, the following would be the appropriate warning:

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * It is very interesting that there is no discussion concerning the reliable sources I have provided on the related talk pages. You can be sure that I'll have a break now. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Wikiwiserick: I do not judge here. Just let me say, it had been a constructive move, to ask for my opinion. AGF is reason enought to believe that your other moves also are intended as constructive contributions. You might choose a completely different subject for a test, with a different set of authors, and write a while there, to find out, whether the problem is „limited to the art-branch”. It may be that they try to keep or install high standards. This would be similar to the german WP. However, i find that wikipedia has become a quite unpolite machinery, and the reasons are manyfold. --fluss (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * It seems that you are ignoring the outcome of previous discussions on the Talk pages of HA Schult and Gotthard Graubner and inserting tendentious material. Please stop doing so and do not edit war or a bock might be the next step. Once again I refer you to WP:COI, WP:SOAP, and WP:ADVOCACY. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.


 * I am sorry, but I am not disruptive and have done nothing wrong. You are being tendentious as you are engaged in disruptive deletions. You have repeatedly removed edits that are based on reliable sources. I do not accept your blind reverts, as my contributions are well sourced and not tendentious as you falsely claim on the related talk pages. As you are the only person who questions my edits in a biased attitude and even includes wrong dates, we need a third opinion here. Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You are being disruptive, Rhode Island Red
I took a break from Wikipedia for several months because of your behavior, as you frequently acted disruptively and reverted my contributions, although I provided (and still provide) material from many reliable sources (art books, catalogues, art magazines, art-related webpages) and you admitted that you are unable to read German texts and have no specific knowledge of current German art. Now I see that nothing has changed. Moreover, you are showing the same kind of aggressive behavior on other Wikipedia pages as well (see, for instance, Frank L. VanderSloot, where you are deeply engaged in edit wars with several other users). I don't know whether your habitual "watchdog" attitudes are neurotic or part of a play. What is certain is that they represent conflicting tendencies and tend to put other editors off. Blind reverting to older article versions of inferior quality is an offense against Wikipedia policy, as is the deliberate inclusion of wrong dates. Indeed, it is a good way to get blocked. You are the big problem here, Rhode Island Red, not me. Therefore, I am reincluding the well-sourced additional information. Wikiwiserick (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing / removing of well-sourced content
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * You are still deeply engaged in reverting my well-sourced edits, and you are the only person doing so. I am not being disruptive, you are, as any unbiased user who is able to read German can see. So your accusations are unwarranted. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Museumsinsel Hombroich
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Museumsinsel Hombroich, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://voices.yahoo.com/insel-hombroich-unique-nature-art-preserve-neuss-52127.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. The source is now listed in the "Further reading" section of the article. Wikiwiserick (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557915913 your edit] to Anatol Herzfeld may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erwin Heerich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on HA Schult
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * You are being disruptive, Rhode Island Red. To my mind, your frequent inclusion of superfluous tags in several articles written by me and of warning notices on this talk page seems to be part of a harassment strategy, which is dangerously close to cyberstalking. I have not seen such an attitude before. Your blind reverts removing much additional information further expose the true nature of your activities. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Willibald Sauerländer) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Willibald Sauerländer, Wikiwiserick!

Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"This page is reviewed"

To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits
Hello, Wikiwiserick. A couple editing suggestions for you to consider: Regards, Eric talk 02:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please make a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
 * Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered.

Speedy deletion nomination of Kurt Badt
Hello Wikiwiserick,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kurt Badt for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TRL (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Kurt Badt was one of the most influential art historians of his time. He published important studies on several artists and is frequently quoted by English and American art historians. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

RIR
Hi Wikiwiserick. I think, you should know this, cause you're involved:. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this information. This seems to be part of this user's attempts at intimidation. For other examples, see the many nonsensical "warnings" above. However, I am not intimidated, just amused. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas W. Gaehtgens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Charles de Tolnay
Please do not continue to remove article cleanup tags on Charles de Tolnay. The notability of the subject is in question, in part because of the lack of secondary sources demonstrating notability (only 1 source is cited and it's an obscure offline source in German), and the tags must remain in place until the issue is resolved. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not add superfluous tags to the articles I have written, as all subjects are notable. These tags will be removed. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The tag is not superfluous and removing it is a breach of protocol. You are free to discuss the matter on the article Talk page and present any sources that you may know of that attest to the subject's notability as per WP:BIO and WP:RS. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is self-evident that the tag is superfluous, as Tolnay is a well-known art historian, as any other user who is familiar with art historical matters will confirm. These tags show that you are an incompetent editor as far as art history is concerned. So do not add these ridiculous tags again. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
 * Please stopp adding ridiculous tags. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Julius von Schlosser
Please do not continue to remove article cleanup tags on Julius von Schlosser as you did here. The notability of the subject is in question, in part because of the lack of secondary sources demonstrating notability (only 1 source is cited), and the tag must remain in place until the issue is resolved. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The notability of Schlosser is certainly not in question. Do not add superfluous tags. Otherwise you may be blocked. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, it is being questioned and for good reason, as I outlined above. A single source does not establish notability; not by a longshot. Feel free to present any sources that attest to Schlossser's notability as per WP:BIO and WP:RS and please refrain from edit warring. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't realize that another source was given. This again shows your incompetence. I have now added an additional comment on the related talk page. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Charles de Tolnay
 * added a link pointing to University of Frankfurt


 * Herbert von Einem
 * added a link pointing to Lorraine


 * Institut national d'histoire de l'art
 * added a link pointing to Jacques Doucet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max Dvořák, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Prague. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

New posts
Can you move new posts to the bottom of my talk page, otherwise it takes me a while to find them!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Werner Hofmann
Hi, the rule we have is that the article should be titled simply with the person's name unless there is another person with an article already. If you are intending to create an article on the other Werner Hofmann, then we will need to have a bracketed disambiguation - probably for both as neither is obviously much the more famous of the two. If an article is created on the other Hofmann, then the one on the art historian can easily be switched back. On the "Friedrich" issue, I agree with you in principle, but there will always be judgement calls. I'm not sure that Schult's work is sufficiently close to Friedrich to mention him. Part of the problem is that many artists get compared to Friedrich. Any artist whose work deploys references to the sublime; people isolated against landscapes; etc, gets compared to Friedrich. BTW, thanks for creating ther Hofmann article. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I looked at the talk page of the Friedrich article, and I see that the matter has already been heavily discussed. I don't doubt that Schult has been compared to Friedrich, but I still cannot see that the comparisons are of sufficient significance that he should be named. I did not challenge your view that Gotthard Graubner should be mentioned, as that seems to be a clearer case. Paul B (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Gotthard Graubner
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Instead of frequently removing well-sourced material I am including in the articles under question, you should wait for a third opinion. As far as I can see, you are the person who is only edit-warring here and not adding further material to the articles. All this has already been discussed on the talk pages, but you continue to revert my contributions. This cannot be accepted. I would call this "unconstructive". Therefore, your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Warning, which I am posting equally to both editors

 * I am now going to ask each of you to think--just think, but not say here--, why the question of just how closely associate the various people were at art school matters to you so much.


 * I now warn both of you that any mention of each other here or elsewhere will lead to a block. Discuss the edits. I also warn you that in interpreting 3RR, it's the meaning of it, not the exact timing that matters. Some admins may quibble about timing; I care about it being a war. Anyone who pushes it "close to the line" is likely to be blocked.


 * I also ask both of you to please stop editing these articles for the next 48 hours so I can look at them properly. This is intended as a temporary topic ban.  DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks in advance for looking at these articles properly. Of course, I'll stop editing them, but I would be most grateful if you could have a look at the most detailed versions in order to check the reliability of the many independent sources I have provided. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * BTW, I would like to be able to email you.  DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I need few days more to post my edits and explanation. I'm trying for Sunday, because I want to check in a library.  DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2210 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)