This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
hello Dl2000,
you reverted my deletion „multiple issues“ and more, the reasons are “unjustified deletions” and “tests”. So which “multiple issues”, and which “tests” please? I argued on the talk page, that all those verifications of the internationally well known subject Prof. Fegert could easily be found on the de.wikipedia.org-version. If necessary please correct the language (as it is written by germans), but not the contents. The Fegert-page was founded by two colleagues, from Ulm and Berlin, not “friends”. it was a gift to Fegert, a prominent person, very helpful and engaged. at last you are asking for verifications, o.k., we will change or transfer some of them.
On June 11th Rosguill added “multiple issues”, asked for “require copy editing”, he/she insinuated “contributer has a close connection” and forgot to discuss and verify it. So the article presents a warning in front nearly for a year, and nobody knows what the hell is wrong in the Fegert-article. Other editors corrected a lot of words or phrases in the last months, that’s good, but we cannot subscribe the warning. I’m going to write to the major contributer, that he should insert links and other verifications, and you revert the discrimination on the top of the article, o.k.? best wishes,--Jokergoestoscotland (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this photo -j.m.f.- is discussed critically, I see.
upcoming half half year I'm going to organize a new photo - taken by my camera or realized by another specialist seving wikimedia commons, o.k.? --Jokergoestoscotland (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
