User talk:Adlerschloß

This user may have left Wikipedia. Adlerschloß has not edited Wikipedia since September 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

:):)

Why is Georgia not an European nation? Please be respectful, at least Georgia became an unified country 800 years before Bismarck. SosoMK 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Japan. using TW

June 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Japan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Momusufan 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao

You can check my respond. [[1]] (cantikadam (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Vandalism

Hey. I am honestly sorry. I do not know how I deleted the entire section. I do not think that there is anything going on between me and you or the legitimately posed questions for me to remove something, let alone the entire section. I posted something below that section and probably did it accidentally. Next time I will try to use section edit buttons rather then edit at the top of the page as it seems to confuse me.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NATO criteria

Here is the Atlantic Treaty that established NATO. See article 10 http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm. that says that NATO "may invite any European state" ... ect. In the treaty it is not by mistake that they mention European and not just the state. Hopefully it will explain things.--Satt 2 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion section in Turkey

Please add any comments or suggestions relating to the reversion of the Religion section at the talk page on Religion (2). Thanks! Mohsin (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-edited my version of the section, please add your comments on the Talk Page, whether you are in favor of my revision (hopefully), or the other after reviewing it, Thanks! Mohsin (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote at the Religion (2) section of Talk Page of the article Turkey, viewing Version 1 (my re-edited version for a neutral prospective) and Version 2, and decide which is the preferred version for the Religion section of Turkey at the below of the page, Agree or Disagree for Version 1, Thank you!!! Mohsin (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Rafsanjani

Hi,

I am not going to delete your additions, as they are partly relevant. The problem is that Rafsanjani as the head of the government is only responsible for closing newspapers and so on and he can not be accused of execution or imprisonment as the Judiciary in Iran is independent from the government. Even his corruption is not approved ... even after a decade.

Every one knows that Rafsanjani is not a democratic person. I think his statement concerning 1999 riots is very important and we need a source for that. The current citation does not quote him directly and I am skeptical about its reliability. Any suggestion? Fooladin (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fooladin (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a serious problem with the paragraph except for the execution/imprisonment part. Head of judiciary system is responsible for that, not the president for obvious reasons. It is trivial. Fooladin (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the current version. I think it is more or less balanced. Fooladin (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read this article before. Before answering your point, I'd like to let you know of my opinion on the credibility of such sources when it comes to Iranian issues. I have seen several obvious mistakes in the same source during last few days. In one article Rafsanjani was referred to as the head of Guardian Council for example. As an Iranian, I do not have a feeling that these writers are well informed about the political structure of Iran.

The president of Iran has no power what so ever on The Judiciary System. The head of the Judiciary system is appointed by the leader. The ministry of justice is only an executive body and is again appointed by the head of judiciary system not by the president. So the responsibility of the executions goes to the supreme leader and the head of judiciary and not to the president. Fooladin (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Malta

The section I have been working on is entirely taken from a prominent Islamist blog. As such it is a Copyright Violaition and must be re-written.

I have added references for each change and striven mightly to remove or balance POV.

If you have specific issues with specific "weasel words" perhaps we could address them, the only alternative to rewriting this is formally ask that it be removed in Wikipedia's copy vio process. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the words you don't like are "conspiracy theorist", I am sorry if you felt insulted that term is from the Malta Today article, not my thoughts on the matter.Capitalismojo (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a crack at rewiting it. I think more needs to added re Christian right, with references. There is such information at Eric Prince's wiki article. I'll leave that to you.Capitalismojo (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Huma Abedin

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Huma Abedin. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huma Abedin (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

Thanks for your contributions. Can you find some independent secondary sources for this material?[2] There's no indication that these views have been reported outside of the movement. Will Beback talk 04:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no external sources, I'll delete the material. If we can find sources, then the material would belong in the Views of Lyndon LaRouche article, since these are all views. The bio article should be kept focused on events rather than statements by the subject. Will Beback talk 09:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. If this is an "event" rather than just a view, then it's reasonable to expect that it would have been reported in a mainstream source. LaRouche does and says many things that are only reported by websites and publications run by that movement. Readers who want to learn about those relatively minor details can go to those sources, which we link to from this and other articles. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on independent, secondary sources. There are plenty of such sources so we don't need to lower our standards. Let's give it a little longer to see if appropriate sources can be found. Will Beback talk 01:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these sources. Setting aside any questions about reliability, those two sources don't mention LaRouche's support for Clinton. Instead, they talk about what the followers are doing.

Lyndon LaRouche's (young!) acolytes were there singing something against the backdrop of an anti-Michael Bloomberg (??) banner. [3]
In 2008, the political activist and founder of the LaRouche Movement did not run for the Democratic Presidential nomination; however, his group supported then-Senator of New York and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[4]

So this material would seem more appropriate in the LaRouche movement article. The Digital Journal piece is similar to many other news stories that have come out over the past year, mostly in local newspapers, that report on street activities of the LaRouche movement. That article also includes reporting on LaRouche's webcast so if the aim is to add something about his recent activities we could add that instead. Will Beback talk 20:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that we move this thread to talk:Lyndon LaRouche? Will Beback talk 22:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See talk:Lyndon LaRouche#New material: LaRouche on Obama. Will Beback talk 22:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche sources are appropriate

I saw the note you left for WillBeback about why LaRouche sources are appropriate to show opinion on various matters. You're absolutely right. I've been fighting the *same* exact battle with Will (and other overzealous WP editors/admins) who don't seem to appreciate the distinction between using a source to support *facts* rather than to simply *show the existence of the source's opinion*. See for example this Aesthetic Realism draft page and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. In the case of the latter, I'm the only one there championing our idea that otherwise unacceptable sources are indeed acceptable for demonstrating opinion. If you'd like to weigh in on this matter there, it might help show that there are others who support this idea. Thanks, MichaelBluejay (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you're absolutely right. At WP:Verifiability it says "All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources."

FYI, Will Beback banned me (my original account, that is. I don't expect this one to last either.) It happened soon after I made this edit.] Watch your back. The Marshal of MacMahon (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was für ein Name ist Adlerschloß

Wie kann man ein Adler UND ein Schloß sein? Das ist unmöglich! ._. (=p) Warum heißen Sie denn Adlerschloß? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 16:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Stratfor email leak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackwater (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) 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.

- Mr X 16:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC) - Mr X 16:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Adlerschloß. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Carr

Just type in "Jeffrey Carr" into the archives search box. The issue HAS been discussed extensively. You really shouldn't restore material that's been challenged without consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and since you've been here awhile you should know this, you need consensus to put this text IN the article, not to remove it, esp. with discretionary sanctions in place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced Material is not Speculative

The information you removed from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Weev was qualified as 'alleged' because it came from a documented interview with Auernheimer himself. This was not personal speculation on part of the author. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.26 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Interference

Re: this comment, there are broadly two groups in the United States most heavily promoting the "Russia" narrative: Clinton supporters yet to accept the election results and party operatives desperate to maintain focus on Russia.

To appreciate the latter recognize that the most significant element in the recent election was not the battle between parties but within parties: a voter rebellion against the establishment. The RNC in the form of Trump and the DNC in the form of Sanders. The RNC rebellion was successful, they are now the party of Trump. The DNC rebellion was suppressed in the primary but contributed to Clinton's loss in the general; it is ongoing.

Added pressure comes from years of election losses. The Democrats are now a minority party by almost every measure: Presidency, Senate, House, State Government. The typical response would be change in strategy but change threatens party establishment. Change is also complicated by their strategy of a coalition of targeted interest groups above a unifying message.

The Democrats hope is to minimize pressure for change by maintaining focus on "Russia" sufficient to deflect criticism and reclaim a majority, somewhere, in the 2018 midterm elections. Success will carry the party until 2020 where it's hoped a charismatic candidate (like Obama) and anti-Trump sentiment will reclaim the presidency, cementing establishment strategy and quelling the revolt.

It is my opinion this strategy will fail and a more populist focus is inevitable. Whether that happens before or after 2020 is to be seen. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Theodore Postol— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Serols (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Adlerschloß. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Ort-Gerogien-1.png

The file File:Ort-Gerogien-1.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Adlerschloß. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Adlerschloß. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]