User talk:Gsteinacher2

March 2018

Hello I am Gsteinacher2 - as suggested by shellwood I now make my case with third party independent sources for my argument that Austrians are not part of an imagined (see Benedict Anderson) Germanic nation - Germanic applies to a specific branch of languages rather than nationalities – e.g. English is a Germanic language but wikipedia does not speak of the English people as a Germanic nation and ethnic group. Most Austrians do speak Austrian German and therefore speak a Germanic language, but there is no Germanic nation. [Germanic might refer to the German nation, Germany in some dictionaries, but not to Austria] Wikipedia therefore does not see "Germanic" as a term for defining nationalities but languages - see definition of Germanic in wikipedia https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Germanic ) - for the definition of Germanic see definition by cambridge dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/germanic see defintion by Oxford dictionary https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/germanic Using "Germanic" for defining Austrians as part of a "Germanic nation" was common in the Nazi years, nowadays however this view is only used by Neo-Nazis and extreme right-wing circles see https://diepresse.com/home/science/1395265/Auf-der-Suche-nach-den-alten-Germanen . Hello I am Gsteinacher2 - I want conflict resolution from an independent forum on this issue: Germanic applies to a specific branch of languages rather than nationalities – e.g. English is a Germanic language but wikipedia does not speak of the English people as a Germanic nation and ethnic group - Italian is a Romance or Latin language, but wikipedia does not say Italians are a Latin nation. Wikipedia should be consistent! Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Austrians— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Not sure how to send a reply to Shellwood - but why are my edits not "constructive" - There is no explanation given. Thanks! Gsteinacher2 Here is my explanation against Germanic in this context and this meaning: "In the interest of consistency on wikipedia, terminology and formatting should be consistent therefore: Germanic applies to a specific branch of languages rather than nationalities – e.g. English is a Germanic language but wikipedia does not speak of the English people as a Germanic nation and ethnic group - see entry for English people on wikipedia. Also - Austrians "Central European" nation - if this is not OK, and me adding Central Europe or Central European is not accepted, then it should also be deleted in other wikipedia entries like the entry on "Czechs" etc"[reply]

Austrians

Hello I am Gsteinacher2 - I want conflict resolution from an independent forum on this issue: Gsteinacher2 (talk) I now make my case with third party independent sources for my argument that Austrians are not part of an imagined (see Benedict Anderson) Germanic nation - Germanic applies to a specific branch of languages rather than nationalities – e.g. English is a Germanic language but wikipedia does not speak of the English people as a Germanic nation and ethnic group. Most Austrians do speak Austrian German and therefore speak a Germanic language, but there is no Germanic nation. [Germanic might refer to the German nation = Germany in some dictionaries, but not to Austria] Wikipedia therefore does not see "Germanic" as a term for defining nationalities but languages - see definition of Germanic in wikipedia https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Germanic ) - for the definition of Germanic see definition by cambridge dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/germanic see defintion by Oxford dictionary https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/germanic Using "Germanic" for defining Austrians as part of a "Germanic nation" was common in the Nazi years, nowadays however this view is only used by Neo-Nazis and extreme right-wing circles see https://diepresse.com/home/science/1395265/Auf-der-Suche-nach-den-alten-Germanen Can I please get some feedback - thanks!

I got your mail but will reply here. The term Germanic refers not only to the languages but also to ethnic groups. Austrians are a Germanic people, just like Germans or even Saxons or Bavarians if you wish. It is very likely that Austrians today dont regard themselves as ethnic Germans but they are no less Germanic for that. [1] In any case making changes like that here will need some broder broader consensus and I will leave that task to you and other editors. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Your recent editing history at Austrians 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 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. 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am Gsteinacher2 - I want conflict resolution from an independent forum on this issue: Germanic applies to a specific branch of languages rather than nationalities – e.g. English is a Germanic language but wikipedia does not speak of the English people as a Germanic nation and ethnic group - Italian is a Romance or Latin language, but wikipedia does not say Italians are a Latin nation. Wikipedia should be consistent!

Get some third party sources that say that and make the case on the talk page. There are no independent forums here that determine content - only serving and behaviour -----Snowded ^TALK 23:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read the warning above but have continued too change the article before first seeking agreement on the talk page, If you change it again with that agreement then it gets reported and you risk a block. There is no central authority in wikipedia to resolve content issues - you have to work with other editors -----Snowded ^TALK 23:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Do not accuse other users for having biases. You have failed to reach consensus before making your edits, something several other users already pointed out to you. Shellwood (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gsteinacher2/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Gsteinacher2/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gsteinacher2! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Your recent editing history at Austrians 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 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. 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been warned on this and are obviously engaged in a long term edit war. Make the change again without consensus and you get reported for edit warring and face a block. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]