User talk:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf

Welcome to my talk page 2021-01-10

My preference is to spot and correct fact omissions/errors, correct syntax/phrasing and add interesting details which have been overlooked. If we cross paths editing, drop me a note here (if you want), but do not expect me to populate my user page as that does not interest me.

Here's an interesting folk saying: "In an argument between a cockroach and chicken, the cockroach is always wrong."

And an interesting LBJ quote: "Books and ideas are the most effective weapons against intolerance and ignorance."

And an interesting recommenced book: https://www.amazon.com/Shantung-Compound-Story-Women-Pressure-dp-0060631120/dp/0060631120/

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Tondelleo Schwarzkopf! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Tondelleo Schwarzkopf! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hi Tondelleo Schwarzkopf! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Kyle Rittenhouse several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr I politely ask that you admonish the editor who first reverted me without discussing things. And if you won't, please explain why not. And for the record, I did one undo, which is reasonable given the situation. Thank you. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're the only editor in this case that is reverting multiple other editors to try to force through your version. If you feel an edit summary is inadequate the solution is discussion, not reversion. You are not entitled to any number of reverts, but one, two totals a number larger than one. VQuakr (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that I invoked the "undo" procedure once today; the other was, if I recall correctly, a direct text edit. But that said, yes or no, do you admit that WWGB reverted me prior to engaging me in discussion? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:REVERT is a partial or complete undoing of another editor's edit. It doesn't matter if you clicked "undo" or not. Revert and then discussing a new edit is normal practice per WP:BRD. Restoring the edit without consensus is not. VQuakr (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. Rather, I am simply being precise in my communication. Also, it is true that the other user (WWGB) reverted me first - prior to communication. And isn't that of sufficiently bad form that an admonishment is warranted? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not bad form at all; indeed it's normal editing practice. Please review WP:BRD, which I've already linked for you a couple of times. More generally, how about you focus on your own behavior since its the only thing you can directly control? VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you can control your behavior, which is why I asked you about it. Thank you for finally answering my question. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. No one is shouting. Quit throwing out spurious accusations and quit musing about other editors' understanding of the subject. VQuakr (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "attack"; and because that's true, your comment here is both excessive and unwarranted. Also, I'm wondering, did you bother to say the same thing to the others there who commented about me first? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM. VQuakr (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you want me to understand from this most recent comment of yours here on my talk page, or else please delete that comment. I'm not inclined to try guessing what you are trying to tell me.. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on your own behavior, not that of other editors. BTW, it's generally expected that editors will be able to follow and understand bluelinks. VQuakr (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one focusing on me; I have not initiated any tête-à-têtes with other editors; it is they, and you, who are doing so., Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds editor to focus on fixing their own behavior; response starts with the word "you". Super reading comprehension. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deliberately posting snark on this page so as to instigate a controversy between us? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you? VQuakr (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. Are you? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Suggesting that to me is suspiciously akin to telling me to shut up, yes? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have had your say, what you are doing now is not letting go. This can be seen as wP:disruptive as its wastes users time by having to answer the same question worded 15 different ways. You are not going to get a different answer, no matter how many times you ask it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But there hasn't been any actual collaborative discussion with me, only shouting me down Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not others' job to ensure you are satisfied with their answers. VQuakr (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But they have to give me an actual chance to be understood, not shouted down Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have [[1]], keeping on about it after you have been told no will only get you a block. You do not need to reply to every person who responds, they have read what you have said, saying it to them again is disruptive. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the warning above, you need to not make spurious accusations against other editors. No one has shouted at you AFAICT. VQuakr (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making accusations; I am replying to comments left on my talk page. On his talk page, an editor has some latitude to reply to the gist of what he's being accused of. And I do feel that I am being deliberately shouted down. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, encountering disagreement with your ideas doesn't make you a victim. This is not a threat, but an observation: you are rapidly running out of opportunities to understand this and keep editing here. VQuakr (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even understand what you are saying. Are you telling me that by the mere act of discussing the word "controversy" you are going to kick me off Wikipedia? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to kick you off of anything. I am observing that a community block or ban is the likely outcome if you do not stop bludgeoning. VQuakr (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those things sound excessive; but I like to avoid adverse situations, so thank you for that information. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 01:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see the edit history on the article Fact. My efforts there were instrumental in substantially improving that article. This is a clear example that I am here to help build an encyclopedia and I am interested in precision, dialog and cooperation. I apologize for those things which caused me to be blocked, and I pledge to be more careful in the future. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It looks like you've been debating people on talk pages under multiple accounts for quite some time now. Your counter-example above, Fact, show something like three minor edits to the article's lead. There are many websites where you can debate people. Wikipedia, however, is not one of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.