User talk:Johannes Maximilian: Difference between revisions

Hello Jojhnjoy and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page BMW, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genau - Magna gratia! --Ἀστερίσκος (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I would consider it weird that Ludger actually links to the person I was taught to have the name Liudger, while the article Ludger does not tell the reader that Ludger is a regular name that is very popular in the region I grew up, since other names such as Thomas or Hans have their own article, why would Ludger not have his article as well? Best regards, --

Jojhnjoy (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Then you are from Friesland or NRW - great.--Ἀστερίσκος (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could take a look at my recent edits in the English (or German) Wikipedia, I guess you will have a good chance finding that out ;-) --

Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I would like to say, near my friend from Nordwalde :) You can find someting about me in the German Wikipeia (look at my account) --Ἀστερίσκος (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dynemetre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton. 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) 09:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Did you ,mean to remove the Scale Models section along with all the FB/spam type content? It's not really a problem if you did, but a number of car articles do have that section (particularly older cars)... Regards, Eagleash (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought they were a part of the IP-spam, so I removed that section as well. I don't think that mentioning scale models is unnecessary information in gernal, however, a lot of scale models of proabably every vehicle were made, so if we mention one of them, we need to display why we do this, what makes the scale model special, etc. Just mentioning the existance of a certain scale model with no further information is nothing that really helps in my opinion. For example, I also have a scale model of the

Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for creating Unimog 401, Jojhnjoy!

Wikipedia editor Jupitus Smart just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good work with the translations

To reply, leave a comment on Jupitus Smart's talk page.

Learn more about

Jupitus Smart 10:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

You are welcome to post short civil notes on my talk page that are specifically relevant to me. Do not post any more 2,000 word novellas, and do not fork discussions away from other participants. The Automobile Project community is considering this issue. It's not only about me. Forking the discussion excludes editors who have a right to follow the entire discussion. Posting unwelcome comments on others talk pages can get you blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, thats why I wrote "feel free to delete this again". Best regards, --

Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jojhnjoy and IDHT. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jojhnjoy, I've added the templates {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} to the end of the AN/I thread because it has gone far off topic, and the Admins and regular participants at AN/I do not take kindly to such long discussions. Please reply to me above {{Collapse bottom}}. Rest assured, everybody knows what "extended content" means, and they will click [show] if they choose to read the long discussion that follows. Everyone will be grateful for this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance to the outcome of this discussion: Jojhnjoy and IDHT at

@

Jojhnjoy (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not able to view the edit because it has been suppressed by an Admin. with oversight rights —

talk) 08:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, it wasn't some minutes ago. However, I announced that I would refrain from interacting with unit names and conversions in general and would refrain from changing, modiyfing, adding etc. units in existing articles: "I shall refrain from editing unit names and conversions. Further, I shall not add, modify, change or correct any units in existing articles. Whenever I find mistakes, I will mention that on the corresponding talk page and cite reliable sources. When I create a new article and have to add units, I will just cite the source word for word and perform no conversion at all." Do you think that is okay? Especially because I work on vehicle topics and adding units when I create a new article is mandatory there. With "mentioning on the talk page" I mean that I would mention content mistakes, for instance "it says 100 kW but the source says 120 kW" not "it says 100 PS it must say 73.5 kW instead". --

Jojhnjoy (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

No, don't do any of that. Another editor can build a case against you to get you blocked indefinitely. Even if there is vandalism, don't even revert it. My best advice to you is this, find a new subject to work with that doesn't violate your Tban. —

talk) 08:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This means I must not edit pages such as

Jojhnjoy (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I was replying to your question earlier here [1]. —

talk) 08:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Jojhnjoy (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

What do you want to express with: ″Some articles might not be wholly about units and measurements, but if there is some sort of connection depending on the edit, it will be considered a violation of the Tban.″? --

Jojhnjoy (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll clarify this again so none of us gets confused. You are not allowed to edit articles and their talk pages relating to "units" and "measurements" such as

talk) 09:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

JudeccaXIII

:

Okay, that is fine. I accept and respect that "changing" aspect. But what about possible mistakes? Mentioning them on the talk page is not permitted? And what about adding non-existent measurements. I don't mean just adding new units in addition to already existent units for the same thing but adding completely new sentences. Currently, I am working on a huge article expansion and it needs some units, for instance, when there is a sentence such as this one: "Engines with 80–125 PS (59–92 kW) were offered for this model." This will be a new sentence that is non existent at this current point. Should I write "More powerful engines were offered for this model" or just cite the source (as I said before?): "Engines with 80–125 PS were offered for this model." What am I supposed to do in any case like that? Does that mean I cannot add any such sentences? --

Jojhnjoy (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Dont add measurements or even inform another editor for possible error. You're also going to drop your attempt to expand an article if it has anything to do with violating your ban. I will later inform an admin of your Tban, but I must go, sorry. —

talk) 10:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thats why I want to ensure that I would not violate a ban with adding content. You tell me something about a topic ban but don't explain it. Again: How would I add a sentence like this one: "Engines with 80–125 PS (59–92 kW) were offered for this model."? It is necessary content. Also, am I right that I am not allowed to even mention obvious mistakes? Do you want to exclude me from contributing? Sorry, but you cannot leave it like that, you must be clear and precise. --

Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This editing restriction has been logged here. Alex Shih^Talk 18:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johannes Maximilian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

WCM_email 10:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

I am sorry to issue this warning. But this edit has been pointed out by another editor to be an obvious violation of your topic ban. I am obliged to tell you that the next violation will result in immediate block. Alex Shih^Talk 15:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not allowed to correct my own mistakes, so you are basically implying that prohibiting obvious mistake correction would improve Wikipedia. I totally agree on that. But let me show you something:

• Accusing someone of edit-warring (even though it is a blatant lie) to get them banned? Allowed.
• Supporting grievous bodily harm? Allowed.
• Implying that I lack any kind of respect? Also allowed.
• Correcting typos? Not allowed.

--

Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Jojhnjoy: I've sent you an explanation through e-mail. Alex Shih^Talk 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Could you please remove the Template:Retired from your user page, per the template doc? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

I have blocked you for 24 hours for contravening your topic ban on automotive subjects] when you edited Flathead engine. This is a 24-hour block. Please adhere to the community sanction upon your return. A Train^talk 12:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

You should probably tell the designers of the Cadillac V-16 that their engine choice was unsuitable for an automobile. I sincerely and earnestly suggest that you stop trying to pedantically wiki-lawyer your way around the topic ban, or you will be indefinitely blocked in short order. A Train^talk 12:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How broad is that topic ban? Does disruptive trolling on automobile topics (I think "the primitive valvetrain of engines unsuitable for automobiles" clearly applies) also cover his user talk: page whilst otherwise blocked?

This behaviour is exactly what the topic ban was put in place to avoid. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a one-off comment to contest a block by claiming the specific article is not subject to the ban, but now that the claim has been clearly refuted then any further discussion should be curtailed - so I have revoked talk page access for the duration of this (very lenient) block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This wasn't impressive either. Do you have any intention of observing that topic ban? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ban was placed in July, and I see Jojhnjoy has been editing talk pages in defiance of it ever since - for some examples see here, here, here, and more.

@

Jojhnjoy: If I see one more edit in defiance of your ban, on any page (including talk pages), I will block you for the entire duration of the six-month period you must wait before appealing it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]