User talk:CarlPhilippTrump.me

Let me know your comments below please :) --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dial911 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published,

notable

and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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 Draft:Horst Hennert 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
  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.

Dial911 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CarlPhilippTrump.me! 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! Dial911 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:Reviewednote-NPF|1=Horst Hennert|2=Rosguill|3=I was able to find a profile in the Tagesspiegel, which helps contribute to the subject's notability,[1] but ideally more sources should be found and provided to cement the subject's [[WP:N|notability.}}

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CarlPhilippTrump.me,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username StudiesWorld and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, CCI30 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCI30 .

You might like to note that such

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|StudiesWorld}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

StudiesWorld (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A

CCI30, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here

.

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

StudiesWorld (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Chris Tucker. Thank you. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 13:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Alan Dershowitz, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 13:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/jeffrey-epstein-lolita-express-bill-clinton-flight-logs-1448367) is a respectable source and a first-hand YouTube video of the actual FBI call is not unreferenced or poorly referenced. I have reverted your edits. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree? Take it to the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:GUILT and desist in this line of editing. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 12:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Administrator here. You are forbidden to edit on any matter related to Jeffrey Epstein. The reason is that your edits have been disruptive and self-serving. Failure to obey this instruction will result in a block. Zero^talk 08:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on your user page,

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. RolandR (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the requested deletion by removing both the speedy deletion tag and possible reasons for it.

conflict of interest

disclosure that should perhaps be commended, although it should be marked more clearly as such.

CarlPhilippTrump.me, please note that promotion, no matter for which cause, is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If there are any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page or at the Teahouse. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not promotion its presentation. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also similar sanctions in place for

pseudoscience and fringe science

.

Also, glancing over your edit history, I'm seeing a serious problem with making sensationalist claims based on low-quality sources, or with sources that don't directly support the claims involved. All we do here is

nor commentary. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Since the tag is still here it's not necessary to repost it, but this is a reminder of the above BLP D/S sanctions, the tags are usually reissued after a year. —PaleoNeonate – 15:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your username, CarlPhilippTrump.me, appears to be your website url [2], from which you promote your businesses and ask people to contact you regarding entreprenurial opportunities. This could be seen as a violation of

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

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.

Doug Weller talk 15:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dissociative identity disorder. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Megaman en m (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the relevant page. Please ensure that the reverting party is taking part in the discussion. If not, I will revert – there are enough sources linked to justify reverts to that version of mine. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Dissociative identity disorder. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Mccapra (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bill Clinton. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've been warned about post-1992 US politics discretionary sanctions. Add a BLP violation to Bill Clinton's bio again and you will be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not unreferences. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THESUN. The Sun has been deprecated from use. The NY Post is highly unreliable for U.S. politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

What about the book "A Convenient Death: The Mysterious Demise of Jeffrey Epstein" ? --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that book has only gotten attention in venues like

WP:WEIGHT you want to give them on Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Considering the conspiracy theories pushed about Epstein's death, if no reliable sources put this book's claims in perspective it should probably be avoided as a source... —PaleoNeonate – 15:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the founder of Gutmenschen.org involved in activism and fund raising, you may have a

I think all the edits I made are correct – if you have anything specific which might not be correct please state it clearly. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits, you would do well to read and understand

WP:NOTHERE are relevant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your changes in Opus Dei and stop edit warring as you have done before in other pages. Marax (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPR and El Pais are trustworty sources – period. So please stop complaining. I created a NPOV article version of that organisation. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPR and El Pais are biased sources, as seen from these articles:

• https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/ - the former CEO himself says NPR has liberal bias
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Pa%C3%ADs Wikipedia uses 4 sources to say that El Pais is center-left

Wikipedia itself says that "According to several journalists who have worked independently on Opus Dei, such as John L. Allen Jr.,[13] Vittorio Messori,[75] Patrice de Plunkett,[128] Maggy Whitehouse,[127] Noam Friedlander[124] many of the criticisms against Opus Dei are myths and unproven tales.[140][141][142]"

Please see discussion at talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opus_Dei#Lede_issues_-_use_of_NPR_and_El_Pais

Marax (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Biomatics Capital Partners is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biomatics Capital Partners until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DefenderBoy27 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Marax (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marax, please just stop pretending: We work here based on NPOV – a brainwashing "cult" is supposed to be named that way in the first paragraph – we have sources from NPR, El Pais, multiple boook sources and a law suits from fromer members – so just stop bullshitting we obviously keep the NPOV information in the article. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not two years ago I ordered you to stop editing on Jeffrey Epstein. I was remiss in not monitoring your compliance, but I see that you chose to ignore me. Reviewing your edits I see a whole lot of conspiracy and gossip, with precious little that is actual improvement of the encyclopedia. So, here it is: you will immediately stop editing anything related to Jeffrey Epstein or I will block you. This time I will not forget to watch you. Zero^talk 13:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, I think my contributions are meaningfull. What exactly do you criticise please? --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ghislaine Maxwell‎. Not only is this section out of place in the BLP, and unduly weighted, it also contains references to the Epstein sex scandal about which you have already today been reminded of a November 2019 topic ban on Jeffrey Epstein. Clearly "a man on a mission", you also show a blatant disregard for policy on edit warring, across several articles. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was wrong of what I added? --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be bouncing from one disruption to another. I considered an indefinite block, given your response to warnings and your history of disruption - I decided on two weeks instead. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked a bit at your edit history and it is obvious that you edit with a conflict of interest as well as for specific activism (

I’m afraid I’ve lost good faith in this particular case, based on editing pattern, narrow focus, and general disruption. Since his username is a web url, I don’t think

WP:COMPETENCE issues though. I’m especially disturbed by “the punishment” aka “10 + x”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm going to do a deeper review of their edits and behavior -I wanted to stop the ping-pong disruption from topic to topic. Acroterion (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading