User talk:Fritz Fehling

(edit conflict)

So, I'm mobile now and can't type much with my thumbs, but just wanted to acknowledge your comment and let you know I'll get back to you.

One other thing: it's actually quite a responsibility to help someone new to wikipedia get on board, and I have no official capacity here, I'm just an editor like you, although I do have years of experience. I think it would help (me, and hopefully you) to have more than just one voice advising you, here. There's an editor who I trust who has been very helpful in the past mentoring new editors. With your permission, may I invite her here, to see if she's willing to offer her thoughts? It would also help me to divide the work a little. Would that be okay? Mathglot (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; the more truly committed contributors create this article, the far better...--Fritz Fehling (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am waiting for a sign (e.g. starting-direction/-signal advice). I intend to delete/archive my user-talk page for clarity and direct constitutional-democracy matters, if that's o.k. --Fritz Fehling (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, have been busy with other things; please stand by a day or two, and I'll create an article skeleton for you, and show you how to proceed. Mathglot (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft feedback

Well, I see that you got tired of waiting, and created an article, and embedded it on the Talk page of

Hi! But there exists no article to improve -- The redirection article "Liberal Democracy" is not "Constitutional Democracy"! I didn't know that there is such Talk:Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal page (out of public view -- out of public mind...), but may be it does the trick... I again got deletion problems with the Universal-Democracy-Constitution front-page picture for the draft, and could not even use the counter-argument-provision page, so I used the normal page instead; the usual authoritarian WP deletion/censor practice without any detailed reasoning! I am off for a week, so you can freely study it and overcome any remaining conditioning... Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a very few changes, mostly stylistic (boldface or not, straight not curly quotes) so that the article renders in Wikipedia's conventional format. I made a change to one paragraph that you called out as coming from de-wiki; it appeared to be

machine-translated

, so I redid a paragraph of it.

I haven't gone over it in detail yet, but there is one main point you will have to deal with, in order to have any chance of having the article accepted on Wikipedia. In its current state, I think the chances are close to zero. What you need to do, imho, is:

1. Find multiple, independent,
   secondary
   sources for the content you have written
2. then add footnotes for each one.

Much of the current version sounds like

original research

, and having footnotes to sources will be the first step. There are others, but this is the starting point. Be prepared that finding adequate sources and adding the footnotes, will likely take you considerably longer than just writing the article text, but it is what it is.

Have a great week! Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back again, couldn't wait. Thanks for your advice. A few minor matters: No, not machine-translated, I translated it better than any machine could, but dropped irrelevant parts [...]. I would like to rename the draft-Proposal to Talk: Constitutional Democracy/Republic -- Draft Article with regard of its future relevance incl. possible redirects, but I do not know how to access the header for editing -- please do it for me/us, and then change also your hyperlink edit in the talk page accordingly. (It is not ‘’’my’’’ page, I only initiated a concise basis/structure for this most important topic, and future democracy developments worldwide will find their way into the final article somehow (esp. as additions into “Roughly-Summarised History”)…). I have newly added a few relatively minor issues like STV voting and correction of India section.

References: It is wasteful and repetitive to re-research all other WP articles that I referred to, and other WP articles do not make such effort either! However, as there are some logical shortcomings/conclusions in some of those (like e.g. the India article mentions STV being approximately proportional, which is plainly false (any proportionality effect is rather random, like in Australia!)), so I added in this case a neutral STV description under the headline "...majority..". One must remember that the multiple authors are naturally sometimes also conditioned by their systems and cannot see their own mistakes -- this is one reason for my draft... Other small statements (e.g. Irish Sinn Fein being unable to claim British parliament seats because of oath-of-allegiance requirement) should not require references, as they are relatively minor and are known in the English-speaking world (I as a technological person am not very familiar with political/social reference research). Please point explicitly to those parts that appear to absolutely require further referencing, so that I can explain some background for us to achieve a teamwork solution with minimum of effort.

I have realised WP's unbold headline uniform, but decided to offer a change for special articles for these reasons: Constitutional Democracy/Republic is one of the most fundamental/important articles and should be very easily readable even for people with some visual impairment, and bold headlines make a very clear structure; In addition, this bold style also appears in the Table of Contents, so that sub-headlines remain unbold and minor in view, increasing visual clarity! I also tried to achieve a light-beige TOC and thumbnail-picture background, because the standard pink is insufficiently visible as a frame; I know that this is generally disabled, but WP should consider to implement an unchangeable palette of bright colour background for different topics, i.e. light beige for state systems/political articles, light yellow-green for nature/environmental/ biological articles, etc. Good feedback... Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article needs to be in Draft: or as a subpage in your user space not talk space. This is so the article and its associated discussions are together and form a connected page history if it is promoted to Article space. I have moved it to Draft:Constitutional Democracy (Republic). (Backslashes indicate subpages so are not used in article names. ) If you would prefer that the article be housed in your user space you can use the Move page function and then tag the resulting redirect with {{db-g7}}. When/if you are ready to propose it you can provide a link to the proposed draft. Jbh ^Talk 02:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Remarks to contents in [ ]: TOC 1. I added [power] structure, because a democracy constitution refers also to this rather than the mere constitutional structure; The long addition [ ] at the end is meant to be temporary until sufficient readers/reviewers have accepted that fundamentally language is defined according to the truth instead of deceiving pretence -- currently parts of the public seem not to have realised such general paramount neutrality purpose of definitions, independent of some language use. TOC 6. "...differing grades of [constitutional] democracy". Here I intent to explicitly also include the constitutions, not just democracy itself. TOC 9.6 (Italy) Detailed [human] rights: I saved words by fudging rights and human rights; Secret [fascistic] associations were forbidden: The link to Italy's constitution does not contain "[fascistic]", but it is obvious (I added the Mafia and Mussolini reasons) that this was the purpose of this constitutional restriction -- the Mafia is most secret and most life-threatening dangerous, and Hitler's ally Mussolini is publicly connected to the word "fascism", although it is older, deriving from a tried Italian revolution (close-knit association, gang; common dictionary). Please make alternative proposals, if these [ ] are not acceptable. --Fritz Fehling (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I archived the top part of this user talk page, but could not clear it afterwards.

Advice needed to obtain speedy release of the Universal Democracy Constitution.pdf from Commons

Wiki Commons is still keeping the (Universal) Democracy Constitution.pdf under guard, not even making it temporarily accessible for Draft:Constitutional Democracy (Republic) -- it is meant to appear as thumbnail picture top right. It is a neutral example for the draft contents and explains/exceeds it, and it would be counterproductively limiting to use any of the existing constitutions, most of which are falling short of known safeguards, clear structure, neutrality, etc. This is not helping insight, and reduces necessary discussions of the draft article (I don't want to appear arrogant or so when saying that the English-speaking culture under the monarchy naturally has a pre-judicial rejection tendency of continental constitutional democracies (see Brexit), so that this examination could help to overcome any conditioning (please forgive me!)). Please help; Should I stick this to the Administrators' Noticeboard? This draft discussion/examination appears to be the most appropriate forum to examine also the Universal Democracy Constitution.pdf... Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please examine/add to/correct the latest addition titled “Open-Source Constitutional Democracy/Republic” just above “References” for correctness (esp. regarding the constitutional character, the basic definitions, and required references), as I do not know enough about all the workings (incl. hidden) of WP/Linux… This area is just too new for me and most others.
• Proposal for drafts and for final articles (of course esp. for Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic)): It would make sense to embed just above “References” a permanent redirect-recommendation coloured-template bar as you did in Talk:Constitutional democracy pointing to “Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal”; I can’t achieve a proper inserted link etc., so I leave it to you…:

== Talk:Constitutional democracy ==

For discussing/examining this Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic) please visit:

Moved to Talk:Constitutional democracy

– but instead of “Moved to” insert “Visit”

A similar coloured template bar should be inserted in Talk:Project Politics top or bottom:

== Talk:Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal ==

For discussing/examining the Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic) please visit:

Moved to Talk:Constitutional democracy

– but instead of “Moved to” insert “Visit”

Following could also be added somewhere there, similar to Talk:Constitutional democracy:

Proposal: To keep contributions updated, clear & structured, please move your contribution to headline “Resolved Contributions” at the bottom, when you feel that it has been sufficiently resolved

== Resolved Contributions ==

(please move your/any resolved contribution(s) here :)

I noticed that the TOC turned dark green while editing; It's nice, but too dark to read the blue contents; how about light orange (complementary colour to blue)? Looking forward also to Mathglot's reply, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fritz. I've

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I had just written the following when you blocked me: Thanks for the advice; I am still learning... It (sh)could have come from the established awarded editor himself in the first place in order to achieve an examining discussion -- I have posted a copy to this editor, and will also post copies to the articles' user pages. Besides: not every false phrase in WP articles is backed up by references, and those should be able to be reverted with clear obvious proof and without references either -- the article proves itself wrong...! Greetings, Now I cannot even post it according to your advice onto the articles' pages! For example, German-Wikipedia's "Übertragbare Einzelstimmgebung" describes STV as identical to "instant runoff voting", and explicitly says that it is not a proportional voting system!!! This is not my original thought/reference that you disable from English-Wikipedia!... You consequently also blocked me from editing/developing the Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic). As this is a complex draft open to correction/fine-tuning/discussion/teamwork needing further work (user Mathglot advised earlier that he will provide further constructive advice/input), your block fundamentally goes against WP's encyclopaedia improvement purpose/provision -- a draft is not a finished encyclopedia article. (The last addition "Open-Source Constitutional Democracies" headline is just a proposal inviting established WP editors for input, because I do not know enough about WP's internal democratic workings as I described yesterday on my user page above, and your blocking action rather disproves its WP-democracy-describing contents...). Please reconsider the block, as the constant authoritarian easy pre-emptive deletion of edits and indefinite blockings are counterproductive (They will not prevent publicity of my work that also receives proof/references through existing democracies' constitutions (although there exists a language barrier that is partly overcome through the use of WP articles)) -- In other words: if WP were so unreliable regarding the truthful contents of its articles and prefers to support dictatorship propaganda, then it should fold up rather than wasting the public's time and endangering democracies; As I have obtained many good truthful objective info (except some political issues) from WP, I still want to believe that most established editors are acting in good faith and good knowledge. Could it be that WP is already taken-over by fascistic interests and pretends internal democracy similar to nation states? Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thoughts or concepts. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2018 (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.

For reviewing admin: ANI thread --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz, do you understand that Wikipedia is not a place for new theories? It's for encyclopedia entries... --Tarage (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Fritz Fehling: Let me try to explain why you got it all wrong, and why you should read Wikipedia policies.

You say: ...not every false phrase in WP articles is backed up by references... - Then those obviously false, unreferenced claims should be removed. It doesn't justify adding more unsourced material.

You say: German-Wikipedia's "Übertragbare Einzelstimmgebung" describes STV as ... -

WP:WINRS

says: Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

You say: This is not my original thought/reference that you disable from English-Wikipedia -

WP:NOR

says: The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research

You say: ...if WP were so unreliable regarding the truthful contents of its articles... -

WP:TRUTH

says: Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them

You say: ...and prefers to support dictatorship propaganda... -

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

says: ...Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them.

You say: Could it be that WP is already taken-over by fascistic interests and pretends internal democracy similar to nation states? - not sure what you mean by that, but maybe

Wikipedia is not a democracy will help. byteflush _Talk 15:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. While you are blocked, you -- the person behind the account "Fritz Fehling" -- may not edit Wikipedia at all, under any account name, or using an IP number, as you did today here. The block is for the person and not for the account. Your edit today was

And I've blocked the IP. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to the request made at User talk:Mathglot#Ref: Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal by IP 210.48.190.71 (talk · contribs).

First: though you edited my talk page as User:210.48.190.71, you plain-texted your sig at the end of your post as "Fritz Fehling"; and since I also recognize your unique style in both places, I am confident that User:210.48.190.71 and User:Fritz Fehling are one and the same, and I feel justified in responding to your IP request here at your user talk page. So I will address you here as "Fritz".

Fritz, I wish you all the good will in the world and don't mean to appear unfriendly, but the fact is, you are currently

1. when you are blocked, this means you, Fritz, as a person are blocked. It doesn't mean that this one account is blocked, and so you can just open another account to respond; and it doesn't mean that you can edit as an anonymous IP address while not logged in. These would be considered
   block evasion
   , and may make it less likely that an admin will accept a future unblock request.
2. I cannot engage with you right now about your democracy proposal, as I don't want to do anything that would make it likely you would attempt to respond, thus evading your block. I'm sorry.
3. An "indefinite" block is not necessarily an "infinite" block. But you are not helping your case by leaving talk page messages or attempting to edit while not logged in. Please don't attempt to edit again while you are blocked.
4. If you wish to appeal your block, there is a way to do it. If you want to try that, please carefully reread section #April 2018 above, which explains how. In my opinion as a non-admin, if you appeal now, you will almost certainly be declined, and it could hurt your future chances for an unblock. Instead, you should give it a rest and not appeal right now. I think the admins will probably want to see evidence of your understanding and good faith in adhering to policy by not attempting to evade your block for a long enough period of time to demonstrate that you fully understand the rules. Again, I don't make the rules, but if I were you, I would not make any attempt to appeal for at least six months (mid-February 2019), and a year might be better. If you do decide to appeal at that point, I think it's really important to demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked, and how to play by the rules going forward.

I do wish you the very best of luck, Fritz. Mathglot (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot!

WIKIPEDIA’s ruling class knowingly prevented public info about basics of democracy “due to lack of references”. This enabled recent removal of Human Rights, with propaganda for mandatory/compulsory Covid vaccinations, Ukraine war, and Chinese artificial-intelligence-dictated (by its programmers and their paymasters) social-credit-example system (that is creepingly installed in the West, too) — all in the direction of installing and fortifying fascistic dictatorships.

What better references for the deleted Constitutional Democracy article could possibly be provided?...

The slightly improved Universal Democracy Constitution .pdf article can be seen here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebshn4iijKR52BMobQOE_0bVtD3DXIhP/view?usp=sharing

I am not begging for unblocking my editing, knowing that anybody knowingly preventing correction of dictatorships weill experience true Natural Justice, also called Karma…

You can leave a positive constructive message on User talk:Fritz Fehling

Greetings, Fritz 210.48.190.71 (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]