User talk:Ofthehighest

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ofthehighest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Lone boatman (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Eternity clause, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Formal, Amendment and Equality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Eternity clause, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Lone boatman (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Eternity clause, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Lone boatman (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Eternity clause, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lone boatman (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lone boatman, I did not remove maintenance templates purposefully. And I only remember removing the text of the Eternity Clause article once. But there are three warnings here. That I do not understand. It is my intention to follow Wikipedia's policies, not "DISRUPT". Apparently, from reading your talk page you have been a part of Wikipedia for a long time and are giving much good advice to many users here. Thanks for your advice. I do not want to get booted off of Wikipedia, especially not for writing the truth. --Ofthehighest (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please STOP adding personal opinions and analysis to Eternity clause. Lone boatman (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What "personal opinions and analysis" are you referring to? I have put a reference to the "United Nations and Rule of Law" for one sentence that you deleted in the 3rd paragraph. I see that you also deleted the section where I wrote that the eternity clause protects itself. That subject is also found in the Deutsch article. Ther are many things said in the Deutsch aricle that have no reference or citations. I have tried to sign after editing, but the signature shows up in the final article. How do I sign after editing so my signature "ofthehighest" doesn't show up. Thanks.--Ofthehighest (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it you who is deleting the sentence: "The eternity clause and “the basic principles” of Articles 1 and 20 are the essential and applicable barriers against a new totalitarian movement in Germany."? If so, why? It is not my assertion or opinion. It is a very important emphasis and the reference (source) for that sentence is in the same article referenced (sourced - cited) in the sentence before it. If I must reference/cite both sentences, please tell me. Or maybe I should put the reference after the second sentence. Thanks.--Ofthehighest (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "The eternity clause and “the basic principles” of Articles 1 and 20 are the essential barriers against a new dictatorship in Germany" were referenced by someone's blog, which is not a WP:Reliable source. I've made notes for all my changes in the article's edit history. Lone boatman (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the sentence "The eternitc clause and "the basic principles" of 'Articles 1 and 20 are the essential barriers against a new dictatorship in Germany" comes from the same source referenced/cited in the sentence preceding it. The blog you are referring to is my blog (ofthehighest.wordpress.com) where I have referenced that sentence from the source (Quo vadis, Germany? Current Concerns 15 July 2012) I referenced in the eternity clause article on Wikipedia.--Ofthehighest (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ofthehighest. You have new messages at Lone boatman's talk page.
Message added 13:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lone boatman (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eternity clause. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. Lone boatman (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to see that I am wasting my time here on Wikipedia. Why? Because nothing is secure, not even the truth with verifiable sources can be told here on Wikipedia. It doesn't stick. At this point I suggest you write the Wikipedia article on the Eternity Clause. Afterall, you are censoring me at everything I write. Good luck. I'll check back in a few days to see if you are truly a believer in basic democratic principles. If you like you can draw from my blog. I have included in my blog the sentence you wrote, "The eternity clause establishes that that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed." It seems to me that most editors on Wikipedia allow false statements, but censor the verifiable truth. That makes Wikipedia a propaganda machine.--Ofthehighest (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Eternity clause, you may be blocked from editing. Lone boatman (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding repeated additions of unsourced analysis. The thread is "Eternity clause".The discussion is about the topic Eternity clause. Thank you. --Lone boatman (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman, you have repeatedly removed the word "democracy" from the sentence referenced (cited with the National Review). And you claim that you are not starting an "editing war," but are doing it again. First, you replaced "democracy" with "constitution" to support your argument that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution," and after I explained that the reference cited was speaking directly of changes which move away from "democracy," (i.e., "The eternity clause establishes that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed, even by parliament."), and asked you to please not remove the word "democracy," you again removed "democracy" replacing it with "Basic Law". You claim that we must change it because the word "democracy" is too broad. There is nothing "broad" about "democracy," especially when the topic is about protecting "democracy". The eternity clause make specific provisions to protect "democracy" as stated in the article referenced in National Review. Now please leave it, because your changes are repeatedly taking the article off course (off the topic), i.e., the intent of the eternity clause to protect democracy, as stated and referenced in the National Review (cited).--Ofthehighest (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Eternity clause, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Lone boatman (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding repeated additions of unsourced analysis. The thread is "Eternity clause (part 2)".The discussion is about the topic Eternity clause. Thank you. -- Lone boatman (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Eternity clause, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Lone boatman (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239: please note that it's an archived talk page, and therefore shouldn't be edited once it's archived. You're of course welcome to add new discussion to the new thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Eternity clause (part 2). Lone boatman (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a volunteer at DRN. I was editing the dispute but another volunteer appropriately closed the dispute before I did. The DRN is not the appropriate vehicle to discuss conduct issues. I reviewed the article and talk pages and noticed some problems there. I'd like to discuss them with you if you wish. I am hopeful I can help. You may respond here and I will be notified of any changes to your page. If you do not wish to discuss the issue let me know here. Best. Jobberone (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jobberone, the article is gone, Lone boatman and others hacked it to pieces - and now they have deleted it completely, replacing it with what you see. The 'Eternity clause' article was about Germany's 'eternity clause,' how it functions, its purpose in securing the fundamental principles of democracy, and the history of it. But after I told Lone boatman that he was synthesizing (not "paraphrasing" as he claimed), he changed the whole page by turning it into an article like Wikipedia's "entrenched clause" article. And suddenly today many "editors" showed up, as though Lone boatman contacted them to form what he claims is a "consensus". There is no "consensus," just an attack on the article. I have tried to discuss with these "editiors," but they do not discuss - only insist on having it their way - acting at whim, threatening to have me blocked if I write again. Lone boatman always gets the last say, because he deletes and changes things and then threatens me. And he lies in his complaints about me. And I have tried to reach an authorized Wikipedia administrator, but have not been able to. In the meantime Lone boatman tells me he has deleted my complaint to an administrator.--Ofthehighest (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually Lone Boatman is not your problem and he did not delete your complaint. An administrator who is also a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard closed the complaint. As I explained and the administrator did at the DRN, that is not the proper place to file a conduct dispute. I'm going to go out on a limb here and be very forward because I believe you are acting in good faith. Your problem is you don't understand how Wikipedia works.

Despite all your good intentions you are getting in your own way. Here is the best advice you have gotten-

Please be careful how you use the word vandalize. It has a very specific meaning on wikipedia. At the top of this page have been added several links to wiki policies. Do please read them. It can take a while to learn the policies but proceeding slowly and assuming good faith are important. If you have questions there are many options. The above links, the helpdesk, your talk page, or an article's talk page are all available. You can also add {{tlx|helpme}} to your talk page, and this will indicate to available admins that you need assistance. JanetteDoe (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I copied this from the bottom of your page because she is trying very hard to help you and she gave you great advice. I couldn't say it better so I copied it for emphasis. Take the time to learn policy. If you think it a good idea to postpone some editing until then I'd do that, too. Jobberone (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It has become very apparent to me that I have been wrongfully censored here on Wikipedia, first by Lone boatman and then suddenly by several other editors who jumped on Lone boatman's bandwagon today - endorsing his changing the topic of the article to one already called "entrenched clauses". The 'eternity clause' article is specifically about the German 'eternity clause,' and it has a German equivalent called "Ewigkeitsklausel". Lone boatman did this because he was angry that I corrected him for synthesizing when changing (removing) the word "democracy" and replacing it with "constitution". Then another editor (Bdb484) deleted the 'eternity clause' article entirely without even discussing it on the talk page. I went to much work to reference everything in the article. What is interesting is that these additional editors (three of them) all showed up today. They had never been on the page before, but all acted quickly in agreeing with Lone boatman and vandalizing the page.--Ofthehighest (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful how you use the word vandalize. It has a very specific meaning on wikipedia. At the top of this page have been added several links to wiki policies. Do please read them. It can take a while to learn the policies but proceeding slowly and assuming good faith are important. If you have questions there are many options. The above links, the helpdesk, your talk page, or an article's talk page are all available. You can also add {{helpme}} to your talk page, and this will indicate to available admins that you need assistance. JanetteDoe (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ofthehighest, judging from the edit summaries, the IP at 80.187.201.99 (talk · contribs) appears to be you. It has edited at least five times at Eternity clause on September 6 and 7.

1. 18:38, 6 September 2012 (edit summary: "You've done it again -- repeatedly and wrongfully taking "democracy" out of the sentence. The reference cited is about not changing "democracy," but you are insistent on removing "democracy" and replacing it now with "Basic Law".")
2. 18:39, 6 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 19:00, 6 September 2012 (edit summary: "The reference (cited article) is about preventing the elimination of "democracy," which is exactly what you do by repeatedly removing the word "democracy" -- please leave it now.")
4. 19:03, 6 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 20:27, 7 September 2012 (edit summary: "You have all willfully vandalized the article, violated all the Wikipedia policies. None of you were open to discussion from the beginning. You did exactly what you all wanted to.")

Please ensure that you use only your registered account when editing controversial articles. See WP:SOCK for the policy which applies. If you continue to use both an account and an IP to edit the same article, a block is possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

EdJohnston, sorry for forgetting to log in. Also, I have a bad connection to the internet and sometimes get disconnected, and once reconnected I forget to log in again. I will make a greater effort to ensure that I am logged in.--Ofthehighest (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked you from editing articles for one week for your constant accusations of vandalism against other editors ar Eternity clause where there was none. You have previously been warned about it and several editors have bent over backwards to explain the principles of Wikipedia to you. So I 'm now giving you a last chance to read up on WP:Civility, WP:Vandalism and WP:Edit warring. Should you continue to make unjustified accusations against other editors after your block has run out you may be blocked indefinitely. If you feel that this block was unjustified, please put {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}} on your user talk page and explain why you think you should be unblocked. De728631 (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)