Saschaporsche

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Saschaporsche. 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 benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Wikih101 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I cannot see any reason for your edit summary in this edit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Pieter, good you ask, i'll explain. Lately i've discovered that user:Mdd contributed a lot of self promotion on several Wikimedia projects: nl.Wikiquote, nl.Wikipedia and Commons. That's the reason why i've checked some of his contributions also on this wikipedia. The file in question which i deleted is a photograph of a "bookcase" made by Mdd several years ago. So placing this picture, together with his full name is -in my opinion- only done for self promotion, and NOT to enrich/complete Wikipedia. That's why i deleted the file here. regards Saschaporsche (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Saschaporsche, you seem tot accuse me of "placing that picture, together with my full name - which in your opinion- is only done for self promotion". But where is your prove of this accusation? -- Mdd (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

@Saschaporsche: I do not know who added the image to the article. Probably someone speaking Dutch, maybe someone who owns a bookcase like this one. But I did check that it had not been added by user:Mdd. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I guess the whole point is that Saschaporsche should have checked before making the accusation (here while removing the image) and/or here (in his comment of 09:36, 8 February 2012). So now there is a double unfounded accusation. The next matter is, what to do if this becomes known and/or questioned? The first time Saschaporsche responded in 30 minutes, but now it has been half a day. This is not ok either. I guess the easiest thing to do here is just restore the situation and apologize. -- Mdd (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hallo everybody, sorry it took some time before i returned here, i was incorrect this time. Mdd did not put that photograph in the article. 'I'm sorry i said that, i see that in the article bookcase the picture is restored.

However Mdd knows damn well were he did lots of things on wikimedia which are not correct. I discussed several "things" already with him, and i expect him to be more careful next time he makes a contribution. (and i myself will make sure that i will not make this mistake again). Furthermore I urgently ask him to edit his profile on linked in where he claims the following :Honors and Awards Wikipedia featured article :Wetenschap (science) on the Dutch Wikipedia in 2008. On wikipedia you can NOT make a claim that you yourself made/wrote an article. This is a project where everybody together builds an article, not one single person. regards Saschaporsche (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

That was not a gracious apology. As for LinkedIn, Wikipedia should appreciate that kind of publicity. And it is comparable to what is quite customary here. This wikipedia has templates for it. See for example this user page for a collection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

@Saschaporsche, this kind of apologize with new unfounded (of better undefined accusations) is not acceptable. You have no right to start about my linked-in page and a featured article on the Dutch Wikipedia. Real life matters like this should not be brought up, especially if there is no direct relevance, which there is not here. This is not even a matter of the English Wikipedia, but about an article on the Dutch Wikipedia. Just let it be.

More important: We have had related discussion earlier on Wikiquote (see here), where you brought up the same preconceived opinions. Your seems to be convinced that I am just trying to advertise (I mean "reclame maken") my work. In that discussion on Wikiquote, I have already explained I am representing my work. In the matter of the KAST-kast, that is published several times in the regional and national mass media between 1992 and 1998. The object has become a kind of design icon (in the Netherlands) in the 1990s. If you start showing it in Wikipedia ten years later, and it hasn't been for sale that long, you cannot keep saying it is only advertisement.

Things like this should be handled with care. In the Wikiquote discussion earlier, your where not prepared to even start discuss the matter of "advertising versus representation". Instead you came here and started the new accusation of self promotion, pretending: So placing this picture is... NOT to enrich/complete Wikipedia. It would be a good thing if, instead of these (new) accusations, you would start thinking about this matter and further discuss this. -- Mdd (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

@pieter kuiper, i disagree with you. On the english wikipedia there may be a "star" system, on dutch wikipedia there is no such system! That's because everybody is contributing to an article, and the article becomes the work of the community! So, i think mdd is wrong in pretending on linkedin that he is the author of a featured article!

@mdd, i am prepared to discuss this item with you, however as you know there are RULES on wikipedia which quote " it is strongly recommended not to write about your own person or company you work for" So, writing about yourself on wikiquote/wikipedia is not recommended/desired. You know that! And that's why your page on wikiquote has been removed since you did write it by yourself. There is nothing more to discuss about this. Saschaporsche (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

@Saschaporsche. This discussion doesn't work. You keep bringing up the matter of my linked-in page. And in the matter of Wikiquote you are not telling the whole story:

• The Wikiquote article has not (yet) been removed, but moved/copied here, which even you approved here, and
• the original article has been proposed for deletion here twice (26 jan 2012 17:37 by Whaledad / 30 jan 2012 04:01 by Whaledad for speedey deletion) but the hasn't been any decision yet.

This seems to turn into a kind of foul play. Users are being blocked here for less, if I am not mistaken. I never went that road here on the English Wikipedia, and I am not going to start (yet). The thing is that this kind of behavior has been regular on the Dutch Wikipedia, where there is a mayor case going on about that. And I guess you came to Wikiquote and here to put more pressure on that matter. Or just because You took side, and are under the impression that you are doing the right thing. Well it doesn't look like that at all. -- Mdd (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Saschaporsche, isn't it just possible to put the picture back in the article without the text? I do not think there's anything wrong with the picture as such. The Wiki ghost (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

hello wikighost, the picture has already returned to the page. Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Saschaporsche,

see Talk:Jewish Defense League#Attribution of the picture (and most of the discussion above). There seems to be some kind of deadlock. Do you think you can mediate in some way or do you happen to know others who could? I ask you this because you know most of the users involved and because I think that if those problems could be solved somehow on this wiki, there may also come a solution for the similar problems on nl:wiki. Best regards, The Wiki ghost (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

(P.S. by the way, I apologize for not reading the discussion above well enough before I asked something).

dear wiki ghost, sorry i don' t have the time right now to stick my (writing) hand into this bee's nest. ( is that correct English ) . Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sascha – sorry for the delay in replying; I have only just seen your message.

I think that generic Western Australian Museum link was a result of to the information being on a non-linkable/"deep web" page. Whatever the case, you can find relevant pages through the website's search system, such as Carnot Bay DC3 PK-AFV Pelikaan (1942/03/03) and Zero Hour & Carnot Bay.

Unfortunately I can't fix it myself right now as my internet connection is extremely slooooow today and I have a lot of work to do. I will try to do it soon though.

Grant | Talk 09:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, i updated the reference on the 1942 KNILM Douglas DC-3 shootdown page. regards Saschaporsche (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please stop deleting images because you cannot see the article properly. If you're having problems, change your display settings. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any "problems". Wikipedia pages should be "nicely" visible on ALL sizes of screens. That's why i changed it. Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

But what exactly is the problem because of which you removed the image? You're rather vague about it.Tvx1 20:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tvx1 — his problem is that if Vettel's image is included in the article, it creates a large white space as the team and driver table is forced down under the images. He finds this to be ugly, despite the way it is done on dozens of season articles for multiple championships. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Adding the extra picture pushes the "Team and drivers table" in the next paragraph down (which ruins the "look" of the page). Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Editing decidions should not be made on the grounds of aesthetics. Especially considering that these images are standard practice for ALL motorsport seasons. Including the image adds far more to the article than removing it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Adding the picture, is a temporary thing, since leadership will most probably change a couple of times during the season.

There is no "standard practice" as you suggest for ALL motorsport articles (as far as i know),if so, please point me to where these rules are written.

There is no rule, that this picture HAS te be in this lemma. this lemma should be balanced, in text and in pictures. i disagree with your opinion. Saschaporsche (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Adding the picture, is a temporary thing, since leadership will most probably change a couple of times during the season."

In which case the image will be updated accordingly, as it has been in previous years. You're also ignoring the way that the article lead will grow, and the suggestion that you change your settings if you are having trouble viewing the article.

"There is no "standard practice" as you suggest for ALL motorsport articles (as far as i know)"

Then why don't you look at some of them, such as 2017 World Rally Championship and 2017 Supercars Championship?

"this lemma should be balanced, in text and in pictures."

And the existing practice says that the current championship leader's picture should be included in the article lead.

"i disagree with your opinion."

Unfortunately, you're going to need a consensus to change it. You have been directed to the relevant WikiProjects, but have made no attempt to start a discussion there. What you are doing amounts to edit-warring. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where are you directing me to which pages? I see no links

And the existing practice says that the current championship leader's picture should be included in the article lead. Where does it say so in our wikipedia rules?

the suggestion that you change your settings if you are having trouble viewing the article. I cannot change "my settings" as far as i know. I'm restricted to the size of the display of my screen.

You are reversing the truth here, there was no picture was "the championshipleader" . NOW there is one added and I should seek for a consensus to change it???? NO, you should seek consensus to add it (my POV). Saschaporsche (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Where are you directing me to which pages?"

In an edit summary, since that was where you were most active.

" I cannot change "my settings" as far as i know. I'm restricted to the size of the display of my screen."

And you can change the settings on your device. Please bear in mind that although you can now see the article "properly", your edits have changed the way other people can see it. Don't assume that what is "proper" for you is "proper" for everyone.

"You are reversing the truth here, there was no picture was "the championshipleader","

What? We have always included the championship leader and defending champion in the article lead. Since Rosberg isn't defending his title, there is no need to include him there.

"NO, you should seek consensus to add it"

That's not the way it works. We've included the images for years, and it has been applied to dozens of articles. I don't need a consensus to keep doing what we have always done because one person disagrees with it. Your edits represent the bigger change, so the burden of consensus rests with you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please point me to the LINKS where the "rules" are printed as you claim. Saschaporsche (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please read this before you continue any further: do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Your edits at 2017 World Rally Championship are disruptive; the image is a visual representation of the calendar, and so the calendar section is the most appropriate place to put it. Your decision to move it elsewhere is motivated by an attempt to make your case at 2017 Formula One season (and it doesn't, since you have changed just one of dozens of articles). If this continues, you may be taken to the administrators' noticeboard for your disruptive editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please STOP offending me! I have been a editor on wikipedia for a very long time, i know the rules. Don't threaten me again or I will ask for a ban for your account if i see more misbehaving from you. Saschaporsche (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

"i know the rules"'

Clearly you don't, since you've broken 3RR and POINTY.

"Please STOP offending me!"

If you're offended by people disagreeing with you, you might want to reconsider editing. Disagreements happen, and if your response is to be offended, you won't enjoy your stay.

"Don't threaten me again"

I'm not threatening you. I am merely reminding you of the rules that you claim to be familiar with, but have consistently ignored.

"I will ask for a ban for your account if i see more misbehaving from you."

You're welcome to try. But I haven't broken any of the rules; you, on the other hand, have. The administrators are far more likely to block you for violating 3RR, deliberately disrupting other articles, and threatening sanctions to try and force edits through. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please get a consensus before making changes to the articles. Moving the images around might make the article layout more aesthetically appealling to you, but your changes negatively affect the articles for mobile and tablet users because your changes put images in the middle of articles with no context and no explanation as to why they are relevant to that part of the article. You have been repeatedly told not to do this, several editors have taken issue with your editing decisions and you have either ignored directions to talk pages, or refused to engage in those discussions. If you continue to make these edits, it may be considered disruptive and you may be referred to the administrators. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are the only one who has objections (for the wrong reasons) against removing "white space" from wikipedia pages. You keep on giving a very false interpretation of the truth about this. There are no "several editors who have taken issue with me" on this! You are not providing any links to these "rules" or "objections from others". You were the one who broke the 3RR rule. Stop this behaviour please. Act cooperative instead of opposing me constantly. Saschaporsche (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Marty Rathbun has returned to Scientology. I am on my phone and can't do much editing this week. He has posted on YouTube and probably his site - has changed his story completely. Sorry I can't cite sources this week. If you could please help me with this I would be very grateful. Sh33na 19:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh33na (talk • contribs)

Hi Sh33na, Sorry this does not sound very convincing to me. On wikipedia we like "sound proof" with credible reference. Just "you tube" is not enough. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Marty himself on video stating he has returned is not enough? Then I will wait and correct the article to how it should be updated when I can instead of hoping you might do one minute of research with me. Thank you. Sh33na 21:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh33na (talk • contribs)

Hey, I saw you undid my last revision on the page for The Yellow House, but I didn't see a reason given in your edit summary. Just wanted confirmation on why the picture was reduced in size. Thanks, Tkbrett (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tkbrett, sorry forgot to mention that! Infoboxes on Wikipedia are always in a sort of standard format. Your revision expanded the infobox quite “distasteful” that’s why I reverted it. Hope you understand this. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. I've seen images be enlarged on a few pages for individual pieces of artwork, so I assumed it was a fair move given that the Yellow House (at least to me) appears relatively small on the page. Is there anywhere in the manual of style where it provides advice? I've looked through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, but it doesn't seem to directly say. I've been editing a lot in the Visual Arts sections of the website, so I want to make sure I'm doing things properly. Thanks! :) Tkbrett (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ {talk} 07:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for removing that controversal section. Even I was confused about it and removed it but the sourcing to me I thought was adequate. Thank you for removing that, reliablity is key! OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your remark. We shouldn't jump to conclusions here (although the general public wants us to do so..) Let's wait till the investigation is finished. Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

It’s all buddy. Other contributors keep adding stuff like that heck I got very confused by that. But yes let’s see were the investigation goes. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit was problematic. You had to observe the source which says "32 lakh" which means 32,00,000. Information is correctly supported by the source. 119.160.69.15 (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person (Steve Novak), but that you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for Bringing this up. I must have made a mistake when I checked the changes to the article (and reverted to an earlier version). Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Just wanted to let you know I reverted a change you made. I talked a bit in the edit summary at that link about why. Thanks! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 12:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please do read this article about eye witness accounts: https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=ijaaa Eye witness accounts are rarely correct... kind regards Saschaporsche (talk)

Oh, I do believe that they're generally unreliable. My point was just that for Wikipedia to be the ones to decide which are worthy of reporting or not seems to run afoul of the no-synthesis/no-original-research policies, at least by my understanding. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 13:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's quite simple. Wikipedia should only use reliable sources. Eyewitness accounts are NOT reliable (as shown), so even if Reuters published these eyewitnessaccounts that does not mean that they are reliable and that we should include them here! To the contrary, we should refrain from using/publishing them. Saschaporsche (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reuters is reliably reporting that eyewitnesses made given claims. Even if the claims themselves are inaccurate, it is reliably sourced that those claims were made, and that's what Wikipedia should include... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 15:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I disagree, the fact that Reuters is publishing this does NOT validate that the eyewitness account is accurate. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources i.o here concerning Breaking news Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. see also Wikipedia is not a newspaper While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Here it clearly states that these events do not qualify for inclusion. Saschaporsche (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Removing it per WP:NOTNEWS is a reasonable suggestion to make. I just reverted since you removed it because of a third-party study, which is not a good reason, rather than per NOTNEWS. That said, I don't think I was clear with what I was saying about reliability: I never said that Reuters publishing accounts makes those accounts accurate. Rather, Reuters publishing accounts indicates that they considered it worth publishing the claims made by the accounts (in other words, they're not saying the accounts themselves are accurate, just that the existence of the accounts is accurate). I hope this helps, thanks! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 17:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, i understand that you agree that removing the sentence on ground of WP:NOTNEWS is a valid reason. Sorry if i misstated the correct reasoning originally. I will act on that. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sweet, thx! Yeah I have no objection to your taking it out per NOTNEWS :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 17:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see you recently accepted a pending change to May 19 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear Toddst, Thanks for your message. However I checked the article in question Michael Larson, it has a lot of references attached which I consider reliable.

Could you please explain in more detail what is wrong with these references?

I do agree with the idea that an addition to the page should be undisputed, however in this case I see no problem in adding this information.

Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

You need to add at least one reliable source to the entry on the DOTY page. A direct source is required. Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you please explain why you reverted my edit? Banana Republic (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I am sure you will not appreciate this, but I need to ask you what steps you make when accepting revisions in WP:PC. Specifically, I need to ask you why you accepted this change? An anonymous IP removes information from a WP:BIOLEAD with the edit summary of "rm irrelevant information" and you just accept that? If you had even glanced at the Talk:Carl Benjamin page you would have known the lede/lead is the key subject. But you didn't, so it makes me wonder. What do you do in evaluating which WP:PC edits to accept? --SVTCobra (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have answered this question on the relevant talk page. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Developed_country&diff=899950642&oldid=899949872

(Pradillus (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC))Reply

Gentle notice that you didn't sign your message over at User_talk:1.144.105.225. Googol30 (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing that out! kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, the reason why it is a fact and not an opinion is clearly stated in the sources that I have provided. His goals per game are the best in the premier league era, he is the 6th highest goalscorer in the History of the Premier league and is also the highest non European goalscorer. He has been in the premier league for 9 years, enough to grant him legendary status. He has won the premier league 4 times and has also won the golden boot. He is also the highest goalscorer for Manchester City, one of the biggest football clubs in the world. He was ranked 9th in the Independent's greatest premier league players of all time. He has also been in the top 10 goal scorers in the world, in terms of goals since 2011. He has often been credited with the single greatest moment in English football history, his 93rd minute goal against QPR to win City the PL All of this provides enough evidence to suggest that a player of his stature should get the respect that he deserves by adding what I added to his wikipedia page, which is viewed by millions online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.151.213 (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your explanation. Saschaporsche (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

A polite heads-up, I rolled back the pending edit you approved here [1]. The linked Gallup Poll inserted by the editor indicates that support has remained stable (U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Stable, at 63%), whereas the editor used the source to indicate incorrectly that support had dropped. It was a misleading edit (and there were also MoS problems).--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok, i've looked at it again and added "at 63%". That is a small drop, so that is why i (initially) approved the change.

What do you mean by "and there were also MoS problems"? Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

the polling data is "stable", that's the exact word Gallup uses, not drop (the significance here is the difference between a qualitative and quantitative statement) - it's within the margin of error and the source explicitly states stable support at levels recorded since 2017. I think including the 63% in this way is misleading... MoS = WP:MoS, there were punctuation errors--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for your explanation. Saschaporsche (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Saschaporsche, the Cara Buono article was protected specifically to prevent the edits your approved here. I'm assuming this was just an accidental oversight as the protection clearly states the article is protected due to persistent WP:DOB violations.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok, Thanks for bringing that up. I did miss the entry on the Talkpage about this. Hopefully someday it will become clear what the correct date is (with reference). Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just remember that you should never approve any edit that is adding unsoucred content to biography articles, and, per Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#General criteria, you should check the reason for the protection prior to approving a change. Thank you, -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Several folks including me (above) have counseled you about correctly using Pending Changes rights. Yet you continue to accept additions like this. See User_talk:Saschaporsche#Sources_needed_for_Days_of_the_Year_pages above. WTF?

Please request that the privilege be removed from your account before this is taken forcibly from you on WP:ANI. You clearly are not understanding the coaching you've received and have demonstrated a significant lack of competence using it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am totally shocked by your attitude towards me! Please assume “good faith” is one of the basics of working on Wikipedia. I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time now, but have had never such a “harrasment” experienced as you are showing right now.

I do notice that we are all human, and sometimes make mistakes. I do accepted this addition of a birthdate since it looked like a correct addition to the page. Yes, there was no reference stated in relation to the birthdate, is that what you are hinting on? (Is that really necessary in this case?) It wasn’t clear to me that also with a birthdate a reference is absolutely necessary.

I am really shocked by the the way you are forcing me to give up my rights. I do request an apology from you. This is not how we treat our fellow wikipedians!

Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I know other users have been giving you a hard time for your pending change reviews, and I sympathize with what you said in the above section about how people make mistakes and whatnot, but your edits on Robin Williams were really pretty careless considering the line above the change was a comment about how 'committed' should not be changed; you could have also viewed the history to see that other people who were trying to change it have been reverted by experienced editors too. Please try to be more careful in the future. Thanks. --SacredDragonX (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi SacredDragonX, thanks for your comment, i just finished a remark on your talk page. I'll try even harder to not make any mistakes, but we all are human. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

In regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Frenkie9979979797 , in the future, if an edit from someone, especially a registered account, is not obvious vandalism, please try to explain in your summaries why you are reverting their edits, instead of making them come to your talk page to ask. Thanks --SacredDragonX (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you check his/her last X edits, they are all useless or unreferenced. I was in the process of writing a warning on his talk page when my work got interrupted. But, i'll keep your remark in the back of my head. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have reverted all of their edits; in the future, if you plan on reverting several edits, it is best to leave the message on their talk page before you do the reverts, just to avoid any conflicts. Thanks. --SacredDragonX (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok, this is the first time that i encountered a user that did like 10 or more incorrect/useless edits in a row. Yes indeed, i first reverted them all, and wanted to give a warning on the talk page. But then my work here got interrupted.

In the future, when necessary i'll do it the opposite way, like you suggested. Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm really not understanding your reasons for restoring the IPs edit. The article is worse for not having Holland since it is now less specific. I'm not going to revert you since there's no point edit waring over it, but "dunes of the Netherlands' North Sea coastline" is less descriptive than "dunes of the Holland's North Sea coastline". If you prefer I suppose we could wikilink to Holland in case people might be confused. I will also grant that "the German invasion of the Netherlands" should probably stay as The Netherlands since it could be considered misleading. In summary I only reverted in the first place since in the context (in the first sentence) it really isn't talking about the country but the region. A7V2 (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

As you can read in the article about Holland it is an old term to designate part of our country, it is not used as such nowadays. If you would like to be more specific, we could state that the circuit is located near Zandvoort which is part of the province Noord-Holland. However i prefer the current phrasing. Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not an "old term", it is, according to that article, a region (there's no reason for a region to need to be a political division of some kind). Just because you prefer the new phrasing, doesn't make it better. What we now have is a less specific description since the whole coastline of the Netherlands is on the North sea, but Zandvoort is specifically in Holland. A7V2 (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are incorrect. If you would like to be more specific, we could state that the circuit is located near Zandvoort which is part of the province Noord-Holland. Saschaporsche (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

What am I incorrect about? "Holland is a region and former province", first sentence of Holland. What am I missing? It is a region, and also used to be a province, but I've never claimed that it is a province and nor would the original wording imply that. A7V2 (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are incorrect about the use of the term "Holland". Nowadays we only use "Zuid-Holland" and "Noord-Holland" to indicate the two provinces. So the term "holland" is not used to distinguish a certain part/region of the country. It is NOT a (present) region. Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

You haven't really answered my question. If it's incorrect that Holland is a region, then you'd better change the Holland article. "Nowadays we only use..." - who is "we"? "We" are English Wikipedia, and it would appear that Holland is a region (per its article). I'm going to put "Holland" into the first sentence, but not the second but if you feel so strongly that Holland isn't a region as I said you should change the Holland article. A7V2 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are incorrect to assume the "holland" is a region. I'll change the Holland article. Saschaporsche (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well if you insist... would it be OK for me to change it to North Holland North Holland (not linked as North Holland is linked earlier in the article)? A7V2 (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'd like to suggest keeping the change you reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Verstappen&oldid=prev&diff=982553040 I don't agree that it is unnecessary info. Actually, it is a very unique record for him and totally worth mentioning, I was in fact surprised the article did not mention this very interesting fact about him - that the FIA actually cemented his record and he will hold it forever (unless they revert the rule). I properly sourced it too, and phrased it so that it fits the surrounding text naturally. --Peepay (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, it's been two weeks with no response, could you please reconsider, based on my statement above? Thank you. --Peepay (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Peepay, sorry for my late response. I personally think the record is sort of a "artificial" record, he didn't achieve something, just by chance he was the youngest (will be the youngest i guess forever). Therefore i don't "value" it as a record. But feel free to add a remark o the talkpage and see if more people agree with your addition. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

On the Charlemagne page I found OLD VANDALISM and corrected it, explaining it well in the corrections tab. Reverted because there was no talk page. So I added a talk page and remade the correction. The talk discussion explains the NEEDED changes very well. Reverted and told to "make a talk page" which ALREADY EXISTED! Asked for justification for this and they just brush it off with "I didn't read it". So make the edit again and quote the talk page and YOU DIDN'T READ THE TALK PAGE BEFORE REVERTING! And warn me for "vandalism" because I'm correcting vandalism.

What is the point of talk pages if NO ONE READS THEM? It explains the vandalism I am correcting PERFECTLY and lists the addition citations I am adding. It would take literally 2 minutes to read and verify.

I'm messaging resolution disputation after this. Hansel reinhart (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

You should know that Peter Brock is not Pete Brock. --Falcadore (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the acceptance of my edit. But even more important is your page. You have just opened my eyes to the Auden poetry. The "Funeral blues" is so sad and beautiful. I even found the [audio version]. Another discovery is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lady_Godiva_by_John_Collier.jpg - so beautiful, modest and innocent. Thank you :-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks you for recognizing my user page! Good that you enjoyed the poem. I watched -a long time ago- the movie Four weddings and a funeral. I enjoyed the movie very much, but was light struck when i heard the poem. You can watch the -tragic- part of the movie here: were the poem is beautifully recited.

Concerning the painting of John Collier, i must have seen it somewhere on wikipedia and enjoyed it very much. Thank you once again. Hope you have a nice time reading and working on Wikipedia. Saschaporsche (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Saschaporsche,

Can you change the citation on the 1912 Targa Florio time you changed (I don't have that book myself)? It appears to be an error in Auto Course as checking the average speed calculation the 23 hours 37 minutes time is right. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi A7V2, done as requested, kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

John B123 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please read the rest of the text in the summary section, most of which has been written by me. I have been consistently putting lower numbers in front in cases such as "XX was trailing by 1–3". Also see MOS:Snooker. AmethystZhou (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear AmethystZhou, in the MOS:Snooker it does not state that it is ok to "mix" notations in one paragraph! In this case the correct sentence should keep the "order of the score of the leader" to not confuse the reader:

They were tied at 2–2 at the mid-session interval, and Vafaei made breaks of 100 and 71 to lead by 5–3. Murphy narrowed the score to 5–4 by winning the ninth frame, but Vafaei made a break of 67 to clinch the tenth frame and a 6–4 victory.

From the first sentence the reader does understand that Vafaei is leading, so in the second sentence it is logical to keep that order.

Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply