User talk:Austrianbird

July 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Calf roping, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Fraggle81 (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calcariidae

Sorry, see [1] - good evidence for calcariidae as family and IOC has it thus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And read this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horned lark

Please don't revert valid text without a reason or a reference. If you really believe that there are no English speakers outside Great Britain, please provide proper references since I'm challenging that. Please note that Great Britain doesn't include Ireland, which I can assure you is both English-speaking and uses shore lark.

I don't know why you think that nobody in Europe ever speaks any language but their own (or do you think they only use US English? If you don't accept that, I'm happy to find papers written by continental Europeans that use the European name as well as the US name.

Reverting good faith, edits is pretty aggressive, so I assume you are trying to make some anti-UK point, although I'm not clear why. If you really think you are right, please discuss on the article talk page, or here if you prefer Jimfbleak (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examples Olafsson in Bliki (Icelander writing in Icelandic magazine in English, uses Shore Lark ) and Pätzold in Falke (German, same) Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Austrianbird. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Austrianbird. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - Eastern Europe

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote reliable sources

Unsourced opinions may be deleted.Xx236 (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attack me (you don't like). It's an encyclopedia, not a forum.Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use more formal language. We aren't certainly buddies.Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn about the Holocaust and other German crimes during WWII. It's a shame to be Germna or AUstrina and to ignore the crimes.Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Enforcement

Seeing your edits, I had no other choice but to report you[2]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia only for tendentious editing and editorializing in articles from what looks like a pro-Nazi POV, see the WP:AE thread (this is not an AE block).

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 ~~~~}}. Sandstein 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

see below! Austrianbird (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have an extensive history of editorialising in articles to express a point of view. Nowhere in your comments relating to this block do you address that fact. (I also suggest that you take the advice given above to read the guide to appealling blocks, since what you have written indicates that you have almost certainly not done so, or if you have you have not understood any of it. Any more unsuitable unblock requests like this one are likely to get your talk page access removed to prevent further waste of time for administrators who review such requests.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:04, 18 August 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.

How I can report user Sandstein for misuse of authority? This admin doesn´t speak a word Polish and is so NOT able to understand Polish text written by a Holocaust survivor! Now he blindly followed the request of a Polish user who falsely claimed that I did defend Mengele when in reality I did translate the words of the Holocaust survivor! Such imprutent acting needs to be stopped and is sure not justified within his admin rights.

Further information regarding this unlawful block: The user MyMoloboaccount is accusing falsely and against better knowledge my person for which he needs to be held responsible! Alone the suggestion that I´m likely a Holocaust denier is a crime in itself and is open to criminal persection by Austrian authorities according penal code §111 (= defamation) and punished with one year prison!

Now to the wrongful accusions of which #7 is the most important and severe misdemeanour by MyMoloboaccount!'Bold text' MyMoloboaccount claims that this is the most shocking? Indeed! The lie (and now defended again by himself) published before was requested to be corrected, indepentendly whom it does concern! The source does clearly NOT state that Mengele did request from this midwife that she shell drown the newborns in buckets. What Mengele did request were reports about birth problems and diseases in the childbed! This is clearly stated in her own report here at the bottom: http://www.wmpp.org.pl/pl/pielegniarki-na-frontach/ii-wojna-%C5%9Bwiatowa/stanis%C5%82awa-leszczy%C5%84ska.html I wonder, I as foreigner familiar with Polish can read and understand the text while the Polish member MyMoloboaccount can not? There is not a single word about that Mengele did request from her to drown the babies, hence the fairy tale was not longer to accept.

@ #1: I wonder? A Pole can write on my talk page "Learn about the Holocaust and the Austrian crimes in Poland ...." but an Austrian member should not be allowed to do the same on the talk page of the Pole? Are Polish members above the rules/laws?

@ #2: See #7, again a Pole, namely MyMoloboaccount, who tries to falsify history with his false accuse. Because it concerns the infamous Mengele and that according his believe does not request the truth. The determination of such illegal acts is unlikely any wrongdoing.

@ #3: Even the Polish goverment is using this phrase in the law "to defend the good name of Poland". Questioning the good name isn´t a crime. Poles did murder Jews allready in 1918 (long before any Nazi sodier did step on Polish soil), during WWII (eg. Jedwabne) and even AFTER the war in 1946 again in Kielce. Additionaly there were a couple emigrations of hundreds of thousands Jews in Poland in the 6oies due to their aggression towards Jews!

Shame on this admin! Austrianbird (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]