Your recent editing history at Speed 2: Cruise Control shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Betty Logan (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you adhering to the MOS, but it’s hardly edit-warring if I simply change a cast list to how it's supposed to be done. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:BildungMenschUmwelt.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 01:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mistankly uploaded this although the file already exists in the German Wikipedia. So feel free to delete it. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BildungMenschUmwelt.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but WWE.com list Raquel and Perez as a separate reign from Perez and Morgan. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do they now? It’s annoying that they just flip-flop around with the rules, Cargill/Naomi and Deville/Niven were similar situations and simply counted as one continuous reign. But if WWE claims it’s separate, then it’s separate apparently. Maybe they’ll clarify that next week… DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article University of Koblenz and Landau is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bgsu98 -- Bgsu98 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article University of Koblenz and Landau has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bgsu98 -- Bgsu98 (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Roth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history on the talk- page about the article about the Melania propaganda-film shows that you are currently engaging Wikipedia:NPA personal attack violations. You've been blocked for "battlegrounding" before btw. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADasallmächtigeJ Try being WP:CIVIL instead? Snark is fine, but the personal attacks and cliches about left-wing conspiracies to dominate the media are not welcome on a film page unless you wikipedia approved sources in the press that empirically say as much. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can’t take what you’re doing here behind your days-old account (that screams WP:SOCKPUPPET btw) serious. I didn’t "attack" you or anyone else for that matter, nor did I voice "conspiracy theories", I merely pointed out that a source by a "reliable" outlet does not equate the author is competent on the subject in question. Just because some journalists with no formal qualification call something "propaganda" doesn’t make it propaganda, which any article and editor has to take into account. And you don’t have to point out my own block history to me either, I am well aware of my whooping two blocks in 20 years here. And in a similar fashion as you are doing here, I could characterize you referring to the film as a propaganda piece as if there were a consensus and spamming various policies that clearly don’t apply to my edits as "battlegrounding“ just as well. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ Telling me to "wipe foam from my mouth" is as personal attack as it gets, and I will give you credit in advance for knowing better than that to resort to such language.

Also, there is nothing wrong with using an IP to casually debate on a talk page. I am not pretending to be separate people. I only created an account when the talk page visual tool prompted me to do, and I will also give you credit for knowing the difference there, especially when you were once responsible for this episode, where you were blocked, and you said (your words, not mine), "[my] block is purely political and if Wikipedia starts blocking people over others political bias and hurt feelings, that is just poor."(end quote) Takes on new meaning, oh, the irony. Have a good one. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I don’t have to justify myself to some random guy hiding behind a fake account he created a week ago (I wonder why) digging up year old disputes he was no part of. You obviously lost your battleground on the talk page, so move on before you lose this account, too. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ Not sure what you are getting at. This SPI is the only lost battleground as far as I can tell, and it was one you were waging against me.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hamiltondamonae&diff=prev&oldid=1339785564 But since you opened it, there is the update that will hopefully reassure you as far as my veracity is concerned since you were WP:HOUNDING me. And I mention that because, on that note, consider this a polite warning against doing so in the future. Put another way, maybe follow your own advice as far "moving on" before (as you wisely put it) consequences tell you to? Great advice for us all when things get too heated. Hopefully *we* are done here now so you can move on. Take care. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]