Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Rex' comment on "Evidence presented by User:Antman" 2 Some of the "arguments" levelled against me 2.1 Personal Attacks during Arbcom case 2.2 Removal of referenced information 2.3 Adding of dubious references 2.4 Refering to non existant talk comments or concensus

[edit] Rex' comment on "Evidence presented by User:Antman"

Might I add that User:Antman, despite being uninvolved, a self declared German nationalist and a person who makes personal attacks himself all the time, does not provide diffs? A lot of accusations, like the Ulritz/Nazi thing, but not proof.Rex 08:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And on a personal note, Antman, my English is fine. If you think you can insult me for some reason by making remarks on my English, like here, you're wrong. As for the articles, well at least I write articles, and that's more than can be said about you.Rex 08:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some of the "arguments" levelled against me

[edit] Personal Attacks during Arbcom case

Called me biased and a chauvinist. Rex 22:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I asked you to "provide English, non-chauvinistic sources." Ulritz 22:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of referenced information

Referenced information (relating to the Dutch language) is removed by User:Ulritz. Rex 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Dutch dialects template talk: According to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Limburgish and Dutch Low Saxon (as spoken in Drenthe, not Niedersachsen)are not Dutch dialects. Here is a Dutch Low Saxon source [1] free of any chauvinist bias. Ulritz 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding of dubious references

User Ulritz added a seemingly outdated and speculative linguistic tree to the Franconian language article. (A tree is generally not considered a reference on linguistic articles, let alone this one). Diff. Rex 22:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"German. A linguistic history to 1945."- a peer-reviwed Oxford publication- a dubious source. Im sorry, I dont venture into the abstract.

You presented an outdated and speculative tree, no text. No source.

Rex 22:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refering to non existant talk comments or concensus

User:Ulritz often refers to "reverting per talk (consensus)" while either no talk discussion took place or consensus exists. A moment ago, he again starts to edit war on the Stahlhelm article (previously protected because of editwaring) .Diff. Rex 22:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC) and a second one Diff.Rex 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You ask me to respect consensus. Look at the talk page and you'll notice that's all Im doing. Ulritz 22:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The above aptly illustrates the foundations of this "case", and explains my lack of participation. Ulritz 22:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)