User talk:Kulturdenkmal

Welcome

Hello, Kulturdenkmal, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Capscap (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

PRISM edits

Hi Kulturdenkmal. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits to PRISM (surveillance program). Wikipedia does not allow original research. Additionally, the information added wasn't of the type you'd find in an encyclopedia, which Wikipedia is. Please see WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTMANUAL for more information on these policies. I'm sure people searching for such methods will be able to find them at the appropriate sites through any search engine. Thanks for joining! Capscap (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

First, naming counter measures is just not "original research". Software such as GNU Privacy Guard or open source alternatives to Skype such as Jitsi are all well known. Its just important to name these counter measures in the PRISM article to increase awareness in the general public. Second, Wikipedia is an Open Source plattform - ofcourse you would expect to find open source alternatives in an open source encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize the relevant information in the article and not to tell the users: Go and use Google (which is spying on you by the way) to find counter measures yourself if you have the chance to name the measures in the very article. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for advocacy. See WP:NOTADVOCATE. I know you have good intentions, but as an encyclopedia, there are some things that Wikipedia WP:ISNOT is not]]. (likewise, because wikipedia is open source does not mean that anything goes.-- it's an encyclopedia, not a repository. Without your section, the article does summarize events. It doesn't advocate using google, hiding from google, or anything of the sort. It describes what google is allegedly doing. Capscap (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:NOTADVOCATE is jut not applicable. Read and answer on the articles discussion page. EOD here. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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. 202.71.129.154 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)