User talk:Strawberry

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Thank you for contributing your time and energy to recent changes patrolling and for helping to keep Wikipedia clean and free of vandalism and disruption. Keep up what you're doing, and when you accumulate enough experience reverting vandalism, warning users correctly, and making good reports to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, I'll make you a rollbacker. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah! ★Strawberry★ 06:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Strawberry. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing sources on German healthcare-related articles

Hi Strawberry,

You have recently undone a series of changes on various healthcare-related articles on English Wikipedia. These changes added this article as a source for multiple statements regarding German health insurance. They also contain minor fixes, updates and additions to the article.

While these reverts are understandable, I would like to appeal.

1. The article on All About Berlin is thoroughly researched and well-sourced. I interviewed 4 different health insurance brokers to write it. There are dozens of citations in that article. It was meant to be a reference, so it's complete and accurate.

2. The article is a plain English overview of the German system. Most other sources are in German, and can't be trivially verified. Citations should be in English. The other authoritative sources (Settle in Berlin and HowToGermany) are both monetised, and do not cite their own sources.

3. The revisions also include significant corrections. Some of the statements were simply incorrect before they were fixed. The reference serves as proof. While my edits are relatively minor, they are meaningful.

4. The article is not selling a product or generating income. This is a purely informational article without a sales pitch at the end. My goal wasn't self-promotion, but simply fact-checking.

With that in mind, I think my revisions were appropriate, as they added meaningful citations and corrections to a topic I am knowledgeable about. I have looked at the link guidelines, and I believe I followed all the rules.

"Citation spamming [...] should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicbou (talk • contribs) 10:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Nicbou, So you did write the article on All About Berlin? Kb03 (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nicbou "Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation."