User talk:Nillurcheier

Hello, Nillurcheier, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Catholic Church by country. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is this edit a mistake? JimRenge (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my removals at Talk:List of German supercentenarians. Please discuss it there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Aristophanes68. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Christianity without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reverted my edit on Daniele Ganser. The "conspiracy theory" text was added by User:Capitalismojo here in September 2014. It was changed to "probably" by an IP here last week. Since you reverted it, what does "are all actually probably" mean? It doesn't make any sense to me. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 08:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nillurcheier, could you perhaps explain these edits? As far as I can see, this reference which you cited, doesn't support any of the changes of the numbers (not the percentages) you made. If I looked wrong myself, then please let me know as well, of course. :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LouisAragon, I double-checked and sourced all my changes carefully. All of them are well sourced. If you know other data, feel free to add them. --Nillurcheier (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed that you have undid my edings in the articles of Religion in Panama [1] and Peru [2]. I dont't agree with you that your argument about undoing the eding is purley just "poor, outdated and indirect source". Because A) World Factbook is not poor source. B) It is very on date indeed. If you want to argue with the sourch coming from World Factbook I perphere also argue about other sourches indeed. Thanks, --Mannerheimo (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mannerheimo thanks for your question. In general CIA World Factbook is an acceptable source. However they don't do original research but collect carefully data from all over the world. Hence, if we have and know primary sources, they should always be preferred. Some data is on date, religious data however are quite often outdated. E.g. the religious composition for Germany in the Factbook says 34% Catholic and 34% protestants. Well this is a figure that was true in 1995. today it's 29% and 28%. I hope, we can agree on the preference or primary sources such as censuses or surveys (e.g. by PEW). BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming sourced statements are "wrong claims" just isn't enough. I've reinstated the statements which are backed up by a reliable source (Der Spiegel). If you disagree, please express your objections on the talk-page. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kleuske: I have removed the wrong claims, which are btw not backed by the article, ok? --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nillurcheier! I'm the guy who deleted the sentence about the 1,200,000 Protestants in Spain in Religion in Spain. I'm a Spaniard living in Spain and I don't have anything against Protestants (pretty much agnostic, myself) but trust me, there's absolutely no way over 2.5% of the population is Protestant even accounting for immigration and the Jehova's Witnesses (if they're protestants...) Protestant sites tend to inflate the numbers by obvious reasons but it's simply not realistic. That's why I've added a "better source needed" tag (as in an independent source...) Best regards, --MaeseLeon (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaeseLeon:, I agree with you that the numbers seem to be quite high. Could you provide more realistic data with a reliable source? ?que dice la pagina espa~nola? saludos Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

¡Hola, Ulrich! :) Unfortunately I can't, and I have tried hard to in the past because I'm quite interested in the history and sociology of religion. Here in Spain, there is no obligation or motivation to declare your religion in any official document or anything like that (actually it isn't asked anywhere), so we don't have "official data." However, the best available info about the religious composition of Spanish society is provided by the continuous series of the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, which elaborates monthly statistics about a number of issues through (voluntary) polls, including religion, since 1979. Last published one was done on july 2016. Unfortunately they don't break down minoritary religions and all of them are included in the "others" category, but if you check question 56 in page 30, you'll see that the entire "others" category (including Protestantism but also Islam, New-Age movements, etc) sums up only 2.2% of the population. This is coherent with the general trends of all previous C.I.S. studies and studies from private agencies (like Pew and Gallup) that I've seen too. So I'd say that a number around 2-2.5% for all the "others" together is quite realistic.

There are 2 important caveats to consider here. First, the C.I.S. only asks Spaniards (native or naturalized), so non-naturalized residents are not included in their studies. Second, the number of Catholics (67.8%) are mostly "self-identified Catholics", "identity Catholics" or the like, meaning something like "well... my family used to be Catholic, I was baptized in the Catholic Church, got the First Communion, maybe I was married in a Catholic Church, I sort of believe in 'something' more or less along Christian lines, so I guess I'm Catholic." In reality, a majority of modern Spaniards are basically secular and they don't believe in most tenets of Catholicism, they don't follow their teachings, they behave like us "fully secular" Spaniards and they rarely attend Mass (as you can see in question 56a), often just to go with the family to baptisms, first communions, marriages and funerals and that's all. There's even a joke about kids "taking their First and Last Communion," meaning people do it for the family party and the presents and such things, not out of religious faith, and they won't attend Mass again. Since 2009 the number of civil (non-religious) marriages overpassed the number of religious marriages, following a 20-year-old trend, and they are on the rise (not to mention the huge number of couples just living together.) Quite a few people are no longer baptizing their children either, not even as a social/family thing. Civil "coming of age parties" instead of First Communions, if still minoritary, are on the rise. Secularization has been really strong in Spain in recent decades, shockingly fast for such a deep phenomenon, transforming this old "bulkwark of Catholicism" into just another highly secularized modern Western European country. So I'd say the number of "real" Catholics is very inflated too because of these "I guess I'm Catholic but..." answers. This is especially true among the younger generations, at least those who don't directly declare themselves irreligious or Atheists. Analyzing the C.I.S. studies, I'd say that around 25% of Spaniards or even less are "sort-of-true" Catholics nowadays.

As for Protestants: native non-Gypsy Spanish Protestants are exceedingly rare ---I think I've met 4 or 5 in my entire life. A number of Gypsies (who have been perfectly Spanish for centuries) are followers of the so-called Church of Philadelphia, but I wouldn't say they're a majority. As an example, not far from where I live there is a Gypsy-majority neighborhood with over 7,000 residents, I've seen their church, and it's a really little place where you and I'd be pressed hard to pack 100 people inside. Most of those I know are as secularized as us non-Gypsy Spaniards. Jehova's Witnesses (are they Protestants...?) experienced a boost after the end of Francoism, but they've been pretty much stagnated in the last decades and they're around 112,000 according to their own recent data. And... that's pretty much all among native and naturalized Spaniards. Protestants, Muslims and other "others" are mostly non-naturalized immigrants/residents. I guess it could be said "OK, maybe including all those people they sum up a bit above 1 million Protestants", but I still don't see it. Nowadays there isn't religious persecution in Spain at all (well, maybe except for Racists against Muslims...) and if 2.5% of the general population including immigrants were Protestants, I think they would be far more visible than they are. They're practically "invisible." If I'm able to find better info, I'll sure add it to the article and tell you here. :)

Have a happy week! --MaeseLeon (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Updated with additional info: --MaeseLeon (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaeseLeon:, thanks for your long and detailed explanation. I follow the CIS data series and rate it the best available source. In addition, there is the PEW, which reports 1% Protestants and 2% Orthodox Christians. As you already supposed, the major difficulty might be the immigrants, who are not fully represented in the CIS-surveys. The page https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inmigraci%C3%B3n_en_Espa%C3%B1a reports 4.7 million foreign residents in Spain for 2015.

Looking at the list, I see (thousands): 750 Rumanos, 142 Bulgaros, 91 Ucranianos, 68 Russians which might sum up to 1.1 mio from eastern Europe, being 80-90% Orthodox, which explains the 2% pretty well. There are also 283 Britanicos (50%prot),131 Alemanes (30%prot), 73 Brasil (25%prot), 43 Nigeria (35%prot), summing up to approx. 220.000 foreign protestants. Adding another 200.000 (?) "native" Spanish Protestants, 1% is a rather plausible result. BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, Ulrich. :) As you can see, this is certainly an interest of me! :) I guess we could add the corresponding percentages of other Latin American immigrants in es:Inmigración en España too, but still I wouldn't expect a huge increase of the number. Around 1% Protestants in the total population sounds like a quite reasonable number to me too, quite dispersed in small churches (usually divided by country of origin) which are only present in cities or (very) large towns.

I wouldn't even dare to talk about prevailing denominations; I don't think there's enough "critical mass" for that. Possibly Pentecostal/Evangelical denominations and that Gypsy Church are more extended, but "prevailing" would be too much of a word in my opinion. FEREDE doesn't provide a breakdown either, and there are super-tiny groups which are not members of FEREDE. FEREDE says they serve around 400,000 Spanish protestants (150,000 of them Gypsies), not specifying if native or naturalized, and that "there must be" around 1,200,000 Protestants in Spain including the non-FEREDE churches. But as said, their numbers are notoriously suspicious and they don't provide any public source to support them. And I tend to think that those little and scarce non-FEREDE churches (it's difficult to find one) can't possibly sum up 800,000 Protestants plus their self-reported 400,000.

I would say that "all religions lie" here, because there are perks for the "biggest religions", like easier access to subsidies for their activities and chartered schools, salaries for (your) religion teachers in public schools and things like that. In general terms, "the larger the better", so everybody starting with the Catholic Church try to inflate their numbers as much as possible. For a time, the Catholic Church insisted that every Catholic-baptized Spaniard was a Catholic ---meaning almost all of us back then, even if you were a publicly known Atheist. Not baptizing your children in Francoist Spain was a bad idea (they wouldn't shoot you for that after 1945 or so but you should expect trouble for you and especially the kid ---the "fe de bautismo" or baptismal registry was an often required document and not having it meant all kinds of more-or-less subtle but very real troubles.) Even for some time after the dictator died and the laws changed it was seriously frown upon. So almost all of us born before 1980 or so were counted as Catholics. Actually it's still difficult to formally apostatize nowadays in order to "be erased" of their registries ---they just add a handwritten note in your baptismal register saying that you have apostatized with no further consequences, in case you take all the time needed to go through the process.

Rarely anyone formally apostatize because it's too much time and effort for such a little "victory", so the Catholic Church can still say they're "zillions" (after all, the C.I.S., even being a Government entity, just does sociological studies; as I told you, there's no "official religion record.") Nonbelievers are just not baptizing their children anymore. Only in the last years the Spanish Catholic Church has started to admit that they may not be so many "zillions" after all... because you only need to visit Spain staying with average Spaniards for a couple weeks to realize that's totally unreal, not to mention if you're a Spaniard living here. Over 50% of priests should have retired long ago, but the poor old guys are still working because all the Spanish seminaries together aren't able to consecrate 200 new priests a year ---it's not a job that young people want even with our high unemployment and all. We're talking about a country that in past times had over 100,000 priests with much less population ---now they're slightly above 15,000 and shrinking fast out of biological reasons. Even the officially religious ceremonies like baptisms or marriages and the First Communion, or traditional festivities like the Semana Santa and similar, are just socially-recognized parties or kind-of-cathartic experiences for most people.

I'm not saying that there are zero "true Catholics" in Spain nowadays, sure there are quite a few, but as I told you I doubt they're even 25%, much less among the younger generations. I have 2 daughters (a young teenager and an almost-teenager... terrifying, yesss!!! :D ) and if you asked me, I wouldn't be able to name any of their school mates, friends and acquaintances in their age range who could be (more or less) described as a "true Catholic." Some of them still attend Mass with their families on Sundays, but it's pretty obvious most of them will stop doing it as soon as they get a bit older. I guess that, as an irreligious person, I could say I'm perfectly OK with what for me is a "triumph of reason", but I'll also admit that as I told you before, the change has been so shockingly fast and deep that it's somehow scary ---don't ask me why, I guess I should be happy because "my team is winning big time", but I find something uncanny in such a transformation of an entire society, so quick. Possibly the Francoism keep a much older trend artificially repressed (there were quite a few instances of enlightened liberalism and even violent anti-clericalism in the History of Spain), and when that yoke was gone, we as a society went ahead full-steam. Going from being "the spiritual reserve of the West" to becoming the third country in the world fully legalizing gay marriage with barely a protest, a median age for first (obviously unmarried) sex at 15 y.o. (13 or 14 not being unusual at all) with pretty much the acceptance of your family, and generally being a bunch of irreligious or softly-religious "hardcore social liberals" is quite a change, huh...?

Protestants and the Orthodox tend to do something very much like the Catholic Church: counting every "theoretical" follower as one of them. Do we have 750,000 Romanians in Spain and 81% of Romanians self-identify as Orthodox Christians? OK, count 607,500 Orthodox Christians more! (Even if the only church that the 607,500th visited in the last decade was the Cathedral of Burgos, just out of historical interest.) Pretty much the same with Protestants: it feels like they are counting every possible Protestant as an actual Protestant. The Muslims also play the game. I personally know not a few people from Muslim countries who don't step into a mosque and who love Spanish wine and ham as much as me, and they've told me that the Islamic Community regards them as Muslims. It's like a race among all of them and the Catholic Church to show who is more "sociologically relevant" to make the politicians think about them... but the most "sociologically relevant religion" in Spain is a "silent majority" of vague "believers-in-something-or-nothing-at-all" who just live our lives without caring about those fights at all. Are you going to baptize your new baby? Cool, invite me to the party! Aren't you? Cool, let's throw that party to welcome the little one anyway! :D

The smarter politicians noticed it long ago and the not-so-smart ones are getting it too: our (small) "religious right" has been fuming for years because the major right-wing party, when in Government, does nothing about abortion or any other liberal laws introduced when the left is governing, and sometimes they even take them further to show how modern and socially-conscious they are. This "religious right" is currently not represented in any Spanish party with a seat in Parliament (or even the possibility to get one), and hasn't been for around 2 decades. Even highly conservative, admittedly rightist and Catholic people who attend Mass every Sunday vote Popular Party ---which barely touches a comma of the progressive social laws introduced by the left and even approve new ones (like the post-coital pill, or extensions of divorce rights) because that's what "we the people" seem to want, no matter what some people say. Every party promising a return to more conservative values has miserably failed since the first democratic elections in 1977. The last one trying it was VOX and this one was not just a fringe far-right thing: they got some decent financing and they had a couple Catholic leaders behind (including a bishop), some backing from the "alt-right" (and far-right...), their leading candidate was a former well-known leader of the Popular Party's most rightist sector... they had possibilities. For a while, it sounded like they could do something with the most rightist and Conservative disenchanted Popular Party's voters. Well, their best result was 250,000 votes (1.57%) in the 2014 European Election, far, far away from a seat in the European Parliament. More recently, they're getting 50,000-60,000 votes in the latest general elections, far less than the single-issue anti-bullfighting, animal-rights party PACMA (and no seats anywhere, of course.) There are 4-5 times more Spaniards voting to ban bullfighting than voting to ban abortion. Who could have thought that 30 years ago...?

Heck, I've written too much. Sorry for that. Hope that you find it interesting at least!!!! ;) --MaeseLeon (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. The country was known as West Germany from 1949 to 1990, then after reunification, Germany. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really . In an informal conversation you may use these terms, but officially the FRG persists as a nation since 1949 whereas the GDR ceased to exist in 1990 when their states (Länder) decided to join the FRG (according to the rules described in the Grundgesetz). BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better for readers,@GoodDay: to use West Germany. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay:, seriously? Could we agree on a formulation like "Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany)"? Otherwise we have to stick to the official names --Nillurcheier (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having (West Germany) & (East Germany) in the infoboxes would help immensely. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should stop this user from wreacking havoc in articles about religion demographics by changing recent reliable data with Pew-Templeton's and other Christian agencies's data to inflate the number of Christians. Recently, many people have raised concerns about the reliability of data contained in "Christianity by country", in the talk page, but Jobas has removed the tag again. It has become impossible to make new edits to articles about religion demographics as he appears to patrol daily most of them.--87.8.85.26 (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nillurcheier! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Daniele Ganser shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This is a preventive warning. ZH8000 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in Indonesia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crescent Star Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that the link to Environmental racism in Europe was reverted, under the justification that there is "no connection." I am writing to explain my reasoning for providing the link. A significant portion of the Environmental racism in Europe article is devoted to specific environmental policies and laws within the European union, and the often-complex relationship between environmental policies and how certain groups of people experience environmental issues in Europe. I would like to respectfully ask you to please re-review the article I have linked to, and to please re-consider what I feel was a constructive, specific, and relevant edit.

Thanks, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Sturgeontransformer:, sorry for that, I did not intent to revert your edit. it was a kind of collateral demage of the other reverts. Regarding your "Environmental racism" activities I have neutral position. BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nillurcheier:, thank you for the clarification, and no worries! I will re-post the link. Sturgeontransformer (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nillurcheier! I have edited the article Islam by country twice, and both times you have reverted my changes, deeming them vandalism. However, all I was doing was fixing a few grammatical errors (a comma splice and the incorrect capitalization of "Within"). Why do you feel these edits are improper? B14709 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) @B14709: You must be confused. Take a look at your edit. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Oh dear! It seems a chrome extension of mine has led to more changes in the article than I intended. I'm very sorry about this, and I apologize for any misunderstandings. B14709 (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did that myself once. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@B14709: Sorry for having been rude in my wording, however there was a reoccuring change of the word "god" without any explanation. I am glad that the issue has been solved, BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The long term discussions as evidenced in the talk page archives that I have been a part of for 12 years was that a section dedicated to conspiracy theories was not to be added to the 9/11 attacks article. Maybe you need to get more familiar with what those discussion were so you know what the consensus is...or better yet, start your own discussion before you revert others.--MONGO 12:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC) @MONGO: thanks for this info, I got your point, will wait for further discussion, BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Nillurcheier! I saw your edit on the Fowid chart and wanted to discuss. I think that two sources on the same pie chart is confusing. Also, the data from Fowid itself is also based on Remid so this makes it even more confusing. A better way to have many sources would be to use tables the German article uses or a new pie chart. Vargmali (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user Nillurcheier

You are weclome to shorten the contribition. Here it is in Wiki Format. The matter is a serious one indeed, and it deserves a mention in the Brandt article

The Director of the Documentation Council of the State Archives of Israel, Hagai Tsoref, and Michael Wolffsohn historian at the German Army University Munich maintained in an article, first published in the German Daily Die Welt that Chancellor Willy Brandt, highly praised as a peace builder, could have prevented the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, but he didn’t. ^[1]

The authors say that Egypt and Syria, almost exactly forty years ago, had almost extinguished Israel's existence by their surprise attack on the highest Jewish holiday. ^[2]

Israel's then Prime Minister, Golda Meir according to this analysis, based on hitherto unpublished and now released documents in the United States, Germany and Israel, in the summer of 1973 wanted peace with Egypt and hand back virtually all of the territories conquered on the Sinai Peninsula in the June 1967 war. ^[3]

Because she no longer trusted in the mediation of the great powers, Social Democrat Golda Meir asked the German Social Democrat Willy Brandt for advice and action during his visit to Israel in June 1973. It should have helped to set the peace process in motion. But Willy Brandt, the argument says, dismally failed to help. For Brandt, Israel was a disturbing factor. ^[4]

Firstly, because he had no great interest in close contacts with Israel. This corresponded (and corresponds in the opinion of the authors until today) to the majority opinion of the SPD in Germany.

Brandt was not prepared to mediate in the Middle East. ^[5]

He handed over the initiative of Golda Meir to the chief executive to the German Foreign Office (AA), which was not Israeli friendly and favored the Arab world.

Its head, FDP chairman Walter Scheel, had, since 1966, reoriented his party from the right to the left, but maintained its Israeli-critical attitude.

German foreign policy, the analysis maintains, miserably failed the mediation, while Yugoslav President Tito correctly warned Brandt in summer 1973: “It is five minutes before twelve. The Arabs are preparing for a total war ... They are ready to destroy Israel, and they have the means to do so" Tito told the Chancellor. ^[6]

Summing up their assessment, the analysis comes to the conclusion that beyond the question of guilt for not having prevented the Yom Kippur War, the Chancellor made a crass mistake: he depreciated Jerusalem's unalloyed initiative, leaving it to the routine of professional diplomats. More importantly, unlike Golda Meir, he had included the great powers. Peace Chancellor Brandt did not prevent the Middle East war in 1973. He could have done it. ^[7]

Even worse, Michael Wolfssohn revealed in another article based on recently revealed documents, that Brandt, after the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War, by not allowing United States Air Force transport planes, rushing in the urgently needed military supplies for Israel, to fly over Germany or to land at U.S. airbases in Germany for the urgently needed refueling. ^[8] Eventually, not Willy Brandt, but the government of Marcelo Caetano in Portugal, still under the Estado Novo regime, saved the State of Israel in its finest hour, by granting the United States airlift of supplies to Israel via the Azores. ^[9] In the operation, the biggest of its kind ever in military history, the Military Airlift Command of the U.S. Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and supplies in C-141 Starlifter andC-5 Galaxy transport aircraft between October 14 and November 14, 1973 to Israel. ^[10] John de Norrona (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you removed the survey data I added in the article yesterday [3] but I think that the article needs also survey data. Other countries' article that have religious institution data as first source, like the Sweden's one, are implemented with additional surveys.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ulrich. Please consider what I have written here about the unreliability of those small surveys. If we keep adding such kind of survey data the articles will soon turn into unreadable lists of decontextualised useless data. The case of Religion in Denmark is even more emblematic of their unreliability; the recent change replaced Eurobarometer 2012 data which shew Lutherans at 64% with more recent data which show Lutherans at 79%, a drastic change that is not worthy of representation since it is just a pointer to an equally drastic difference in methodology between the two poor-quality small surveys. In my opinion, we should establish a policy to prevent that any of those poor-quality data are inserted into Wikipedia articles.--Wddan (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you should remove poor-sourced surveys like the Ipsos Global Trends one? A difference in the phrasing of the question can change the the results. Please explain why do you think that these sources are unrealiable. Both Eurobarometer and International Social Survey Programme are very reliable sources coming from excellent research centers, the results have been perfectly weighted. The results of both of them are published in the GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences's website, largest German infrastructure institute for the social sciences and one of the most important social science institutes of Europe.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_by_country&type=revision&diff=817841331&oldid=817839954 174.95.4.187 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you want to brought up on the noticeboards for admninistrator sanctioning, I would suggest that you do not replace English-langauge spelling with German-language spelling again. This is English-language Wikipedia, and the "ß" is nota feature of the English language. If you want to use that, I would suggest you go and edit German Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken:, first I prefer a more polite style of conversation, we are not debating the most important conflict of the world and are not in an edit war. Be so kind and link the appropriate Wikipedia guideline that has a rule for this issue. Be also so kind and explain, why many last names in English Wikipedia are spelled according to German rules (Göring, Schröder etc.). Next, please explain why there are dozens of "Straße" in the English Wikipedia like Hohe Straße, Ingolstädter Straße and many more. Finally let's continue this discussion on the article's talk page. I will copy it. BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above policy. Pointers to discussions are supposed to be neutral, on the order of "There is a discussion at XXXX which you may be interested in..." By laying out your opinion about the discussion in the pointer you placed at Karl-Marx-Allee, you violated this policy, quite inadvertantly I'm sure. Please do not do so again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 1st Feb you deleted two recent inserts to the History section to the Dowsing page with the description "not helpful". Can you say how you reached this conclusion? Both inserts were completely referenced and both were previously missing from that section. One documented the first water dowse, the other presented scholarship about the source of the term "dowsing", where previously the page said "unknown origin". Would you consider undoing this change? Anweald (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anweald: Anweald thanks for this hint. I tried to revert the last edit (changing the word dowsing), but Nottnott was faster so I got confused. However I do not clearly understand, why some cited and reasonable formulated paragraphs were deleted. I reverted my deletion and am looking forward to a constructive discussion. --Nillurcheier (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I get confused by wikipedia still. I successfully reverted your last edit. Maybe best to look through to see what's there now if you still want to change it, but I think there was some vandalism that Nottnott fixed/ Anweald (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left the message below on the talk page of JimRenge. Related to this. You undid a change by user Korangad who undid a change by user JimRenge who corrected a change by IP93.106.184.30. See recent history on Islam by country. So thanks for making WIKI better. Grsd (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the irreligion in finland page you undid an edit by ip93.106.184.30, however that was undone by user Kornagad - a for years dormant user until recently. You warned user Kornagad related to edits on the catholic church in finland page. Fyi. This once dormant user has been active in recent days on wiki pages : religion in finland, irreligion in finland, indians in finland, islam in finland, catholic church in Finland. On the same pages IP93.106.184.30 was active, so the edit warring might be more elaborate than it appears at first glance. Regards Grsd (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi would this work for the page. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/15/how-far-will-bavarias-conservatives-go-to-fend-off-the-far-right/ QubecMan (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@QubecMan: Some more: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/asylstreit-csu-will-die-union-weiter-nach-rechts-ruecken-15653313.html "CSU tries to push Union to the right" and http://www.tageblatt.lu/meinung/kommentar/csu-und-cdu-in-deutschland-erbaermliches-schauspiel/ "Radikaler Rechtsschwenk: radical turn to the right". But do not use it as headline. --Nillurcheier (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I truly feel that we should have it as a headline. By the way do you know how to make a world map on Wikipedia. QubecMan (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of continually deleting my comments can you answer? Why does it seem like you got the ref yourself here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.39.254 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but who are you and what is your question? --Nillurcheier (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just claimed that the ref doesn't say they are far-right, yet you produced two refs here that seem to say that. 86.167.39.254 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, now I understand your comment. Well, "try to move the party further towards right positions" does not mean, it is now "far right". And for sure that does not qualify for the info box. What I ment was, you could add a paragraph that several sources share the opinion that the party is moving to the right or far right fringe. It is not yet sure whether this move is successful nor persistent. --Nillurcheier (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying AfD isn't moving in that direction? So you think a paragraph is appropriate but not the infobox? 86.167.39.254 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we write must be sourced by reliable sources. All current sources say they are trying to harvest voters at the far right wing and raise the question how far would they go for that. Sources saying "CSU IS far right" are lacking. --Nillurcheier (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, there are sources detailing how their leader loved that his age number of people were deported, what makes them far-right then, actual genocide? 86.167.39.254 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. But if you have a source...--2003:C1:C3C2:1A83:2DAB:3D6:B3D5:C075 (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The placebo effect is not a thing. There is no convincing evidence that it is anything other than a collection of biases and confounders (e.g. regression to the mean, recall bias and so on). Guy (Help!) 11:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nillurcheier,

why did you take out palestine completely and keep the rest of the edits? that is wholly inappropriate to just keep out one other state?

Kawhilaugh42 (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HI, thanks for your recent reversion on Religion in Finland. The edit you undid is part of a long-term pattern of vandalism, inserting false data into a variety of article. There is a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Religion in... statistics vandalism. I have reverted the latest IP to WP:AIV as block-evasion by User:Scgonzalez. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ulrich - on the Bangladesh page talk I suggested several weeks ago an update of the total fertility rate in the Demographic section. The published figures are outdated and should be replaced by 2016 World Bank data. This is important because Bangladesh has now reduced its TFR to replacement level - a significant demographic event. I have seen no response to this request. How can I get this done? Thanks. Ed Fendley Efendley (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India and China are countries with more than 1 billion people. Those countries cannot be considered as ethnically singular.

Moreover less than 1000 Chinese people live there. They cannot be considered part of the population. Most are expats. The Chinese that lived there shifted to India, mostly to Kolkata and other major cities.

We could have taken the people originating from India as ethnically Indian if their origin was ambiguous. But it isn't. Most came from the neighbouring West Bengal, Tripura, Assam; states of India.

SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started a talk page discussion here and stated my reasons. Please follow BRD. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please talk to the Muenchner Rundschau if you need some references on Helmut Kohl's failures in Govt. OggenheimerWise (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@OggenheimerWise: There is no "Muenchner Rundschau". Maybe, you are refering to the "Rundschau" the daily news channel of Bavarian TV. Anyhow, it's up to you to provide and add the source for your claim, not me.--Nillurcheier (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts here at the Beatrix article. I also followed up in the same way as you did at the article, and, FYI, also at his Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by your action and edit summary. You deleted about a dozen sources from the article. Elizium23 (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: since you deleted many sources, I had to revert to the last verison containing these sources. You may start to readd other sources, but don`t delete well sourced data in the list. --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are the one who is confused. Elizium23 (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple: add quality sources, don't delete already existing ones unless you have a strong argument to do so. --Nillurcheier (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nillurcheier, how's it going :)? I noticed that you undid revision 946085819 under the notation that this was not discussed in the talk page. Please note that this __was__ discussed, as I said in the edit description. Since the content is very malignant and hurts the subject, I have reversed your change. Please write back on the talk page mentioned originally why you feel this is unjust. RealSaddy (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. you must check the stats again. hinduism and chinese religions at the "pie chart" and the "paragraph" is upside-down! you have to look at it again and change it. i already changed the right thing but it has been removed Irfnhziq (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of palindromic places, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bocholt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly point out the policy where it states "Dr." is not to be used in front of a doctor's name? I searched and could not find it. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JimKaatFan, MOS:HON limits the use of honorifics. See also MOS:POSTNOM that limits where post-nominals can be used. Elizium23 (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, those two policies you've linked to specifically deal with things like "Her Majesty" and "His Holiness". Doesn't mention "Dr." once. However, I appreciate you linking to that page, because on the same page is Subsequent use: "After an initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only... this includes academic or professional prefixes like "Dr."". In other words, the initial mention of a subject should include "Dr.", and then surname only. As my mention of Höppner in East_Germany#Sport was his initial mention, I now feel re-adding the "Dr." is solidly based in policy. I thank you. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just scroll a few lines in the already given source and you'll find MOS:DOC. There you can read the sentence: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title". --Nillurcheier (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just read the section that I just pointed out to you, which says that "Dr." can be used in the initial mention, and omitted thereafter. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on East Germany; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Peter was indeed a Jew, but it's inaccurate to say he was a "converet" in any way. Obviously he did not convert to Judaism. And it would be an anachronism to claim he converted to Christianity, since Judaism and Christianity hadn't yet split into two different religions. I don't think you could find any source describing Peter as *converted* Jew. Rataube (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nazi salute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bronn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have another look at your revert at Talk:Bicycle? Back on 9 June, an editor posted a complete copy of the article onto the talk page. I don't think it is useful there. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok, with a proper explaination, I had accepted that on the first view. --Nillurcheier (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nillurcheier: Hi, regarding the edits to Islam by country, I'm confused as to the reversion of my edits, could you please elaborate? If one source is more recent than the other, are ranges supposed to be provided even if said sources are older? An example would be the World Fact Book versus Pew Research religion estimates. For example, Bulgaria: Bulgaria as of 2011 FactBook: 7.8% Muslim Bulgaria as of 2010 PewResearch: 13.4% Muslim ChaoticTexan (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to mention some numbers in the article are outright wrong on all sources. Cameroon on the WFB is 24.4% as of 2018, and Pew Research is 18% as of 2010. The source by iNSAMER says 25-30% but it provides no references, date, etc. So how would 30% be better and more accurate than 24.4% or 18%. Also, why wasn't a range provided, and the highest percentage was applied? ChaoticTexan (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revivalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at

• Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

and also

• Draft:Ex-Muslims and also Draft Talk:Ex-Muslims

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DBaK (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To be honest, I don't care that much. However, it would be nice if you acknowledged that your edit is against policy, rather than just doing it by stealth. Maybe you could edit it but leave a note explaining what you have done and why. You do need to acknowledge policy rather than just edit as you wish. Thanks DBaK (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DBaK:, yes i know this is against the general policy for talk pages. However I gave a clear and more than valid reason to deviate here from common policy. It is not a "legitimate comment" to use humiliating Nazi terms for people who suffered death by Nazi murderers. Thence my edit was explained, reasonable and should be acceptable by everybody.Nillurcheier (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that. I've responded at the AL Talk page. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grüß Gott Ulrich -- So I reverted your deletion of U-Boot, under the auspices of its routine appearance in WW2 literature and the fact that many novice readers rarely engage with WW1 content by comparison. Falls Sie stimmen noch nicht zu, können wir weiter diskutieren....besser hier als dort weil die Besserwissers sind bei mir doch unerträglich. --Obenritter (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter:, I don't worry much about your revert. However, the article's name is "Glossary of Nazi Germany". Hence entries should be restricted to words, which had a specific meaning in the 3rd Reich. U-Boot has been used before and after these 12 years and Nazis did not add a special connotation. Kurz gesagt, kein Nazi-Jargon. Best Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I reverted myself. Ich werde mich nicht überrascht sein, wenn andere Wiki-editors "U-Boot" wieder zum Artikel anfügen. Mal sehen. --Obenritter (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the correct reference to the correct party name (at Jehovah's Witnesses) rather than the loaded and redundant term 'Hitlerism', with a slightly clearer form. I am not remotely interested in false claims about some alleged political agenda. However, further claims that I have intended anything 'sneaky' will be reported as a personal attack. (I have also once again removed excessive citations per WP:OVERCITE.) If you wish to discuss the merits of the edit (without alleging nonsense about 'sneaky changes') please do so at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffro77: I am not involved in any JW issues. However there are permanent ugly attempts to call the NSDAP far-left (e.g. socialist only) instead of far-right. I assumed, your change was part of these attacks. If not, the issue seems to be settled for me. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, I guess.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Nigeria, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your recent re-edit on Chancellor of Germany, please note that I have listed exemplary evidence for numbering of chancellors in Germany beeing at least not uncommon on the article's talk page. Yours Alektor89 (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of notable surviving veterans of World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Thedefender35. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Thedefender35 17:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thedefender35:, thanks for asking. I am absolutely neutral regarding religious data. What I dislike is pseudodata, ie estimations for and projections into the far future. They are crystal balls and lack any reliability. Quite often they are made by POV-people who want to push their religions perspective. Looking curiously forward to your stance. BR Nillurcheier (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC) I understand that you do not like the data but some people agree that it helps and there is no definite way to please both party's and I'm not allowed to pick sides so unless you come up with some evidence that the charts are useless they have to remain there. thanks for calmly explaining your side of the story. hope that this issue gets resolved. Thedefender35 17:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thedefender35: I rate WP:CRYSTAL as a clear and strong support of my claim. It says: "Wikipedia does not predict the future." Sure, there are exceptions, but speculations about adherents in 2050 are extremely daubtful. Nillurcheier (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but you cant delete all the data as you did before. just delete the ones that are outstanding. Thedefender35 17:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nillurcheier.

You have occasionally deleted as unreliable the data from the Global Religious Futures set of Pew-Templeton (e.g.), and I fully agree with you as they are pseudodata projections based on their 2010 estimates (based on small sample surveys and now outdated for 12 years), and as such they are being contradicted by more recent accurate surveys and official censuses. They are also against the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy. I see, however, that they have been spammed throughout multiple articles as factual data. Even important articles such as "Christianity" use such data mediated by some unreliable sources, in this case Countrymeters.info. I think that at this point it would be a good idea to ask the addition of the Global Religious Futures project to the list of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources.--Æo (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Æo:Thanks and 100% support from my side. This data is unreliable and outdated. If we made it to add GRF to this list, it would be a great improvement for the data qulaity in this field. Nillurcheier (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nillurcheier. Please express a vote here so that we can conclude the RfC with the votes of all those who participated to the discussion thereabove. Æo (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 395#Association of Religion Data Archives and World Religion Database (Gordon-Conwell's WRD/WCD/WCE+ARDA & Pew-Templeton's GRF) — permanent link; deprecation RfC — RfC permanent link — RfC closing summary:

There is no consensus to deprecate these sources. That said, rough consensus did develop to use them with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources.

---

Hello Nillurcheier,

If you will need to cite it, hereinabove is the outcome of the RSN discussion + deprecation RfC about Gordon-Conwell's WRD/WCD/WCE+ARDA & Pew-Templeton's GRF, closed by Firefangledfeathers.--Æo (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello By referring to World meter, you can see the population of Asian countries. The statistics I wrote were correct😐😐😐 Parsa Dalili (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guten Tag, Danke, dass du meine Bearbeitung von Bolzano angeschaut hast. Ich bin der Meinung, dass die Begriffe "Nazi Germany" und "Third Reich" nicht miteinander gleichzusetzen sind. Ich habe zu diesem Thema ein paar Absätze auf meiner Benutzerseite geschrieben. Der Begriff "drittes Reich" fand erst in Nazi Propaganda weite Verbreitung (ein historiografischer Versuch deren Diktatur als Nachfolgerstaat zu legitimieren) und ich stufe ihn daher als historisch belastet ein.-Ich (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please consider my reply on Talk:Nazism § "National Socialist German Workers' Party" as an article title term and inclusion of the party name in German and explain why you consider the long names of the party to be "core information" to the article about the ideology? Thank you. — LauritzT (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha sorry about that, I must've gotten confused reading the diffs and thought it added {{small|(now [[Germany]])}}. My bad. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in acquiring his works , specifically those which are longer than 80~ pages 82.76.60.5 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will find some of them e.g. here: https://www.zvab.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=Ernst%20niekisch&sts=t&cm_sp=SearchF-_-topnav-_-Results

obviously, they are in German only. In addition, I have a personal collection inherited from my grandfather, who was a personal friend of Niekisch.Nillurcheier (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

apologies for the delay , I was wondering if I could pay you something around 100€ to scan those books and make them pdf and send them to me since i havent been able to find many of them, I'll pay you first if there's any trust issues Arsenius4 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arsenius, it is not a matter of trust, rather a matter of time. Did you already search at booklooker or zvab [4] finds 169 titles of him.Nillurcheier (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Jewish descent category to the Horst Mahler because of a page clearly cited in the article that states he is. If you believe it is an "unsourced fake," then please rectify this from the article instead of reverting my changes. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 14:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See answer at Mahler's Talk page Nillurcheier (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Regensburg, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was my mistake, I misread the sentence and was mislead by the article title. Thanks for the revert. Ita140188 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of best-selling books, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Momo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation from a not related office is a must-do to gain a position in a different sector. Aminabzz (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is the legal situation in Germany and applies to all members of the government. Nillurcheier (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit war with you over this, but we use the WP:COMMONNAME "West Germany" for the Federal Republic of Germany between 1949 and 1990. Generalrelative (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly and not something like "what then was West Germany". It always was the FRG, just the common name in the US (and elsewhere) changed after the reunification, which was de jure an accession of hte former GDR-Länder. Nillurcheier (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you prefer to keep unofficial "Ipsos" data inserted by a permanently banned sockpuppet (Indapamide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) on 23th November 2023 (check the history of the page Spain) instead of the official INE (Spain) data that was on the page until the blocked sock replaced it? LucenseLugo (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've noticed some of your edits on Mary, mother of Jesus regarding the disputed belief that she was either a perpetual virgin or gave birth to other children. If you would like to add the information to the article that you've been attempting to add (but keeps getting reverted), you need to do so by adding referenced material to the body of the article with reliable sources. Let me know if you need help doing so. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in Ethiopia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abyssinians.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just wanted to clarify that it’s not the case that “the Scot’s use the term country differently from the rest of the world”. Scotland, along with England, Wales and, even controversial, Northern Ireland, are indeed countries. This is the legal term used to describe them. Unlike places like California, they are countries, not states or subdivisions of a larger country. Yes, not sovereign countries, but still countries in their own right. “Countries within a country” is the term commonly used to describe their status. Thought I would clear that up for you. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please give reasoning when making edits, thank you. 2603:6011:59F0:1F20:C87C:3799:830B:786E (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you miss one? Nillurcheier (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in Guatemala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spiritism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the revert here. An anon IP changed the 3rd most populous to some odd 16th most populous. I had no idea whether it was vandalism or not but the sentence was correct prior to their edit. I fixed it and you reverted me? I assume a mistake on your part? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): sorry, I read "Africa" and overlooked the "West". Nillurcheier (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Edit warring

Wikipedia:3rr only allowed 3 reverts within 24hrs, you are liable to be blocked on your 4th revert.

Please don't do this. Reference number 4 from the article explicitly states that islam is the world's fastest growing religion

2017: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/04/06/why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/

2022: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/12/21/key-findings-from-the-global-religious-futures-project/ Bro The Man (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]