This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Since recently DavidCane is a bit inactive and I don't have access to some books only available in the UK, would you mind helping me out on the article mentioned? This is because recently the number of views of the article suddenly shot up to the Top 10 favourite articles and that I want to improve it. :) Cheers! - Vincent60030 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Vincent60030: By "helping out", do you mean doing a GA review, or improving the article to GA? I would love to write more London transport articles, absolutely, but I don't have any of the books that David has - though I have seen one good book source at my local library. The best book I do have is the third edition of the London Encyclopedia which is a great "all-round" source for London, but it has some notable gaps (eg: Old Kent Road and North Circular Road, both pretty notable London landmarks imho get one paragraph each). Plus, being pragmatic, I really need to finish off Genesis' GA review (see above) and get The White Album past PR and up to FAC, so I can't promise I'd give this any priority right now. Sorry :-( Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Vincent60030: I'll see if I can have a look this evening, but a quick run through just now doesn't look too bad - all major facts are cited and I see citations to things like the London Gazette, Transport for London and The Times so there'd be no reason to quickfail it. I'll grab the review now. Sorry, I had a major disaster over the weekend where my main work Mac Pro (containing all my Logic Pro mixes) had a hard drive failure and I've been spending IT time on that - fortunately I've recovered everything ;-) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh my, I see. It must have been a hard time for you, Ritchie333 plus there was drama in your talk page. Luckily, that's over for now. :) Good luck! PS: I got those Gazette refs thanks to DavidCane where he FA-fied the BS&WR and C&SLR pages. XD
I see, interesting. I've never been there before too. Maybe you could bring your kids there to look at the Elephant statue haha. Best wishes, Vincent60030 (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If you can find that, you've probably found "Ritchie and Rhonda" and "Rhonda and the Great Unknown" then. Enjoy the tunes! In the meantime, I have made a start on the GA review. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've had a look. I'm just going through the rest of the article, then I'll go back and review all the comments you've left. As they say over the announcement tannoy, "we are sorry for any delays". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Sorry to bother you AGAIN, but I was wondering why were there no replies on my comments? I'm just wondering so don't worry. ;) (PS: I get over excited about GAs.) Vincent60030 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't done them yet, but I plan on doing so. I was just taking a break and seeing if I could finish off John Deacon (that sounds like I'm trying to bump him off or something though, doesn't it?), then I will have a look at it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Omg I'm being "hyperactive" on this. =p Vincent60030 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Ritchie! Did you just miss the other comment on the review page? (am I being too impatient or did you really miss it?) XD Vincent60030 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: *sigh* I wish you'd sent me an email or something; although the thread closed, I think a discussion is worth having without the lynch mob getting the way. I'm going to mull over in my head solutions that everyone can be happy with. :Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea. Take your time in mulling it over and email me whenever you are ready. In the interim, I wouldn't want you to worry that you may have burned a bridge...you certainly haven't. I believe that we will get it worked out.
@Berean Hunter: I think the Enhanced per-user, per-article protection / blocking feature is the answer that goes a long way to satisfy my concerns, and I'm pleasantly surprised it seems to be one of the most popular proposals on Meta at the moment. It would mean we could do a full block for 6 hours (sufficient to cool down), then block on talk / user talk space for 48 hours (to prove they really are committed to writing the encyclopedia and not just sniping at people). We can then counteract criticism like "oh, but they're such a good content creator" with "well they're not blocked from creating content, so what's your point?" Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I would do the full block (6 hour in your above example) if they could have been blocked from user talk and WP discussion areas. It wasn't a cool down block from my perspective but rather I was wanting to prevent further attacks and if they could be blocked from doing that while still allowing article editing, that would be sufficient. I can see where an admin in this case would have to check up on that editor periodically though. If they are allowed to edit article talk pages then I can envision that we would have some editors trying to carry on there. Our policies will need updating to handle the various ways that editors will react to circumvent these blocks. Will they be prevented from editing their own talk pages under the above block is a good question. If not, editors can snipe and snark on those with a bit more propriety. We'll have to cross that bridge when we get there. The concept is sound so it offers promise. — Berean Hunter(talk)15:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you do a damn fine job in so many areas: 1) content: music such as: The Who, The Beatles, Keith Moon. 2) Wikidata 3) Commons AND 4) Administrative tasks. I see you as a fair and honest person with integrity. Thank you for all your many years of hard work. — Ched : ? 13:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ched. I've been reading a bit of Richard Dawkins this week, and I see an interesting parallel. We both have strong opinions on stuff, and they're backed up with years of evidence and research, without going along with what previous leaders do, and we deliver our opinions in a civil manner without trying to be too disruptive, yet people still get upset anyway. Just the way of the world, I'm afraid. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
How dare you compare yourself to Richard Dawkins? This is offensive and it shows you're not willing to stand up to community scrutiny as a normal person instead of a famous character. I will bring this up on ANI the next time you're inevitably brought for your recklessness in allowing other people to edit the encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I was working on my article DR USMAN ZAFAR which is a leigt person running a succefull busniess here are the link. I am new to community so can you please restore the article as draft.
Sorry if I missed it above, but I don't think you answered the question of whether you are open to recall? If so, what are your criteria? I don't particularly want to make an issue of one mistake, but I'm concerned that you might take a similar action again in the future. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea - I just write articles and gnome at CAT:CSD most of the time. I think if some of Kudpung, Drmies, Dennis Brown and any other admin who knows me well says "you should resign" I will anyway. I don't think I've ever mentioned it but for a number of years I have considered I would immediately resign from Wikipedia completely on the receipt of any block (hasn't happened yet). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
"Anti-admin talk" by admins? That's an interesting development. Somewhat gives the lie to your "anti-admin brigade" meme though. EricCorbett23:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm the one who asked. I'm not anti-admin. I'm anti-"no accountability for admins." Ritchie333 challenged people to suggest desyopping, and I asked if he would put himself as open to recall in good faith to show he is serious. Btw anyone who just writes articles and gnome at CSD shouldn't be an admin. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone who is competent and active in multiple areas of Wikipedia. It doesn't seem like you really need your admin tools. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is getting out of hand. Of course the deletion tool is useful for someone working in CSD. And anyway "no need for the tools" is a terrible reason for saying someone should not be an admin. Wikimandia: it's probably time to let this drop, Ritchie has had a substantial amount of feedback now. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm kindly asking him if he would be open to recall. Feedback means nothing if it's ignored. Obviously there's an issue here and there is no indication, unless I missed it, that he will not do the same exact thing today. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
An executive Fiat, yesterday.
I think the best thing to do is borrow Floquenbeam's suggestion here with a slight twist and let Gerda Arendt decide absolutely everything by executive fiat. It might mean more candles appear on this page and if you listen carefully you'll be able to hear Sibelius' Karelia Suite in the background, but I feel that's a fair price to pay for these things, don't you? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Here I am, afraid not to know what executive fiat means. I always lean more towards unblock than block, if that is the question, especially if the victim (find better word) of a block is precious. I decide nothing here, - just was told that my latest design looks horrible, while I am rather sure I didn't use that term in six years here. Well, at least the five candidates I wanted made it to arbcom, think positive: four women there next year, imagine! - Forgot to sign,but who else? Once I'm here again: anybodyout there to review prepare your paths for GA? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Kindly answer the questions. Will you put yourself open to recall or not? Will you continue to unblock people without following the appropriate procedures? These are yes-no questions Thank you. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikimandia you do realize that recall is a strictly voluntary process and not remotely binding? I would not worry too much about recall. HighInBC16:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like Ritchie to answer the question. Why is it so hard to answer the second question especially? Do you plan to continue to violate policy or not? Just answer the question. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm off out now, but if another admin wants to block Wikimandia (12 - 24 hours for trolling sounds good), she'll find out if I reverse them for the hell of it soon enough! Meanwhile, here is some Rhubarb. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
For what I'm concerned, I find it unimaginable that reviewing other administrators' work independently would be "violating policy" - and if it is, then that's a bad policy that should be ignored, because quis custodiet ipsos custodes? There must be a reason unblock requests may not exclusively be answered by the blocking admin in the first place. LjL (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow. I am not trolling at all. I am asking an honest question. Some people feel admins should be accountable for their action and that they should have the faith of the community. That you're suggesting I be blocked for trolling is unbelievable. I won't write anymore on your page but will take this to arbcom. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: it may be time to get let this go. It was reviewed by the community and no action came of it. I am sure the community has sufficiently voiced their concerns. Unless there are future issues there is really nothing left to resolve here. HighInBC18:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Hi there! Just talking about the prose issue and not DYK. ;) I would say maybe it's ok to write it like 'essay-like' style for the body but maybe make the lead having an encyclopedic tone? (It's all up to you about this unless you want to have a discussion at it's talk page.) Anyways, cheers! Oh and I have left a message about DYK for E & C station just in case you didn't notice. Do have time to check it out! :D Cheers! Regards, VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 05:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind you starting a conversation on the talk page at all - one of the reasons for taking the article through DYK was to get more people to look and fix whatever problems you would expect with only one editor working on it. Part of the problem with "encyclopedic" is that doesn't really mean anything concrete that can be fixed. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Oh I see. Sorry for the late reply. Quite busy lately travelling here and there lol. Actually, I was just trying to point out the errors though and not meaning to 'diss' you since you nominated for DYK. ;) I might check out the article when I'm back at home to see if anything could be done. For now, I might try to fix the prose style. Cheers! (I've got a new signature) VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@7deacons: The problem here is that you didn't leave any edit summary or note on the talk page, nor did you cite any sources, so I had no idea where you got your information from. This creates a problem - we can't change content simply because one editor asserts it is "inaccurate", it must be sourced. For example, you said "BBC Radio 1 simulcast live a discrete stereo audio mix, synchronised with the TV pictures of the concert", but this source says "It was not a live simulcast as previously thought, as it was not broadcast live on Radio 1." You can't both be right! This is why it's important to cite your sources, so other people can check that what you say is factually accurate. Have a look at Referencing for Beginners to see more about how to cite sources, and why it's a good idea. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Qatar Central Securities Depository redirection
Dear Ritchie333,
I notice that you redirect my article Qatar Central Securities Depository to another, can you clarify the reason please.--Kabubaker74 (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'm here looking for a different outcome to Kabubaker74 but the redirect struck me as strange too - akin to redirecting Dow Chemical to Dow Jones. Regards, Bazj (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Unlike deletion, a redirect gives the article creator a chance to rescue their content via the history. You could always nominate the redirect for deletion via Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion - that will get a consensus on what to do with it. It may mean Kabubacker74 loses work, but that's consensus for you. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
In that case, having an XfD discussion is even better, as the result of that will stop the same article appearing again and again (it'll either already exist or can be deleted via WP:CSD#G4). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
At what point is a company 'relevant' enough to be in Wikipedia?
I'm curious since my submission for my company was removed (even though we are 2 incubator+university+venture backed) when I posted it. The response was " (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)". If it matters, the company was Wiredhere.
Of course i know there must be a lot of people who tries to make their startup or company on wikipedia and they give up on the business about a week later, so that just creates a lot of spam. So i'm curious how the determination or types of metric wikipedia looks for to know if a company is relevant or important enough to have its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masudhossain786 (talk • contribs)
@Masudhossain786: The link Samtar has given is a good one to start off with, but a rule of thumb I have used is "could anyone in the world write a really good article on this topic?" If somebody is to spontaneously write an article without your assistance, they must have good quality sources of information they can use - which is why the notability guidelines refer to the level and quantity of sources and citations to them. An article with no available sources at all is at an extremely high risk of deletion simply because nobody else can prove anything in the article is true or accurate. I don't know why people think having a presence on Wikipedia gives their business a competitive edge; I can honestly say it doesn't, and in some cases (such as Criticism of Walmart) can be actively harmful, because Wikipedia will record negative coverage about the business if it is considered important to do so. So caveat emptor. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Ten years
Thank you for ten years
of service for this hilarious project, with an ample supply of music and understanding!
Scott runs that doesn't he? I've given him a prod. (no, a prod, not a prod, pay attention at the back) As well as Wikipedia, I've been at my day job for ten years and my eldest son turned 10 this year. I recall 2005 was a very busy year for me. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
2005 sounds like it was a busy year! The internet was so different 10 years ago, so many big sites like Uber and Instagram didn't exist and YouTube and Facebook had just been created. It makes you wonder what online life will be like in 2025, what activities/sites will emerge that we'll spend our time on. LizRead!Talk!19:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Noticed your question to Scott. How'd you find out? It was supposed to be a secret. :-) I see you're already in. Otherwise I was going to give Scott time to respond, and then invite you myself. I've looked back at some stuff you've done over this decade, and you have certainly earned the honor (pardon me, honour, as I see you're British), FWIW. Sometimes I think that anyone who is still hanging in there after ten years of Wiki-madness and continuing to edit with enthusiasm has earned some kind of recognition for sheer endurance. Seriously, welcome! --Alan W (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 12:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@The Avengers: I have no idea what a checkuseractually does, but from my own experience running forums and websites and tracking socks and spammers, I would take an educated guess at it being the information you can see when you look at http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ or if you've got the time to read RFC2068. It's harmless to tell anyone this, somebody who's not actually a sock learns something, someone who's the bastard son of Russavia and Grawp ... well it's hardly telling them anything they don't already know is it? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I want to apologize for declining that unblock request while you were involved in it.
I do want to explain where I was coming from though. I saw the blocking admin showing two very similar edits which to me looked like good evidence. I saw you saying there was no evidence and making comments suggesting that the user may have been blocked for "Edit warring? Incivility? POV pushing? Copyright violations? Rubbing admins up the wrong way?". To me it seemed like you were ignoring the actual reasons given and making suggestions of bad faith against the blocking admin.
When I read the ANI post and saw that the images in the article were generated using a common and standard process I immediately realized my error. I would have been able to realize it earlier if you had focused on the issues with the evidence rather than saying that there was none.
I accept my failure in this incident but I don't think I carry 100% of the failure. I am going to apologize to the user right now. HighInBC17:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@HighInBC: Anyone who offers an apology here will have it accepted. I offered my own apology to James here for being gruff as you described above. I wasn't assuming bad faith but expressing frustration that I wasn't getting my point across. Part of the problem is I had misunderstood that the block was a checkuser block, which tend to stick like araldite.
The principal problem, I think, is that sockpuppetry is a secondary offence. We block socks because an account that caused previous disruption is attempting to evade a block, or is otherwise attempting to deceive, but not directly because they are socks. Generally, an obvious sock will have multiple administrators who can easily spot habitual behaviour; if you take one to AN/ANI you'll invariably hear somebody say "aww, not this again". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I am glad you mentioned that you misunderstood that the block was a checkuser block, that does help the situation makes more sense. It seems there was a breakdown of communication at more than one point in the discussion. Peace. HighInBC18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Fakirbakir: I tend to handle the content issues, and leave sockpuppetry claims to other administrators. If you file (or append to) a claim at WP:SPI, it will get dealt with, and any obvious socks will get tagged accordingly, making it very easy to assess the situation (and also legitimately allowing you to revert multiple times as described in WP:3RRNO). There doesn't appear to be a long history of edit warring, nor are there any mentions of discretionary sanctions on the talk page, which leads me to believe this is a fresh dispute, and not a long-running feud plagued by socks. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I won't file a claim because nobody can handle User:Iaaasi's case. He was reported a lot of times.... A whole, well sourced, section has been removed recently and nobody cares about it. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Accusing me of being User:Iaasi is just lame.
The material is not well sourced and verification has failed in the past. See talk:ausgleich. The text was added in April by a confirmed sockpuppet of user:stubes99, namely user:balcony. It has repeatedly been re added in May by another confirmed sockpuppet of Stubes99, user:prudoncty. The text should therefore be denied on the grounds of wp:deny alone. Consensus was reached in the past that Hungary was a part of the Empire of Austria from 1804 to 1867 (save 1848). user:fakirbakir was inappropriately summoned to the discussion by user:KIENGIR (see here). 185.55.217.55 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Ip address,
there is just your POW that is not well sourced, and if any consensus were made, it is already abolished, since historical facts cannot be a matter of any consensus. I did not summoned Fakirbakir "inappropriately", it was a false accusation of "canvassing", I did not influence anyone's opinion, and the accusation was orignally made by Travisrade who first act was to revert an edit and removed a factuality from an other article, but later he recognized his mistake and restored it, meanwhile falsely accusing Hungarians as "nationalists", although factual approach has no connection to any nationalism. Mind your words in the future!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC))
Seasons Greetings
Seasons Greetings
Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.
Thank you so much on working on my case and contributing on getting me unblocked. I hope I'm not asking much, but can you recover some of the pages that I have created that have been deleted by James? Articles such as Attack Attack! discography, Xeno (album). and any other pages that may have been deleted? Regards. ⍟R2me2⍟00:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trafalgar Square you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
M62 motorway
Thanks for your input on that GAN. I have decided to close it as not listed as I feel the situation there is problematic for several reasons, including that the article itself is not ready. SilkTork✔Tea time18:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
If Garagepunk begins editing articles I started on first, do I need to abandon what I wanted to do? I planned to start extensively editing a song called "Wipe Out", but he has since move to the page. He also commented on a nomination I made for deletion, so I am also wondering if I can respond. I apologize if this is tedious, but I am genuinely trying to move on and he is making it a little difficult. I understand editing the song page since that is his expertise, but the nomination page just seems like him trying to follow me around a bit. Anyways, I was wondering about your thoughts before I did much of anything else.ALongStay (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@ALongStay: According to the interaction ban policy, you are okay to edit the same article as long as you do not undo their edits or comment on them in the talk page. I would say there are several million articles to edit, and I'm sure it's possible to find something he's never gone near, though. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bootleg recording, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan Opera House. 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.
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. I am grateful you added to the humor, and helped the RFA go much more smoothly than expected. Again, I thank you. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)23:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Bootleg recording has been nominated for Did You Know
Hello user:Ritchie333, perhaps a doublure, but I would like to bring the following to your attention: The material is not well sourced and verification has failed in the past. See talk:Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. The text was added in April by a confirmed sockpuppet of user:stubes99, namely user:balcony. It has repeatedly been re added in May by another confirmed sockpuppet of Stubes99, user:prudoncty. The text should therefore be denied on the grounds of wp:deny alone. Consensus was reached in the past that Hungary was a part of the Empire of Austria from 1804 to 1867 (save 1848). user:fakirbakir was inappropriately summoned to the discussion by user:KIENGIRNote: An editor has expressed a concern that Fakirbakir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
All of this constitutes bad behaviour and I don’t think any block of non-autoconfirmed users is necessary. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hebel: What you say makes sense (the article is on the "Austrian Empire" after all, the formal union with Hungary coming later), and the version I protected on is not too different to your version here. I singled out Fakirbakir particularly because between them and the IP they've made 7 reverts in the past hour, which is too many. Two points I need to make, Deny recognition is an essay for vandals, which is not what this debate is about, and any uninvolved administrator can call sanctions on anyone edit-warring - "my edits were right" does not work as a defence. If the edit war continues amongst registered editors, I would be inclined to full-protect the page for a shorter period and spell out exactly what consensus is in black-and-white on the talk page so no editor can be in any doubt what it is. I appreciate my background to the topic is limited, based on reading the background to World War I in the Imperial War Museum for instance, but I feel that's a good thing as it stops me being accused of obvious bias. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
OK,user:Ritchie333 Thank you for taking notice. One more question. I invoked WP:DENY because the original authors of the text I removed (again) were confirmed sockpuppets. The denial was directed against THEIR text and not against the people (KEINGIR and Fakirbakir) that are reintroducing it now. If that's not the right procedure, could you tell me what protocol I should use to clarify that contributions by sockpuppets should not be restored? Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hebel: What I meant was WP:DENY is not the right essay to throw into a conversation. I would say Edit warring and Consensus are the best policies to use here. If a point of view is being repeatedly inserted into an article against a prior consensus, then it can be worth getting a broader appeal via the Administrators' Noticeboard which gets a lot of traffic and institutional memory. I did notice that discretionary sanctions are enforced for Eastern Europe, broadly construed, which sort of fits Austria-Hungary, so that might be a way of resolving the disruption for the long-term. Kirill Lokshin was involved in the original case and is still around; maybe he can suggest some ideas. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Guys, these content was an old content, heavily referenced, I read and cared about related topics in the summer and was totally amazed everything was removed a clear alternate history you introduced! I did not know about any sockpuppets since that time. Your argumentations fails then, becuase originally not sockpuppets put the information. What consensus you refer on continously? I did found any consensus and it is IMPOSSIBLE wince Hungary was never legally part of the Austrian Empire. So if really someone made consensus on this, it was a clear mistake!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC))
I checked the "Ausgleich" article, and I did not found any "consensus", you debated with someone, but you did not trial regarding this. You acts are heavily ad hoc and one-sided! The article not any means can remain like this!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC))
Thanks for your commitment. Sorry I wasn't available yesterday. I have made two proposals and published them on the respective talkpages. I'm not sure that that "more than 3R" incidents have taken place on either article in the last few days, but I may be mistaken. I'm awaiting reactions. KIENGIR has published his proposal on the Hungary talkpage. Although that proposal clearly has elements that are objectionable in my view (which I have expressed) I have asked for clarification, because I'm not sure what the exact text is he proposes. I am awaiting reactions on both pages. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I would say it is a very moderate things compared to what happened in the other too articles, first of all I did not found any consensus on the talk page, moreover the staus of that article is also inacceptable. Please note I did not remove Hebel's any edit, I expanded the same sources to have their valid content without contradiction, and I added a section that was removed earlier with a modified content. So it cannot be seen in a way I did something to remove someone's edit, anyway I will report it to the ANI.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC))
A Night at the Odeon – Hammersmith 1975
Nice work expanding and improving this article. It is beautifully written and extremely well done! A++++ Happy Holidays! --♥Golf (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Trafalgar Square
On 25 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trafalgar Square, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Christmas tree (pictured) at Trafalgar Square is transported annually from Oslo to London and can be up to 75 feet (23 m) tall? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trafalgar Square. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
.png)
