User talk:Colonestarrice/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Pasider! Thank you for your contributions. I am RA0808 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal cosmetic edits

If your reasoning behind your edit being correct is my edit being incorrect, then you do not understand what the issue is even about. It is obvious that the change you did, on multiple pages and without any kind of comment, is purely a cosmetic change that feels better to you. However, this does not automatically apply to everyone. For example, I don't think that this change gives the infobox a better formatting, it just adds more characters to it unnecessarily, wherefore I reverted your edit. The bunch of edits that appeared on my watchlist are is inconsistent, seeing taht you sometimes remove small templates and sometimes don't. You might be entitled to an opinion, but so am I, and you are welcome to convince me that your version is better, but edit warring it out is not the way the go.

Furthermore, accusing me of "not constructively contributing" and "just collecting edits by reverting everyone else’s changes" is wrong, inappropriate and can easily be taken as a personal attack, and stating that the edit is "objectively more comfortable" is false given that it is subjective. If you wish to discuss this, please do so, but do not edit war (you're close to WP:3RR already). In any case, please return the article to WP:STATUSQUO (before your edits). Lordtobi (✉) 11:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. MOS:DTAB, among others. Adding line breaks to infoboxes like you have been, or ampersands (MOS:AMPERSAND), and general edit warring over your infobox changes are not going to fly. Nor is there any "global standard" of Infoboxes that you tell those who revert you. You're on enwiki, follow enwiki's MOS. If you're reverted, follow WP:BRD and stop edit warring. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sup mate

I'm happy to see someone take interest in cleaning up Austrian politics :) I've been planning to fix a number of terminological errors -- some simple translation fails, some instances where we currently use POV-pushing neologisms from primary sources instead of established language from the media and the scholarly literature. Do you think we should coordinate so we don't step on each other's toes? Kramler (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kramler: Thank you for your compliment (one of the rarest things on this platform). Depends on what you mean with coordinate, i'm currently planning to change/improve the articles of the governors (persons and positions) of the Austrian states, if this information helps you. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! I had a look at your contributions and it really doesn't seem like we're going to bump into each other a lot. Guess I'll just gradually get to work. I'm not going to be nearly as active as you are anyway.

I do have one suggestion, if I may. :) I get the impression that you're very fond of the word "federal". English-language books and the English-language scholarly literature generally don't say things like "federal minister", "federal president", "federal chancellor", etc. in the context of Austria. I know these are just the super ultra literal word-for-word translations of Bundesminister, Bundespräsident, Bundeskanzler, and so on, but the relevant secondary sources simply don't translate these things that way. They just say minister, president, or chancellor, respectively. There are no state ministers, state presidents, or state chancellors in Austria in any case.

Many of the Austrian politics articles currently rely on naively literal translations from Austrian statutes (which are primary sources!) that the editors responsible clearly did themselves (making them original research!) and that in many cases actively mislead native speakers of English unfamiliar with Austria's legal fictions and linguistic mannerisms. Let's fix this. Kramler (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kramler: I will try my best in removing and not-using this word if not necessary Colonestarrice (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much; it's appreciated. I will do my best to help :) Kramler (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sebastian Kurz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiener Landtag und Gemeinderat listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiener Landtag und Gemeinderat. Since you had some involvement with the Wiener Landtag und Gemeinderat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I too am wondering what the point of this redirect is. You usually have a reason for what you do; care to share? :) Kramler (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Nicer infoboxes

Thanks for adding the infobox to my article! I'd like to write stubs for all current ministries and add infoboxes to them in the long run. So far I did three stubs; next one is up tomorrow. Only thing that bothers me is, the government agency template is too narrow for Austrian ministries. Line breaks in every ministry name, line breaks in every job title, line breaks in half the personal names. Plus the labels are often inappropriate. Also the pictures are too small. Austria has very pretty government buildings. They're usually the nicest thing in the entire article. I started experimenting with making my own agency template; please let me know what you think. Kramler (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kramler: I agree, the templates we have to use are very restricted, so I fully support the creation of more applicable and accurate infoboxes. If I have the time for it I will take a closer look at the functionality of templates and so may be able to practically assist you with the creation of the Austrian agency infobox.

Another topic i would like to discuss is the style of name of the Austrian ministries. The word "Bundes" translates to "federal" and thus "Bundesministerium" translates to "federal ministry". I personally don't mind if they're called federal ministries or just ministries, what i do care about is that all of them use the same style of name, so either federal ministry or just ministry. But we have to agree upon one of them. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I did a first version of a possible new infobox today; have a look: User:Kramler/Infobox Austrian agency.

"Bundes" doesn't translate to "federal" in this context; it translates to nothing. Did you see my brief writeup on the subject? We have to follow the preponderance of the reliable sources we are aware of − books, journal articles, broadsheets, that sort of thing. International scholarly authors don't call Austrian ministries "federal" ministries for the same reason they don't call the Congos a pair of liberal democracies − they really aren't, no matter how much they say they are.

I'm not necessarily happy about it myself because it's an awful amount of work and I'd rather just write articles, but there is nothing we can do.

Let me know what you think about my infobox design. I'm very much looking forward to fixing this chaos. Kramler (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

---

@Kramler: I took a look at your template and the concept looks already good. Here is a self-created version I would propose:

{{Infobox Austrian agency 
| name                  = name
| native_name           = native name
| logo                  = logo
| established           = date
| dissolved             = date
| jurisdiction          = jurisdiction
| headquarters          = adress
| coordinates           = coordinates
| parent                = parent organisation 
| childs                = child organisations 
| head                  = officeholder
| minister              = officeholder
| minister_link         = Link (example: List_of_Defense_Ministers_of_Austria)
| secretary-general     = officeholder
| state secretary       = officeholder
| website               = URL
| image                 = image of Building 
}}

First of all i would directly use the exact designation of office (minister, secretary-general and state secretary) of the "agency" leadership, if I'm not wrong this should be able to apply to all government organisations. I also added a "logo" segment and moved the image section to the bottom (which would make an interesting alternative to the standard).

I'm looking forward to see your opinion about this version. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking at this thing! Your design is an excellent fit for ministries, but are you sure it would also work for regional governments, or for courts, or for the various and sundry nachgeordnete agencies there are? Labels like "minister" or "state secretary" are really very specific. Also some places have multiple secretaries, and the Chancellery can even have multiple ministers. I'm going to have to think about this.

One thing I could use some help with is names. Every ministry really has four different names: there's the long official one and then there's the short one that people (and newspapers!) actually use, and they come in two languages each. In the long run, I think we need a way to put all four into the template. Any ideas?

Incidentally, I was going to start using the template tonight :) I'll put it off until tomorrow. Kramler (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and published the template. I also put a few preliminary infoboxes on the Ministry pages I've been working on. Doesn't mean I'm claiming the template is done! Still interested in comments and suggestions! Kramler (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kramler: So i tried to fix the issues of my proposed template and this is the result:

A ministry has only one official name (Bundesministerium für [Affairs]) and this is the one we should use.

And excuse me for my greatly delayed response. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Christoph Grabenwarter moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Christoph Grabenwarter, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brigitte Bierlein

The article Brigitte Bierlein has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. JTtheOG (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Colonestarrice! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I’m inviting you to join other people who enjoy editing conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where group members can meet new colleagues and get answers to burning questions. I hope to see you there! – Lionel^(talk) 12:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Austrian document/doc

Hi Colonestarrice
I see you created Template:Infobox Austrian document which includes the word "Reponsible", an obvious typo for "Responsible", so I have changed it to that.
However, looking at the usage of that template at Federal Constitutional Law (Austrian act) I wonder if "Responsibilities" or "Responsible for" would be better? as the meaning of "Responsible", in that location, is not very clear. - Arjayay (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again

Did you just systematically go over every page I ever wrote, randomly shuffling paragraphs around, making sure infobox widths would be inconsistent across pages, and removing the headlines that remind me (and tell readers) what sections still need to be written? Looks interesting on my watch list, but... why would you do that?? Kramler (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The new picture of Hartinger-Klein is a great improvement though; thanks for that. Kramler (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kramler: I standardized the structure of your articles. The custom size of your Infoboxes were greatly design destructive and against Wikipedia's common standards (i know people like Faßmann truly represent the natural beauty, but we still don't have to see them in this size). Headers without subordinated text are unnecessary, if you still want to keep these headers for what ever reason, then please hide them (<!-- Hidden text -->). Colonestarrice (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"Design destructive" how? People read Wikipedia on a wide variety of devices and with a wide variety of different font sets, so you need to be careful about the assumptions you make. What's a "subordinated text"? Kramler (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kramler: If you are not happy with Wikipedia's standards then globally (≠ internationally) change them. Colonestarrice (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So which particular standard do you think I am in violation of?

You still haven't told me how I destroy "design" or what "subordinated text" is. I also still don't understand why you removed standard biographical information from the infoboxes and why you shuffled those paragraphs around − the current officeholder is more relevant to most readers than the ancient history of the ministry, so it would appear to me that the officeholder should be mentioned first.

Also, basically every single edit you have made so far to an Austrian legal topic has introduced a factual error or a WP:OR violation; sometimes both. Why don't you write an article of your own? Read some of the books, learn how the literature talks about these things, grow an intuition for what is helpful and what isn't, that sort of thing. Kramler (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Supreme Military Commander of the Bundesheer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Supreme Military Commander of the Bundesheer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supreme Military Commander of the Bundesheer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kramler (talk • contribs) 04:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning the appointer on the page about the appointee, etc.

I'm not reverting your edits because I don't like you, I'm reverting a few of your edits because they're unhelpful. I don't know why you think I don't like you. It's not my fault you made bad changes to one of my articles and then started an edit war when I had to undo a few factual errors. If I was interested in kicking up shit I would go to work on your Political System template. It's a bad fit for the articles you use it on, to the degree that it is actually misleading in some respects, and should almost certainly be removed. Yet I never touched it.

Regarding the Austria article: The noob was trying to help. They added information that is undeniably correct, has a very decent claim to relevance, and is appropriate in terms of where they put it. There was no reason to WP:BITE them. It's not like we have too many editors here. I left a friendly message on their talk page but noobs who get snapped at for their second edit usually disappear.

More generally: You snap at people quite a bit. Stop snapping at people all the time. What, for example, what was this remark supposed to be? Katniss is an experienced editor with a sophisticated understanding of the guidelines and why they are there; you have yet to write your first article. She was removing the offending part of your offending template for you. If anything, you should have thanked her for putting your broken template back in compliance.

Even more generally, stop acting butthurt when people correct you. Katniss aside, remember this edit? You intentionally re-add mistakes to an article just out of spite, and you proudly proclaim you're doing it on purpose in the edit summary? This sort of thing teaches people that you aren't interested in being constructive and that your edits should be treated with suspicion.

Finally, stop lecturing people about standards. Especially about "standards" you basically just made up, but really about actual standards as well. It's nothing personal, I swear, but someone who puts pages like this one into article space doesn't really know the standards all that well. The single most important rule of Wikipedia is, we document things that are attested by reliable sources. This applies to concepts and terminology just like it applies to perching birds and crime sprees. We do not create articles for words and phrases that not a single reliable source on Earth has ever used before. Every other rule is negotiable; the rule about working from reliable sources is not.

As I already suggested last time: Write an article some time. Do some actual research for it. If it's about an Austrian legal concept, find out what words professional legal translators and international researchers use for it in English, so you don't end up using Google Translate bullshit like "federal president" or whatnot. (You know what's really cheap? Old law school and polsci textbooks from these people. I can suggest a few if you're interested.)

Like I said, it's not like we have too many editors here. The Austrian corner of Wikipedia is badly, badly under-editored. If you only spent a little less time on spamming pointless infoboxes everywhere and a little more time researching and writing stuff, you could be an extremely valuable addition to the project. Kramler (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here, I'll add a bit of my own advice/thoughts. As Kramler said, my edits were only to bring your broken template back into compliance. You were repeatedly adding an orphaned image file to your template, which was causing it to show up in Category:Templates with missing files (essentially a category for templates with files/images not in compliance). Your comment here "stop removing it, fix it, if you don't know how then leave it" shows you do not have much experience with templates, because I was fixing it and you were continually reverting it back to a broken image. Your last revert still did not fix the orphaned file issue, and KylieTastic had to add an image in for you to correct the issue.

That being said, I've glanced at some of the above referenced diffs and I don't think Kramler is reverting you out of spite or because he hates you. Looking at your contributions, while you seem to be a good editor, you have made several mistakes and it appears Kramler is just trying to correct them. The issue, however, isn't the mistakes, but rather your very hostile attitude towards other editors. Looking through your contributions and edit summaries from the past few months, at least 50% of them seem to be passive-aggressive remarks or snapping at other editors. That type of attitude is not compatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

As an experienced editor who's been on Wikipedia for nearly 4 years, I have certainly made plenty of mistakes and still occasionally make some. No one is going to shame you for making mistakes, so there isn't any reason to act hostile or blame other editors for your own mistakes. If you genuinely feel like another editor is making a mistake, the proper thing to do is to assume good faith and contact them on their talk page to discuss the matter. You should not leave passive-aggressive edit summaries or revert other editors out of spite, as that isn't going to get anywhere and you will likely be taken less seriously.

That being said, neither of us are trying to lecture you or say you are not a good editor. I can't comment on the infoboxes or articles, but you shouldn't take people reverting your edits personally. There's certainly enough negativity in the world already, so in my opinion the best attitude you can have on Wikipedia is a positive one. Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 20:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! - ^theWOLFchild 12:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Ludwig (politician)

The article Michael Ludwig (politician) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Mayor vs fencer

The current primary article on "Michael Ludwig" is about some random fencer and the mayor and governor of Vienna is a secondary article with a suffix. I believe it should be the other way around; your article should be the primary. The current mayor and governor of Vienna is overwhelmingly more important than some dude who poked some people with a stick a few decades ago. How about we

• move Michael Ludwig to Michael Ludwig (fencer),
• update existing links to the fencer accordingly,
• ask the admins to move Michael Ludwig (politician) to Michael Ludwig?

I don't think anyone would complain and the standards would be on our side. Lemme know what you think. Kramler (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kramler: I agree. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll get to work. Kramler (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces

As there is currently a open merge discussion taking place regarding this article, can you please refrain from making any major changes until that discussion has closed? Thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 23:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to echo what Thewolfchild mentioned. Changing while the discussion is in progress (and especially changing the page name) can be misleading to individuals who will enter the discussion. Especially changing the page name without discussion, right after being reverted. Garuda28 (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Which rule states this? Colonestarrice (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD sums up a good way for you to do good edits, reverting a move edit without discussion could be construed as edit warring. Either way it is bad practice and can be seen as deceptive and as article disruption. Garuda28 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Garuda28: WP:BRD does not apply here in any way. I explained my edit with "This is what the majority of the participants of the merge discussion wants and the only thing we all achieved consensus on, i don't see any reason why this shouldn't be realized", is this reason wrong? Colonestarrice (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The majority of individuals involved in the discussion support merging the article, as they voiced the opinion that the article is unneeded, inappropriate, or anywhere in between . BRD applies because you were bold, was reverted, and should now discuss. Instead you opted to revert the reversion without any discussion or attempt to achieve consensus - which is a very short step away from engaging in an edit war. Garuda28 (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beate Meinl-Reisinger

The article Beate Meinl-Reisinger has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Werner Kogler

The article Werner Kogler has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cahk (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Peter Kaiser

Hi Colonesterrice, many thanks for your new article about Peter Kaiser. I have moved the articles around and created a disambiguation page for the two Peter Kaisers. I have also changed links that targeted Peter Kaiser in a context of the historian to now point at that article. Can you please help update the article about the politician so that is has proper inline citations for this biography? Many thanks. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Austrian Constitutional Assembly election, 1919

As your move has been reverted, you are expected to start a WP:RM on the talk page, rather than repeatedly move the article. Thanks, Number 57 08:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I created the Michael Ludwig article (as Michael Ludwig (politician)) and would therefore like to be cited as its page creator. Due to manual transfers of content Kramler ended up being the article's author. Colonestarrice (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for pinging me. It looks like I hist-merged the wrong source. I have reverted it and merged Michael Ludwig (politician), as it was warranted. Either way, you are page creator (above comment about cut and paste merges still applies though). Hope that helps! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Colonestarrice (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks again for pinging and bringing my mistake to my attention . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces

Please do not undo edits regarding the phrase "comprised of". It is incorrect English, and if you click on the link there, the user Giraffedata provides a great explanation why. Thousands of edits are made annually removing the phrase from Wikipedia. "Composed of" is an overused phrase, but it is correct english.

Redditaddict69 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Please use this so we know what you're editing. Corky 23:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You can be blocked if you don't comply with using your edit summary. Users have been known to be blocked for not using it. It takes two seconds to do. Corky 18:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Nazi Germany to German Reich Translation

While you are attempting to "improve" a translation of Nazi Germany by changing it to German Reich, you must understand that translations are about meaning and not converting words verbatim. German Reich actually refers to the First Reich, which in the opinion of historians—myself included—is equated with the Holy Roman Empire that existed between 962–1806, and the Second Reich would be the German Empire that existed while Bismarck was Chancellor between 1871–1918, but neither of these terms are part of normal historical terminology for native speakers of English. Hitler presided over the Third Reich, which is also known more commonly to English speakers as Nazi Germany. Your translation is therefore incorrect in terms of meaning. Please refrain from changing pages using Nazi Germany as the appropriate English translation to something else. Future efforts to that end could be construed as vandalism. --Obenritter (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Chancellor of the Exchequer

In this recent edit you made, while some changes were helpful, others, such as adding all that needless spacing (?), changing the official website from the specific agency site to the general site for the entire government, and other changes to templates and layout are not improvements. Please keep that in mind with future edits. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 22:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary

I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! Cavrdg (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cavrdg: This has been requested of this user previously, on multiple occasions, but unfortunately, they have chosen not to be cooperative with the community in regards to edit summaries. This is unfortunate, given the collaborative nature of this project, but hopefully they will finally change their editing practices at some point, and soon. - wolf 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Austrian organization

Template:Infobox Austrian organization has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Politics of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supreme court building (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Gernot Blümel) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Gernot Blümel, Colonestarrice!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please move back to mainspace when it has WP:INLINECITED references.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Peter Goldgruber) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Peter Goldgruber, Colonestarrice!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This has been tagged for four issues.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Michaela Kardeis) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Michaela Kardeis, Colonestarrice!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please WP:INLINECITE references.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Austrian government agency

Template:Infobox Austrian government agency has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Supreme Commander of the Austro-Hungarian Armed Forces

Hi Colonestarrice. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but once we make a change that is potentially controversial, we are supposed to discuss any further changes before we make them. Normally we follow WP:BRD here. I was unable to revert your move, so I re-checked the English usage and moved it to a name that matched the sources. Please would you help me and other editors understand your changes at the talk page, citing any references you are using. Many thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: I too am struggling to understand this move. I see a handful of references supporting the old name but I draw blanks wrt the new one.

@Colonestarrice: Are you making up headwords again without bothering to check any sources? I thought you'd stopped doing that. The Constituent Assembly Elections move you made a while ago was a great idea and looked like it was based on a survey of the literature. The reliable sources available online were definitely on your side there. If someone were to go over your recent edits, would that result in another half-dozen re-renames and deletions? Damvile (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Colonestarrice: Please stop tinkering with Austro-Hungarian articles and changing the names of commanders and forces in the title or text from their historically accurate European names to some quasi-modern, American-sounding inventions. Renaming articles in particular needs to be done sensitively and, normally, with consensus. @Damvile: - thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Austrian party flag

In regards to your edit here, note that the Three Arrows was phased out as a party symbol in the 1950s. It is possible it is used as a nostalgic symbol from time to time by party members, but is definitely not the official party flag today. --Soman (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Gernot Blümel

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Colonestarrice, thanks for creating Gernot Blümel!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please make all references WP:INLINECITED, especially on biographies of living people.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Styling the Restored Bourbons

Please list the specific policies invoked in your recent changes to the late Bourbons. These changes appear to be a matter of personal preference, which will require consensus as the existing format has been established for at least a year. – Conservatrix (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix: Such detailed standards are commonly determined by the great majority of all existing articles and not by a policy. I'm not here to start a dispute, if changed information is false correct it and don't revert my entire edit. Colonestarrice (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits that disrupt established norms without policy citations or talk page consensus will be reverted consistently. Furthermore, your talk page notes a reoccurring issue with edit summaries that also applies here, and edits without explanations are very much open to revision. – Conservatrix (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox commander in chief

Template:Infobox commander in chief has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kramler (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked your account per your request on my talk page. I blocked you indefinitely as you did not specify any period of time. If you wish to be unblocked, you will have to use the {{unblock}} template ({{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}). Hope all is well. Swarm ♠ 19:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Colonestarrice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked already, a block wasn't necessary after all, sorry to have disrupted you for nothing @Swarm:. Colonestarrice (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Your recent editing history at VPOTUS 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. - ^theWOLFchild 06:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - wolf 06:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Streeruwitz

Streeruwitz is the 7th, 9th, or 15th, depending on how you count. Neither number has any meaningful support from reliable sources because Austrian media and Austria legal scholars simply do not talk about Austrian chancellors in terms of their sequential numbers. In the Weissensteiner-Weinzierl book I was working from, for example, Streeruwitz appears as the 7th but is never actually called the 7th. There is no canonical numbering of Austrian chancellors the way there is a canonical numbering e.g. of US Presidents. Austrians do not think of Schober as "the 4th Chancellor" the way Americans think of Madison as "the 4th President." You cannot use "29" (or whatever) as shorthand for "Kurz" the way Americans can use "45" as shorthand for "Trump."

One thing this means is that we can't add a sequence number because we don't know what that number is.

Another thing this means is that we shouldn't add a sequence number because it would be misinformation. It would paint a false picture. It would imply a way of looking at things that does not exist in Austrian legal and political discourse. The fact that Austria does not use this kind of language means that Austrian political thought does not draw on the kind of epistemology it comes from.

As we've already discussed, twice, the point of Wikipedia is not to use every available parameter in every available infobox. The point is to be accurate, including on the meta level:

1. mention what is relevant;
2. emphasize what is salient;
3. omit what is technically true but distracting, misleading, or just plain old pointless.

The value of an encyclopedia doesn't lie in the data points (you can get those from Google or, failing that, the nearest library) but in its editorial decisions, in the way it organizes things and makes them accessible. The value of an encyclopedia lies, in other words, as much in what it doesn't include as in what it does. Cluttering up articles with unhelpful trivia is bad editing. Cluttering up articles with false statements of fact, express or implied – Streeruwitz does not have a widely agreed-upon sequential number – is not permissible. Cluttering up articles even after you have been repeatedly asked to stop by editors who are demonstrably more familiar with the literature than you – and who have demonstrably better intuition about the subject's presentational wants and affordances – is vandalism.

Speaking of bad editing, one thing Streeruwitz is definitely not is the 6th, meaning that my committed prediction came true:

$ echo Colonestarrice will make at least one troll edit against this article. It will introduce a factual error and will not cite any source. The edit summary will be empty or a joke.| md5sum
c1f719b552ba2d9133e9532abd556b75  -

Your talk page is an endless procession of people who are practically begging you to accept that Wikipedia runs on civility and teamwork. Please cite sources. Please provide edit summaries. Please stop making random cosmetic edits to articles without consulting the communities that have spent years building them; they probably have good reasons for the stylistic conventions they have hammered out over the past two decades. Please don't constantly invent your own personal translations. Please don't make page moves based on your own personal translations. Please stop crapping gratuitous templates everywhere you go. Please stop edit warring. But you do not listen. You do not stop. For whatever reason, you insist on playing the role of Colon Cancer, Implacable Shitposting Machine. Why? What does it get you? You can't possibly be having any fun doing this.

I did try to help. I tried to convince you to write an actual article some time so that you could enjoy the experience, and maybe also so you would learn why it sucks when some random newb keeps lobbing drive-by incorrections at your work. I personally saved one of your unsourced BLP substubs from certain deletion so you wouldn't be discouraged. I invited you to help me build something useful and substantial – an infobox in one case, an article in the other – on two separate occasions. How did all that work out for me?

A while ago, Bermicourt was considering getting admins involved to make you stop, now I see @Thewolfchild is actually doing that. It looks like you're on thin ice with a few others as well. At some point you're going to have to get the message. Kramler (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly second these comments by Kramler. - wolf 18:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

VPOTUS talk page

I'd like you to know that I am perfectly willing to discuss content with you on any article talk page, as long as you can do so in a mature and civil manner. From all the comments and warnings here, I see that is something you need to work on. However, if really feel you must post some off-topic, personal message to me, than do so here on your talk page (becasue I don't want you on my talk page) and ping me, unless it's just another insult or personal attack of some kind, the don't bother. Please try to keep your off-topic diatribes off article talk pages. That is not the place for them. Thank you - wolf 18:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Greens – The Green Alternative. 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. - wolf 16:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I now explicitly ask you to never again message me on my talk page. If I should violate any policy or guidelines report me or take the specific actions directly without warning me before. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge your request, consider it mutual, but it does not apply to notice board notifications. If you continue to edit war, and again find yourself being reported, I, or whomever is filing the report, is obligated to post a warning and as well as the notice here. Have a nice day - wolf 17:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - wolf 16:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at The Greens – The Green Alternative

Hello Colonestarrice. You've been warned as a result of the edit warring complaint. You may be blocked if you revert again on this article without first getting a consensus in your favor on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Colonestarrice (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nillurcheier1 neglected to inform you Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion already, but still thanks for notifying me. He/She seems to be a sock puppet anyway. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of heads of government under Austrian Emperors

Hi, I'm Meatsgains. Colonestarrice, thanks for creating List of heads of government under Austrian Emperors!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Meatsgains^(talk) 02:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reinhard Todt

The article Reinhard Todt has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)