Archives

1, 2, 3

You're the kind of person who cares about design and spends a lot of time thinking about table layouts, right? Can you please go have look at the Kurz government talk page? I'd be interested in your opinion about this. The table layout I'm proposing is the table layout I'm using in my own articles so this is of wider relevance to me :) Kramler (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kramler: Yeah I noticed the discussion, but didn't fully get what you mean :\. Perhaps we can make an article sub page for the table and tryout several variant there. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a subpage. If there is no immediate objection on the talk page I'll do it in the article directly, probably some time tomorrow. Improve it if you think it needs improvement; let me know it stinks if you think it's stupid and/or hopeless. Kramler (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kramler: Of what I understood, the table is to wide in your opinion, I could try to reduce it in width. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it, I'll just do it now. Give me a few minutes. Kramler (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kramler: Well, I made a version too now, I don't know if that's what you wanted Colonestarrice (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, I only saw the ping just now. Your version is better than mine, except I don't like the "assumed office" column (explanation is on the article talk page) and Strache would have to be mentioned twice – once in the Chancellery section and once in the Ministers section. Replace my table with yours if you like. Kramler (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kramler: No problem. Well we can rename "assumed office" to "took office", if that's better. Also, the way I understood this, the Vice-Chancellor is only part of the Chancellery if he isn't Minister at the same time, so in the current case I don't think we have to list him twice, but I'm not a 100% sure. I'm going to implement my version now and you can change the things you don't want afterwards. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IDK, "assumed office" and "took office" kind of mean the same thing. Maybe "joined government"? And to be completely honest, I'm not 100% sure about the vice chancellor thing myself anymore. I'll try to find a definitive answer before I touch this. Kramler (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kramler: Yeah, your right, but I think most people see it like that: the office gets established, the office is then assumed/taken Colonestarrice (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the chancellery ministers to the ministers subtable because that's what they are. I already pointed this out a week ago. I renamed the chancellery section from "Chancellery" to "Heads" so the move doesn't falsely suggest that the chancellery ministers are not in the chancellery. Strache does need to be listed twice in either the old or the new version. Damvile (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Damvile and Kramler: As far as I know: chancellery ministers can generally not be compared with normal ministers, since they only act within the federal chancellery and do not head an actual ministry, they're also much more relative (often renamed, removed, changed, created...) and subordinated to the Chancellor (I'm not fully sure with this part though). Hence, I would keep the normal ministers and chancellery ministers in separate sections. I created a user sub page now, where we can tryout several variants instead of changing it every second on the article. Colonestarrice (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not subordinate to the chancellor. They're regular ministers, full stop. They participate (and vote!) in cabinet sessions, they are completely autonomous in their personnel and policy decisions, they are politically answerable to the NR but not to any particular individual, and so on. If it bothers you that their departments aren't officially called ministries, consider that many countries have ministers who don't even have portfolios. There is nothing unusual going on here, I'm positive, the B-VG is very clear in the matter, please leave them where they are. Damvile (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

section break

@Damvile: So, what do you think of this version? Colonestarrice (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonestarrice: I don't hate it or anything, just... can you help me understand why it is so important to you to highlight the distinction between ministers sitting the chancellery and ministers sitting somewhere else? It only encourages readers to think the difference matters. And it's not just readers, it's other wikipedians too. Look at RGloucester and his babbling about "senior" and "junior" ministers for example. This sort of overemphasis on distinctions that don't matter is where these people get their faulty ideas from. Do you want more RGloucesters feeling compelled to make more articles worse in more creative new ways? I'm absolutely willing to listen to you, right now I just don't understand. Damvile (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Damvile: A chancellery minister may indeed be of the same rank as a regular minister, but as already said, he only acts within the chancellery, which differs him greatly from normal ministers. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonestarrice: What exactly do you mean by "only acts within the chancellery"? I'm not being sarcastic, it's a sincere question. The way I see it, they have the exact same rights and prerogatives as all the other ministers. The only difference is in the naming and therefore purely cosmetic. I'm not opposed to pointing out the difference if there is a difference! I just done see any! Damvile (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Damvile: A chancellery minister acts (formally) within the organization "Federal Chancellery", otherwise he wouldn't be called "federal minister in the chancellery". It's just fundamentally not the same. @Kramler: What do you think? Colonestarrice (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonestarrice: You're right, the chancellery minister works in the chancellery. But are they different from other ministers in what they can and cannot do? They have people working for them, same as other ministers. They have a certain subject area they are responsible for, same as other ministers. They define policy goals and benchmarks and issue plans of action, same as other ministers. The need to consent to government bills and everything else the government does collectively, same as other ministers. If there is any way in which they are less powerful or less autonomous or less anything else, I haven't found it yet.

@Kramler: I just caught sight of something weird while double checking: apparently the chancellor and the vice chancellor are "ministers" themselves? Article 69: "der Bundeskanzler, der Vizekanzler und die übrigen Bundesminister". Article 72: "Die Bestallungsurkunden des Bundeskanzlers, des Vizekanzlers und der übrigen Bundesminister". Article 77: "Der Bundeskanzler und die übrigen Bundesminister". Should it worry me I never noticed before? What gives? Damvile (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, the >chancellery< is a ministry?? Article 77 (2): "Mit der Leitung des Bundeskanzleramtes ist der Bundeskanzler, mit der Leitung der anderen Bundesministerien je ein Bundesminister betraut." Why would you call someone a minister if the department they lead is explicitly just >part of< a ministry? Damvile (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonestarrice: Maybe this discussion should be cut-and-pasted to your user talk page so it doesn't disappear when this page falls victim to one of your regular subpage deletions. Damvile (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colonestarrice, Damvile: I've helped myself to a copy Raschauer's Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht so I can triple check I'm not misremembering anything. We'll have definitive answers and specific citations in a day or two. We'll also be prepared, you'll be delighted to hear, the next time RG decides to take one of his runny OR dumps on an Austrian government article.

(Small nugget I discovered while rechecking some older books: The words "government" and "cabinet" are indeed completely synonymous and always have been; Adamovich Sr. treats them as perfectly interchangeable in the 1947 Grundriss des österreichischen Verfassungsrechts.)

I'm increasingly unhappy with the table layout I used for my articles on the Schober, Breisky, and Streeruwitz governments. I used to think the design was clever because the Job Title column would always be very narrow. I thought it would basically never says anything other than "chancellor," "vice chancellor," "minister," "acting minister," or "state secretary" and that the verbosity would always be in the Department column. But this breaks down of course as soon as chancellery ministers start appearing. I'm beginning to suspect that if we want something that works for all eras and all coalitions, and I think we do, we'll have to build something slightly more complex. I'll probably add my proposal to the sub page tomorrow.

Thanks for reminding me the chancellery is a ministry. Now I know how to fix the chancellery article. Kramler (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously want all Austrian cabinet articles to use the same (basic) table layout (within reason) but I don't want to have to spend a lot of energy defending it on talk pages. So before we go to work we should have articles justifying our choices that we can point people to. Problem is, you can't explain chancellery ministers without explaining ministers first, and you can't explain either ministers or state secretaries without first explaining oberste Verwaltungsorgane. I will do the articles but it will take a while. Kramler (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colonestarrice, Damvile:

• Supreme executive organ (Austria),
• Minister (Austria).

I believe these answer the questions we had. Kramler (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer this question: Did you make any changes in the content of the infobox fields, as opposed to the order of the parameters?

As to why it's impossible to tell: please take a look at this: your changes do not line up with the previous content, and therefore it is an onerous task to determine what changes you made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Thomas Drozda 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. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to this article that I think backs up what it says, but please check my work. I can't read German so I am relying on Google Translate. Next time please add a reference when you create the article. Thanks, shoy (reactions) 20:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

shoy, I checked your work and it's flawless; thanks a lot. Kramler (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Colonestarrice,

until today, the infobox in the article about Rendi-Wagner said that she had been Minister of Health and Woman. In German, that is "Ministerin von Gesundheit und Frau". Her actual German job title was "Bundesministerin für Gesundheit und Frauen". As the infobox displayed the wrong job title, i corrected it to "Minister for Health and Women", women being the plural of woman. Within hours, you changed that back to "Minister of Health an Woman" again. The singular form "woman" is wrong in this context. I don't want to start an edit war, so do you think that you could refrain from changing "women" to "woman" again if i correct the erroneous job title once again? --K1812 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K1812: All articles about Austrian minister use "Minister of [Department]", as this is the common usage in English, and I would like to keep it that way. And apologize, I didn't notice that you changed "woman" to "women" as well, so yes you can correct that part. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonestarrice:,

i don't agree that "Minister of" is common English usage. Please look at the article Second May ministry. There you'll find "Minister for Women and Equalities", "Minister for the Civil Service" and other Ministers for ... . Also, the English Style Guide by the European Commission says on p. 26: "When translating into English, write ‘Minister for…’ but ‘Ministry of…’." I don't have the URL for that style guide, to find it, please search for "EU english style guide" with Google. It's a PDF document. So, as far as i understand, "Minster for" is actually common English usage. I know that Wikipedia calls many Austrian ministers "Minister of", but that doesn't necessarily make it right. --K1812 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K1812: You're right that Austria articles are a dubious source in this area, but I believe "ministry of" really is more common; drastically more common in fact.

Some quick-and-dirty ngrams:

• ministry of v ministry for
• ministry of finance v ministry for finance
• ministry of health v ministry for health
• ministry of social affairs v ministry for social affairs
• ministry of defense v ministry of defence, also ministry of defense v minstry of defence
• interior ministry v ministry of the interior v ministry for the interior
• foreign ministry v ministry of foreign affairs v ministry for foreign affairs
• ministry of women's affairs v ministry for women's affairs; Google is thrown off by the apostrophes but the ngram comes up it you hit the button; I'm also including ministry of women v ministry for women just in case

The EU style guides are not the best possible documents to rely on here because they can depart from common usage quite a bit when it comes to things that politicians care about. Just compare e.g. capitalization in EU documents with what you see printed e.g. in the Economist. (The ministry preposition question is probably a good case in point. I think I know exactly how this happened and why it has its own subsection in the summary PDF.) (My wife is a professional translator who does a lot of EU work, so I have some anecdotal third-hand knowledge about how the sausage gets made.) Kramler (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Kramler: apart from google ngrams, i find it interesting how administrations in English-speaking countries actually call their own ministers. In the UK, it's Minister of State for Health and Minister for Women and Equalities. The only state i could find, in which all ministers are called Minister of..., is Canada. In New Zealand some ministers are called Minister of..., others are called Minister for .... In Australia, ministers are called Minister for .... Personally, i find it somewhat far-fetched to use Canadian nomenclature in articles on Austrian politics. As Austria is a European country, i would find it more natural to use British nomenclature, i.e. Minister for.... --K1812 (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K1812, I don't think it's really just Canada. I looked at the map of countries that use English as an official language and I tried to check all the larger ones. India, Pakistan, Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Ghana, Jamaica, Guyana, Namibia, and Liberia all seem to have Ministries of Something or Other. The US and the Philippines have Departments of. Ireland admittedly has Ministries for, but I still get the impression that for is the exception and not the rule.

Another thing I checked is the English-language books on Austrian law and politics on my shelves. All of them say Minister of, so I'm not convinced that Minister for is the natural choice for Austria. At least the people who write the standard textbooks and reference works don't seem to think so.

Come to think of it, I'm not convinced that for is the natural choice even in the UK. Wizarding Britain has a Ministry of Magic. Oceania has Ministries of Peace, of Plenty, and of Truth. Speaking of overrated genre fiction, there is also the Ministry of Fear, which features a Ministry of Home Security. The London music scene has a Ministry of Sound. Monty Python has a Ministry of Silly Walks. If I had to guess, I'd say that Ministry for is just one of those random mannerisms that bureaucracies occasionally develop. Look at the self-conscious archaisms and the various and sundry other forms of stilted shit that the Austrian government is in love with. Kramler (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Kramler:, i beg to differ between ministers and ministries. No one says that ministry of would be wrong. I'm not talking about ministries (departments), i'm talking about ministers. Your examples of ministry of have nothing to do with the decision on whether to write minister for or minister of. Please take a look at the article Second May ministry and run a search for the term minister on that page. You'll find ministers of state for... and ministers for..., but no minister of... . --K1812 (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "minister of", but there's no general rule. Ministerial offices are derived from medieval government customs that don't fit well today: [1]. A "minister" was just a servant of the king, and prominent ministries had distinct names, like Exchequer, Treasurer, Constable ("minister of royal stables"). The problem arises only with offices unknown to medieval government. Furthermore, some ministries were hereditary (like fiefs), comparable to "prince/king of" (there's no "Prince for Wales"). Also, "minister of" (the King, for example) is different from "minister for" (the People, for example). --212.186.133.83 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K1812, is there any evidence that "minister" behaves differently from "ministry" when it comes to prepositions? The idea seems counterintuitive. I did some ngram spot checks and they do not appear to support the thesis that there is any difference:

• "Minister of" outclasses "minister for" as clearly as "ministry of" outclasses "ministry for"
• In particular, "Canadian minister of" outclasses "Canadian minister for"
• Same for "Indian minister of" v "Indian minister for"
• Same for "Pakistani minister of" v "Pakistani minister for"
• Same for "Nigerian minister of" v "Nigerian minister for"
• Same for "Kenyan minister of" v "Kenyan minister for"
• Even in the UK, "minister of" outclasses "minister for" pretty clearly

I did take a look at Second May ministry and yes, you are correct – the article reflects UK bureaucratese preference for the "for" when it comes to ministers just like the UK articles you pointed out earlier reflect that same preference when it comes to ministries. Well and good, but isn't that just what we would have expected? Why would it matter in the context of articles that have no strong reason to favor the UK government's internal idiosyncrasies over common usage? Kramler (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Kramler, you ask whether ministry behaves differently from minister when it comes to prepositions. I checked the Wikipedia article on the second May ministry. There is a Minister of State for Courts and Justice. According to the UK government's list of departments, the ministry is called Ministry of Justice. There is a Minister for Defence Procurement, the ministry is called Ministry of Defence. There is a Minister of State for Housing and Planning and a Minister for Housing and Homelessness, the ministry is called Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This seems to confirm the rule to write Minister for... but Ministry of....

Based on the graphs you present, i understand that you prefer minister of... over minister for.... I suppose i'll continue writing minister for... and am certain that others will change that to minister of.... --K1812 (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonestarrice:, @Kramler: Isn't this a recreation of an article recently deleted? WP:G4 speedy deletion candidate in my book. Damvile (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Damvile: More or less. The reason why you requested deletion was because "the article isn't notable", if I got that right. The article is and was a literal translation from the corresponding German language Wikipedia article (that exists since 2004 by the way). You can hardly tell me that its notable in the German Wikipedia but not in the English one. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damvile: By "more or less," he means "not at all." The old article was a about, quoting myself here, a flight of rooms. The new article is about an agency that is highly notable due to its unique position in the Austrian constitutional framework: it's the only thing in Austria that the president is in unreserved personal control of. As you can see from the sources I added, the agency and its distinctiveness are discussed in at least three different standard textbooks. Why don't you go do something useful? Your Municipality (Austria) article looks abandoned and the Responsibilities section is completely wrong. Kramler (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kramler: Beg pardon? The section is directly from the BVG. I cited chapter and verse. Damvile (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damvile: It is and you did, and the section is a great example for why one should never work exclusively from primary sources when writing about the Austrian legal system. Article 118 lists the responsibilities the municipality is guaranteed to have at a bare minimum. The list of responsibilities it actually does have is a lot longer. Most of the responsibilities that actually matter in real life and that most of the money goes to are on the latter list but not on the former: public water supply, sewage disposal, garbage disposal, public lighting, schools and kindergartens, assisted living facilities, fire departments, cemetery construction and maintenance, sports and cultural facilities. The section is so misleading, in a word, it's effectively bullshit. Frankly, you could improve the article by yanking the entire section and replacing it with a direct translation of the equivalent part of de:Gemeinde (Österreich). Don't take this personally, but "not provably shoddier than Citizendium Deutschland e.V." is a pretty low bar to clear. Why are you here taking rules-lawyer pot shots at other people's articles. Kramler (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kramler: So let me get this straight. First you claim sources are important and more sources is better than fewer sources. Then you claim the version that cites one source should be replaced by a different version that cites zero sources. You make both these claims in the same paragraph. Damvile (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damvile: As intentional misreadings go, that was pretty impressive. Kramler (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:STYLERET. In the past week I reverted you several times for needlessly changing "Unbulleted list" -> "unbulleted list", "URL" -> "url", errorneously capitalizing title names in the infobox or abbreviate where not necessary, etc.; and that on a variety of articles without any kind of comment. Stylebotting like this is prohibited, especially since you were already reverted multiple times on same offences (there is also a concrete guideline, but I cannot find it right now). Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 06:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Please seek a consensus on those articles, before attempting to implement the changes you want. Note: I restore the status quo for both infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Colonestarrice. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Colonestarrice. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Provisional National Assembly, 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, President of the Constituent National Assembly, 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, where was this consensus reached for not numbering the presidents & why is 'only' the incumbent not numbered? GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Consensus for that was achieved verbally between multiple editors. Because no one de-numbered the others yet. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But where's the discussion at, so I can read it over. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Again: the discussion occurred verbally. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't have. So, I'm going to open up a discussion on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It shouldn't have" – very amusing, but yes you're right this makes it illegitimate. I noticed that you added a new section to Van der Bellen's talk, but it is very unlikely that anyone will reply to it. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at WP:CONSENSUS, concerning this matter. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Very bad idea. I wasn't happy either when you reverted my changes on Grover Cleveland and Jerry Brown, but I respect the standards and agreements you have established on US-related articles. My revert was not based on the verbal consensus, it was based on this. And If you're able to counter Kramler's points, you're fully welcome to restore the succession number. Until then status quo shall remain. Colonestarrice (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a consensus. But, I have removed the numbering from all the other Austrian presidents bios on this claimed verbal consensus. Don't understand why consistency wasn't being established across these articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add a brief summary explaining your edits? I'm not even using the template notice because I know this is, at least, the 4th time various editors have requested this of you. Despite that, you have only left 9 edit summaries in your last 250 edits. There is a reason we have an edit summary box, please use it. Thank you - wolf 22:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: please adhere to our compromise. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes... that was months ago and we have not interacted since then (you actually had to dig that up from your archives) so clearly I hadn't recalled that earlier today when all these pages you edited popped up on my watchlist without edit summaries, so accept my apologies, but you could've just as easily said you'd start to leave edit summaries and leave it at that. (Why choose conflict over cooperation?)

You realize that by refusing to leave summaries, you're just creating needless work for your fellow editors and attracting a lot more scrutiny to your edits, which are not always improvements. I'll be happy to stay off your talk page (or do my best to remember to), but will you please start to leave summaries with your edits? - wolf 00:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Chairperson of the Austrian People's Party, 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Whispering^(t) 15:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot force you, but I can say:

Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please use edit summaries. It really helps save us a ton of time and would be much appreciated!!!

Thank you so kindly in advance for your extra considerate and wonderful cooperation in this matter because it is appreciated and kind and wonderful that you will, and I'm sure you will, start to use those darn edit summaries. So, in conclusion and to recap and go over the main points, thank you so kindly in advance for your extra considerate and wonderful ....

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Chairperson of the Austrian People's Party, 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Whispering^(t) 16:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• An article totally devoid of references stands no chance in mainspace. First bring the article up to scratch and even then kindly wait for an independent reviewer to approve the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colonestarrice, Greetings to you. The above page is a list and not an article as no content in any sort. Those subjects in the list, most of them already have pages in Wikipedia. Pls do not move them back. If you want to write an aritlce about the party and its chairperson then do that but not just list them. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain your reverts over at Franz Joseph I? Jay D. Easy (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay D. Easy: Care to explain why you removed important content without a reason? Colonestarrice (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're talking about the fake officeholder header? Is my latest edit more in tune with what you had in mind? Jay D. Easy (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, President of the Constituent National Assembly, 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Elizabeth II shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization ^Talk 22:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Acting President of the United States. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You removed an infobox without any explanation. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at George III of the United Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too shy, to chime in at the talkpage of the George III article. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]