User talk:Hydronium Hydroxide/Archive 2015 to 2016

Cherry Prepaid
Hello Hydronium Hydroxide, Please get back my edit so i can replace it. I want it for 24 hours starting this time 17:58 (Manila Local Time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland923 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Roland923. I nominated it as a speedy deletion candidate, but did not perform the delete and nor do I have the capability to restore it. I don't remember the contents, but it appears that it read like a press release or similar, and that the deleting administrator, Peridon, agreed.
 * Per the notice on the Cherry Prepaid page, you could contact the deleting administrator to request that the deleted page be restored or moved to Draft space so that you can work on it, however if Cherry Prepaid is not particularly notable/interesting at this time, and thus does not warrant its own article, then it might be better for you to put a referenced sentence or two in the Cherry Mobile article instead, and WP:REDIRECT Cherry Prepaid to Cherry Mobile. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk) 12:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Tim Fortin
Hello Hydronium Hydroxide,

You tagged a "Tim Fortin" page of mine for speedy deletion, because you thought it to be vandalism or a hoax.

I do not wish to contest this deletion, it is not important to me, especially since the page has already been removed. However, I would just like to note that it was not intended to be vandalism nor a hoax. It was simply created for fun or as a Parody, based on an inside joke.

-ChadRBanks


 * Understood, but it probably wouldn't live long on Uncyclopedia either... Cheers, undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk) 03:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Gareth_Powell
Thanks for pointing me to the Draft:Gareth_Powell) page. Obviously a man who deserves an article in his own right. I particularly enjoyed his own article 'A rose by any other name ...' in the SMH. It's given me some good stories to share with word-playing friends. -- Jmc (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's proving an interesting puzzle to construct a sane referenced article without too much primary sourcing, given how fragmentary the evidence is. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  20:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hydronium_Hydroxide: There may be a few more Gareth Powell details and dates at https://www.linkedin.com/in/gareth-powell-5193102 and https://www.linkedin.com/in/gareth-powell-10585291. Perseus25 (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Perseus25 but although it'd probably be useful for clarifying a few mysteries, I won't register for that site. I'm also trying to avoid using as much of his self-published material as possible (although for his early life it appears inescapable). Please feel free to edit the draft as you like; it's taking shape very slowly. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on LinkedIn and similar websites, @Hydronium_Hydroxide. I will certainly add extra sourced material if I can locate it. -- Perseus25 (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hydronium_Hydroxide: I have added a number of additions to this draft article. I hope you find them satisfactory. The National Library of Australia has a biographical file (newspaper cuttings, etc.). I have asked for access to that, in the hope that it may provide some more secondary source information. -- Perseus25 (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hydronium_Hydroxide: Thank you for the edits and suggestions you have been making over the past weeks. I have now finished adding my extra information, citations, etc. Please review and edit as you see fit. You may then wish to publish this draft as an article. -- Perseus25 (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And thanks heaps to you too for all your research and writing. I'll go through things this weekend. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Welsh names
Hi, I saw you added hatnotes to Bleddyn ap Cynfyn and Cynfyn ap Gwerstan‎ to say they are Welsh names. That these people were Welsh is noted in the first line of the articles. Readers would expect them to have Welsh names, so the hatnotes are redundant. I have removed them. Happy to discuss on the article talk pages if you would like other editor opinion. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(Deleted page Talk:Cecil Ince)
Thank you. A civil and intelligent comment. I really do appreciate it. MichaelEditormichaelmorrison (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Bishops of Zanzibar
Looks good to meBashereyre (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Matt Peacock proposal
Please consider my proposal at Articles for deletion/Matt Peacock. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅: Move supported ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi. Thank you so much for your research on the Robert Provan article which helped me greatly in rewriting it. Picomtn (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No prob. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Am I missing something?
Maybe I'm being dense, but what does this mean? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Hi Josh Milburn,


 * Given I'm that out of sync with a bunch of experienced editors, I'll highlight the following, let you draw your own set of conclusions (possibly about me), and go deal with something more relaxing:
 * One of Friedman's two listed curatorships since 2000 in her CV was for LG Williams. Neither that one nor her one for Chihiro Kabata appears to have been solo or lead curatorships.
 * PCP Press, which published Friedman's books, appears to be Williams's imprint. Friedman and Williams's sites appear to be co-hosted.
 * Williams has had three AFDs: See 1, 2, and 3 (including the collapsed sections).
 * Williams's sources of notability are listed at the quote page and clippings collection.


 * Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Convention Results
As a consistent contributor to political topics I am curious as to your thoughts on including the Libertarian Convention results by state for Template:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 and re-ordering the candidates based on these results. Being that the delegate votes at the convention ultimately decide the winner of the Libertarian primary I believe they should be the results displayed in the template (or at least alongside the votes from the previous state primary ballots which give the official popular vote). I have begun a discussion on the template talk page and would like to have a few users involved in the discussion to come to a good consensus instead of a consensus based on the opinions of only two users (myself being one of them). Appreciate any feedback and if you respond here please give me a ping. Acidskater (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ -- will respond if discussion gets reraised on main page Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion is live on Talk:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Acidskater (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

KC holder suggested RfC
Hi, thank you for your comment on Articles for deletion/Hans Sandrock. I agree that an RfC would be a good idea to address thousands of similar articles, but I'm struggling with how to formulate such an RfC. WP:LISTPEOPLE states:

A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:

Where would articles such as Willy Jähde, Gustav Wilke or Walter Gerth be redirected to? From the AfD exercise, it appears clear that do not meet the notability guidelines, so I'm not sure what proposal to make on a redirect. I would appreciate any feedback you could offer. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
 * The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.


 * Hi K.e.coffman,


 * The first step would be to achieve consensus on:
 * 1. Does the award of a single Ritterkreuz in any way meet the bar for WP:SOLDER#1 and/or WP:ANYBIO#1? If not, is the Ritterkreuz with Oak Leaves (ie: second award) sufficient?
 * 2. Which sources (in particular Fellgiebel and/or Scherzer) are considered sufficiently reliable to verify award of the Ritterkreuz?
 * It appears that you and Peacemaker may currently differ on both of these points.
 * If a minimum of Oak Leaves (in the absence of other notability factors) is determined to be required, then that simplifies things considerably. If the standard Ritterkreuz is considered to confer at least marginal notability, however, then that would at least meet requirements for WP:LISTPEOPLE, and the next step would be to achieve consensus on whether Ritterkreuz recipients with little other notability or available biographical information should be redirected as BIO1E (with categories left fully or partially intact in the redirect?), and if so whether brief inclusion/expansion of biographical/award information could be incorporated. The current set of articles/listicles/templates has some heavy repetition and is inconsistent (eg, the omission of Heer and Foreign recipients from Template:Footer Knight's Cross recipients vs the inclusion of Foreign recipients in Template:Knight's Cross recipients), and could be cut down/standardised.
 * If maintenance of individual articles is to be retained for all recipients of a single Ritterkreuz then that also simplifies things, though not as you'd be hoping. Otherwise, how's this for the three you've linked:
 * Create List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the Heavy Panzer Battalions or similar to include Jähde (and other members of the navbox at bottom) in preference to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (J), and/or redirect to 502nd Heavy Panzer Battalion and include there.
 * As a Generalleutnant, Wilke appears to meets multiple other WP:SOLDIER criteria so he may be deemed as an individual keep regardless, and there may be RS for him and/or Kampfgruppe z.b.V. 11 listed at . If he's deemed a redirect, then List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Luftwaffe or perhaps List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Luftwaffe Transportgruppen might be appropriate (rather than List_of_Knight's_Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the Fallschirmjäger?) in preference to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (W).
 * Redirect Gerth to List of Knight's Cross recipients 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf in preference to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (G).
 * Perhaps consider eventually killing the alphabetical lists in favour of the more categorised lists, and possibly add alphabetised Ritterkreuz recipient subcategories (bot support?) if full alphabetisation is deemed necessary for some reason.
 * Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 15:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps consider eventually killing the alphabetical lists in favour of the more categorised lists, and possibly add alphabetised Ritterkreuz recipient subcategories (bot support?) if full alphabetisation is deemed necessary for some reason.
 * Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 15:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 15:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the issue is not the grade of the KC, but that many of the subjects of the articles, similar to those that I have nominated, lack notability.


 * WP:Soldier states that "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour."

So the notability guide is already worded appropriately, as it appears. Getting a higher grade of a KC is not a guarantee of notability either.

Many similar articles were created in 2008 by the same user who is now semi-retired. Please see for example:
 * Hans Weiss, 2008,
 * Herman Lang, 2008 and
 * Georg Schoenberger, 2008.

In the intervening 8 years the notability of their subjects has not been established either, as the AfDs demonstrated. So the question is -- what to do with the mass of similar articles that cover non-notable subjects? If most of these subjects are non-notable, creating a list for them is not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines (i.e. WP:NOTADIRECTORY). If I may so note, editor Peacemaker, even though they strenuously opposed the AfD process, have not produced or added any RS to these articles :-). Why keep an article if RS either do not exist, or there's no community interest in tracking down these sources? WP:NOTAMEMORIAL applies, I believe.

If you could share your thoughts on this, that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman,
 * There's individual notability and aggregate notability. If subjects do not warrant an individual article, they may still be mergeable per WP:FAILN. And that's where step 1 is foundational:
 * a. You're stating that the existing book sources in those articles (and the other thousands of articles) are not RS. That needs consensus because if they happen to be deemed to be RS (or the existence of other RS is raised in discussion as a result) then...
 * b. A determination needs to be made as to whether the (event of the earning and) awarding of a single Ritterkreuz is deemed as meeting ANYBIO#1 and/or SOLDIER#1, as if so then those who did so can meet merge criteria, WP:CSC, and arguably WP:LISTPEOPLE under BIO1E without more general notability being established.
 * I think that this conversation should be transcluded copied to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history to open things up - if you've no objections, please feel free to do so. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that this conversation should be transcluded copied to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history to open things up - if you've no objections, please feel free to do so. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that this conversation should be transcluded copied to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history to open things up - if you've no objections, please feel free to do so. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback; I'm still trying to formulate the RfC so I'm not sure if I'm ready to post to the larger group yet. Thanks also for pointing to WP:FAILN and WP:CSC. The existing list List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS may not be 100% policy compliant, as CSC suggest that lists of non-notable members should be included in other articles, rather than stand-alone lists, stating that lists of hundreds or thousands entries are not advised.

"*'For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.'"


 * What my reading of these policies suggests is that articles for non-notable individuals could be redirected to the division where they served, since the number of recipients per division is not that high. List articles, such as List of Knight's Cross recipients 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking, may be another target if majority of the entries are presumed to be notable. This list (List of Knight's Cross recipients 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend) is pretty short, and can be merged with the main article SS Division Hitlerjugend. What are your thoughts on this approach?


 * BTW, articles such as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) may not be policy compliant, as they attempt to create a directory essentially replicating Fellgiebel's work. Please see sample from Fellgiebel. It makes me wonder if this may be a copyright violation as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Another point is that I'm not reading in WP:Soldier that a high award confers notability. It's the other way around, notability is "presumed" in this case, but needs to be confirmed by "significant coverage". I'm sure there are cases where a person with a RK is notable for other reasons (post-war career, being a propaganda icon, the event that they received the award for and their actions are discussed in secondary RS), etc. There may be cases where a person with Oak Leaves is not notable, since there's no significant coverage.


 * K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * K.e.coffman, some thoughts:
 * Suggest opening discussion first, since if consensus can be reached on various aspects within the MILHIST community, then fewer or no RFCs will be required to be formulated in the development of RK-specific guidelines.
 * Agree with your suggestion that (where appropriate) inclusion of recipients in a section of another article rather than necessarily being a separate list (possibly redirected from the List of... for consistency of naming in a list of lists) until the list is big enough for WP:SPLITLIST to apply.
 * I don’t believe that WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to lists of RK recipients (particularly if sub-categorised rather than alphabetically ordered) since they are (or should be) encyclopedic in nature, finite/bounded, tightly-associated, and would/should not be simple listings, such as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the Luftwaffe fighter force. (The set of policies/guidelines are dualling/inconsistent anyway, and WP:IAR applies at the margins).
 * My reading of FAQ/Copyright would be that such subcategorised lists of facts - standalone or incorporated - would be sufficiently transformational (particularly where articles/lists are multiply sourced).
 * Regarding notability, the topic of "Recipients of the RK" is encyclopedic, and appears likely to meet WP:GNG requirements (which gets back to the initial need for determination of which sources are reliable), and thus "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". And that brings things back to the other initial question for those who do not meet notability requirements for standalone articles: Is award of a single RK sufficiently high a bar for mention in WP? (WP:LISTN)
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've started the discussion here, referencing this thread, if you'd like to chime in. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman: Thanks, I'll have a think about things. It's still a can of worms, but at least there's a little more clarity on a few fundamentals. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * On the list issue I see your point that "such subcategorised lists of facts - standalone or incorporated - would be sufficiently transformational". But it appears that articles such as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Schu–Sz) are "insufficiently transformative" since they reproduce page by page the books by Scherzer and Fellgiebel. Note that the book pages have over 30 citations to each. Also, the amount or red links (roughly 50%) is alarming. Perhaps this is a separate discussion when the KC notability issue is resolved. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Mention of me in RfC discussion
Hi, Hydronium...I received a notification indicating I was mentioned in the above exchange between you and K.e.coffman but can find no indication on the page that I was. Was the notification an accident? Purely curious, I thought maybe it had to do with my Civil War-related contributions.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * MainlyTwelve: Apologies (to you and everyone else). I accidently transcluded K.e.coffman's User page instead of linking it. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Same notification just happened to me. Indy beetle (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto. —Noha307 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , and  You are welcome to participate :-). The discussion is diverse with many different opinions offered: Notability in Knight's Cross holder articles. It's probably heading to an RfC, as the issue appears contentious. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and unfortunately it looks like the transclusion pinged anyone who's linked on K.e.coffman's user page (barnstars, quotes, etc). Apologies again. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

KC holders, take 2
Thank you for participating in the discussion and for your very helpful summary. What's your take on the discussion, and would you have any recommendation for next steps?

Also would like to ping as it appears there was some interest in participating in further attempts to address this issue. Thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have a think, and might post a part 4 since I think a. there's a little common ground now, and b. there's probably a few questions that could better define some bounds. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

KC holders, take 3
Well, the discussion did not amount to much, mostly due to the opposition of one person. I've started a few AfDs, such as Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Beck and Articles for deletion/Heinrich Debus (SS officer), but the participation is low. Two of the voters are MilHist coordinators who called me a "hard line anti-Nazi" and "diehard anti-Nazi" respectively :-).

Do you think it would be appropriate to create a section "Open AfDs" as part of the overall discussion and list the AfD entries there? I'd like to achieve a broader community participation, but want to avoid any appearance of canvassing. What do you think?

As an aside, it's remarkable that the current Notability Talk page hosts three separate discussions for the areas that bear remarkable similarities -- PORNBIO, KC holders, and Pageant winners. All of them have the hallmarks of WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO biographies, backed by flimsy or non-independent sources. Oh well... K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * K.e.coffman: It's unfortunate that the KC holder discussion petered out; I don't know how useful - much less welcomed - a ping of previous participants would be at this point. Regarding an Open AFDs section, there shouldn't be a problem with canvassing as WP:APPNOTE applies, and such a general and unbiased notification to interested participants is legal.


 * I also noticed fundamental similarities between the various discussions. A factor is that notability is non-binary, and many of these article subjects have some marginal level of it. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback; I posted one which is a straggler from a group of about six (all closed "delete" except for one redirect). As an aside, the similarities also manifest themselves in the "walled gardens" that these topics seem to create, with only a few actively engaged editors whose approach is "don't touch my pageant queen / adult entertainer / KC winner", or "I'll take you to ANI" and / or "invoke ANYBOI1" (which I've now seen, amazingly, applied to all the three categories). Also compare: Category:Miss USA templates (68 separate templates) and Category:Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross templates (223(!) templates). This is getting into the "cruft" territory. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the three areas tend to have a fair amount of passion on both sides. There are so many individual articles in so many areas with subjects of marginal notability (Insects, sportspeople, villages, high schools, specific models of consumer electronics, ...) On an individual basis the question is "Is there really any harm in leaving the article?", and in general my answer is "No, they're pointless but fairly harmless". The good thing about walled gardens is that they're walled. And there's enough around to deal with where there's either active harm, or definite non-notability.


 * There's lots of subjects which are (or should be) clearly notable, and lots which are clearly not, but there's space between the two. A systematic overhaul of the guidelines (particularly with requirements for SNGs) might help, but given the resistance to the creation of NPAGEANT with the argument that GNG/ANYBIO is sufficient to determine notability when it's clearly not, and the continuing ease of creation of unsourced articles by new editors, I'm not expecting things to change too quickly. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Your username!
I love it! John Kroshan (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You'd be in trouble if you didn't love Hydronium Hydroxide! Yours fallaciously, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

How can a redirected article be restored or reinstituted?
I found that the article Chandra River had been redirected to Chenab River. But Chandra River is not Chenab River. Chandra River (120 km long) and Bhaga River are two rivers in Lahaul and Spiti district in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. They merge at Tandi village downstream of Keylong. After their confluence, the river is known as Chandrabhaga. When Chandrabhaga river flows into the Jammu and Kashmir state, it is known as Chenab. The river which is called Chandrabhaga in Himachal Pradesh state (downstream of confluence at Tandi) is known as Chenab in Jammu and Kashmir state. Thus 120 km long Chandra river before its confluence with Bhaga river is not Chenab river. Chandra River is a separate entity. You may read http://www.indovacations.net/english/Chandrabhaga-River.htm for detailed information and see 120 km long Chandra river satellite image on Wikimapia.

Whoever redirected Chandra River article to Chenab River made a mistake. Chandra River is a separate entity and the article on this river should have been kept. However, I do not know how to reverse this mistake and restore the article on Chandra river. I do not know any editing tool of Wikipedia. I also cannot see history of the original article or why it was redirected. Can you help?Rao Ravindra (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Chandra River, Chandra river and Bhaga river (but not Bhaga River edit: until now ) all redirect to to the Chenab River. This is not wrong, since the three are all used in various pages and redirecting tributaries through to the Chenab is probably more useful than redlinking. None (appear to) have ever had a full article - they were created in 2009 as redirects. There are a few ways ahead, not mutually exclusive:
 * add   to the redirects if you don't believe that a full article is warranted, or aren't inclined to edit;
 * expand Chenab River to integrate some more detail about its tributaries (see WikiProject_Rivers);
 * edit Chandra River and/or Bhaga River to replace the redirect with a full article (or at least a stub); and/or
 * leave things for the moment.
 * Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Miss Hashtag
Thanks for putting it up for speedy deletion. I wasn't sure what to do with it. It wasn't really me who created it, I just moved it from the talk page where the other editor placed it.&#42;Trekker (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's a bit of an oddity that the edit history is lost before your move. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Didn't move it correctly. I'm wasn't sure if I could move an article from it's own talk page to it's regular place so I just cut and pasted it. Which may have been a mistake in hindsight since it's a hoax. It and another hoax article was created by an ip adress that seemed to have good intentions at first. If you look at the talk page history you can see that it was made by the ip.&#42;Trekker (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. Urgh. Well, everything's a learning experience, right? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah definitely. Thanks again.&#42;Trekker (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Crimea
Dear Hydronium Hydroxide, I see that you are trying to revert my edits and ban me without obvious reason. Please help me to make my edit acceptable for Wikipedia rusel. Information I have enterned into that article is based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014%E2%80%93present). I do not understand why have you reverted my edits. Please explain in more details, I would be happy to learn from you (i have already checked linkds to NPOW policy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konsash (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for responding. Acknowledging, and I'll respond more fully in a bit. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 15:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR, where an editor reverts more than three times in a 24 hour period (groups of edits can make a single revert), is a fairly strict rule, though it's probably easy for a new editor to be unaware of it. I don't want you banned. Note that my warning and reverts came after what was more-or-less your fourth revert. I took you to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring after your fifth revert because you were continuing to edit despite repeated requests, both through edit summaries and on your talkpage, to instead discuss the topic. Blocks should in theory be preventative, not punitive -- the goal would be to get you to stop, listen, read, discuss... and not edit war further.
 * Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) does not state that Russian action was illegal. What it provides is a range of international views and quotes that show a common view that it was illegal. There's a difference between the article directly stating something, which would be from the "point of view" of this encyclopedia, and where an article quotes or reports someone as stating the same thing, which is from the point of view of that person or a country/organisation they represent. Someone who believes that Russian action was not illegal could disagree vehemently with a statement that it was illegal, but would find it a lot harder to disagree in good faith with well-sourced statements that X, Y, and Z have said that they considered it to have been illegal.
 * Part of building the encyclopedia is keeping detail in an article which needs it and not where it's unneeded. This edit (and I was a bit surprised before I read it) trims out a little detail because it's covered at a more specific page. What's left is a neutral paragraph - each sentence is factual, and (relatively) indisputable regardless of the position of the reader. Sourcing refers to another article, which is not ideal, but I understand why it's been done that way.
 * Different editors will have different views on exactly how much should appear in the main Crimea article. And that's where talk page discussion comes in. Perhaps a significant number of editors might decide after discussion that the paragraph needs to be expanded. As a different example, however, WWII was a reasonably big event in the history of the United Kingdom but the Battle of Britain gets one sentence and the Blitz gets another. The details of why and how are left to the specific articles.
 * Ignoring level of detail, there's also neutrality of tone/position. "Russia withdrew from the International Criminal Court" is a neutral statement. The addition of "To avoid consequences" before that draws a conclusion (No_original_research). The weight of expert opinion may well be that this was the reason, but Wikipedia shouldn't have an opinion (WP:IMPARTIAL).
 * One needs to be very careful when editing in areas in which one has strong feelings and/or interests (See Advocacy, WP:SPA, WP:COI).
 * Sorry for the quantity of policies and guidelines, but everyone needs to understand how and why to edit.
 * Sorry for the quantity of policies and guidelines, but everyone needs to understand how and why to edit.


 * I've got to go now. You can post on the teahouse anytime -- there's an invite on your page, and an experienced editor should respond -- or can discuss further here. Regarding the topic of Crimea, please be very careful about how you edit. If you think that the edit could be controversial, it might be better to post a query on the article's talk page first, or make the change and if reverted then take it to talk (WP:BRD). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 16:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Message 2
 * Dear Hydronium
 * From your comment, my reference "does not state that Russian action was illegal.". Here I ment referendum mentioned in article. For example I want to add this particular word. Crimea is part of Ukraine, and holding any kind of 'local' referendums is an illegal action by law. What reference do you want to get from me such that I could add a word 'illegal' to article? Link to government law? "Someone who believes that Russian action was not illegal could disagree vehemently with a statement that it was illegal". My edit is straight fact. Based on law in my country - it is illegal. There is no and cannot be any other meaning or understanding of it.


 * For my edit, please let me know what specific reference would you like to see. Lets check upgrades one by one.
 * Added by me:
 * 1. "armed Russian special forces backed by pro-Russian separatists invaded major Ukrainian government buildings, military bases and telecommunication facilities of the peninsula."
 * It is fact and cannot be understood in other way. What reference do you need for this edit?


 * 2. "hold, against Ukrainian law, an illegal referendum on "reunification with Russia".
 * Edit explained above.


 * 3. referendum was not monitored by any respectable international organization"
 * what reference do you need for this part?


 * 4. Crimean Tatars and Ukrainian nationals massively ignored this ocassion
 * what reference do you need for this?


 * I agree with your other comments.
 * I wait for your reply. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konsash (talk • contribs) 09:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * First, some housekeeping:
 * I have reformatted your post slightly. Please note that:
 * Indentation is done by typing a colon - ":" - for each level of indent. This line begins with four colons.
 * You (should) sign comments by typing four tildes - "~" - at the end of your post. SineBot may add it in if you miss it, but it's not entirely guaranteed.
 * I don't know if you're the IP editor ([User:14.28.167.2]]), but if you are please be aware that you are also likely to fall foul of WP:SOCK.
 * Re (il)legality
 * From the official point of view of most countries, including and especially Ukraine, the events of 2014 involved an illegal annexation, and Crimea is part of Ukraine. From the official point of view of a few countries, including and especially Russia, it was no illegal, and Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine. Related article should not be written from the standpoint/viewpoint of one side or the other, no matter how clearly you view one side as being right. Similarly, the use of the word "respectable" is loaded. Giving due WP:WEIGHT to different sides based on level of (reliable expert) support is another thing entirely.
 * Consider, for the moment, Elections in North Korea. Now you and I and everyone else on Wikipedia might have a personal view about these, but that article is written to provide facts and representative opinion, particularly in the Criticism section.
 * For another aspect, consider that any successful rebellion or invasion that happens to eventually be given sufficient international recognition would nevertheless have been considered illegal at least under the laws of the affected country at the time of the rebellion or invasion.
 * Re other edits:
 * The purpose of the WP:LEDE is to summarise key points of the article as briefly as possible. Seryo's edit was (in my opinion) better than your modification. In particular, there's no need to list individual countries. There is room for debate/discussion in how much detail (eg: Is "pro-Russian" to describe the former president fair, clear, and illustrative without needing explanation as to what he opposed? Should the referendum be explicitly mentioned? ...), but once things start getting reverted, you need to take it to the Talk Page as a first step rather than continuing to try to force your way through things (which will see you getting a block sooner or later if you continue on this path). There's no urgency to update. Crimea was annexed over a year ago, and an extra day or three on the talk page isn't going to matter much. There are later independent options such as WP:3O if you and the other editors can't reach a satisfactory agreement, but that would require demonstrated good faith attempts at discussion on the talk page.
 * The date range of 1991-2014 in the subsection header is correct - it's defining an era/period. The text might be modified, but again finding the perfect wording would be a matter for the talk page.
 * Re "Crimean Tatars and Ukrainian nationals...". Ignoring allegations of fraud, ethnically Russian Ukranian nationals were still Ukranian nationals.
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)