User talk:Yakme/Archive 1

European migrant crisis#Retitling
Please see: Talk:European migrant crisis/Archive 3. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election
I don't think either of us want to edit war over a tag. It's certainly a large article so it's not inappropriate that myself and others want to start a discussion about its length. There was a previous discussion about a particular split of the article that I had made, but that was a discussion about a very specific action and not regarding the article generally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I opened a talk section, as you should have done before reverting my legitimate rv. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was my intention to open a discussion if the person who originally placed the tag did not do so. This is a tag to promote discussion, it's not a contribution of content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Economist
Ok, you think you know Italy better than Italians? You decide to delete that the Economist is controlled by the rich and powerful italian family, the Agnelli? Ok, live in denial, is good to write a BIASED OPINION as a fact on a whole nation. BAH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stivmeister (talk • contribs)


 * 1) If you bother to read my user page you would discover that, indeed, I am Italian. 2) Yes, I decided to delete that information because it's not true (The Economist group is not "controlled", it's owned partly by the Agnelli family, but also by Rothschild, Cadbury and others) and most importantly it's not relevant in that place and in that article. 3) I don't see any biased opinion, the Economist Democracy Index is a well-known classification cited everywhere. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://www.primaonline.it/2015/08/12/211636/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stivmeister (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your comments on my (and any other) talk page. Also, watch your tone, this is not a forum. Now since I'm nice, I will reply to you. Being the majority owners of a company does not mean being the owner or, as you wrote, to "control" the company. And again most importantly, the fact that The Economist Group is partly owned by the Agnelli family is not a relevant detail to be stressed when mentioning the Democracy Index for Italy in that context: that sentence is present in all "Politics of ..." pages (see Politics of France, Politics of India, etc.) and the remark about the Agnelli is not and should never be added. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Pole
Hi. The fact that the 1995 Pole would be the successor of the League is obvious only for you, not for the Italian political history. If you think my edits are not elegantly written, you can arrange the grammar as you want, it’s not a problem for me, but if you will continue to restore unsourced and false facts in that page (as the alleged alliance with Pannella), I’ll had to flag all the page as unsourced. Bye.--Barlafus (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, you are the one pushing edits without source, not me! I just reverted and you're accusing me of unsourced edits? You can flag the page as unsourced (it is in fact mostly unsourced) as far as I'm concerned, no worries! Now, I never said the Pole is the successor of the League, you're malicious. I said the Pole for Freedoms is the rightful successor of the Pole of Freedoms, regardless of the League and Pannella in or out, because two out of three leading parties (Forza Italia and National Alliance) were still in. Finally regarding the language, it's not about elegance, it's about clear English. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Reverting, you add again false facts (as Pannella), so you add unsourced facts. Elegance or clearness, I said you can arrange the language as you like, but it does not justify adding unreferenced facts. I am not malicious, you show you want to write about an argument you don’t know. The National Alliance was not one out the three leading parties of the Pole as you wrote, AN (called by Bossi as “the fascists”) run in opposition to the Pole exactly as the Progressives or the Pact. The Pole was a written pact, there was a contract assigning to the League the 70% of the seats: evidently, the League retirement was not a detail as you think.--Barlafus (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need for your aggressive tone. Editing and reverting is the whole point of Wikipedia. Anyway, you're right about the National Alliance. But the substance does not change, the political idea behind the Pole remains the same (a united centre-right electoral alliance) also after 1995. That makes the Pole for Freedoms the political successor, in Italian politics, of the Pole of Freedoms. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, you're not actually adding reliable sources to your edits so me reverting is not a purposeful removal of sourced content. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Another “ex post” error. The electoral victory and the consequent government with AN created the Centre-right, not the Pole. Before the election, the goal of the League was to create a liberal, centrist alliance. The League had nothing to do with the right or any conservative idea, its goal was the most radical transformation of the political structure of Italy. In January, Maroni had signed an agreement with the centrist Pact, and later Bossi decided to join the Pole instead simply because he (correctly) though Berlusconi would obtain more votes than Segni. Finally, about the sources, concretely you could simply ask me what you want to know.--Barlafus (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Northern League "had nothing to do with the right or any conservative idea"?? This is funny, since the party was born with the common sentiment of despise and racism towards Southerners and illegal immigrants. Maybe there were some leftists in the Lega, but I'm sure the LN was not looking for a centre-left alliance. But let's not make it a discussion about the Lega's past. Centre-right alliance Poles with Berlusconi as leader are a constant in Italian politics since the 90s until recently, you cannot neglect the continuum here. About the sources, I will add cn templates wherever I believe a citation is needed. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear Ritchie, do you know how many illegal immigrants there were in Italy in the late 80’s? Maybe they could harshly fill the teams for a football match... Take a look to the electoral fluxes in 1990 Lombardy. As you can see, the League took its votes even more from the Communists than from the Christian Democrats. Do you think that quite a third of the Communist supporters of 1985 became a bulk of racists in 1990? The League was a member of Rainbow Group (1989–1994) of the EP at time, certainly not a conservative or rightist meeting, and even after its expulsion because of the government with AN, it joined the ELDR, again not a conservative or rightist association. We must discuss about the League’s past because we are discussing about a coalition of which the League had the 70% of the shares. Poles with Berlusconi are a constant of Italian politics since 1994, in fact I support to show the Pole for Freedoms as the successor alliance in the page of the Pole of Good Government, but here we are not speaking about Berlusconi or, at least, we are not mainly speaking about Berlusconi.--Barlafus (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * For the second time, don't use this tone on my talk page. Anyway, you say in the 80s?? The Pole of Freedoms is born in 1994. Albanian immigration should ring a bell. The fact that the Lega was part of a regionalist group in the EP doesn't mean that as you said, Lega "had nothing to do with the right". Nothing to do? I believe something to do, not everything but enough to make it at least centre-right. The fact that former voters of the PCI voted Lega is a sociological phenomenon, linked to the old partigiani and the deep localism of the Lega, which resembled a lot the idea of the Communist case del popolo. But anyway, this discussion should not be on my talk page, it should be on the Talk:Pole of Freedoms page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Italian language
Ciao, sei italiano vero? Beh, pure io. Volevo parlarti della pagina sulla lingua italiana (Italian language) L'italiano è riconosciuto come lingua minoritaria in Romania e Bosnia-Herzegovina, come riporta l'European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Ho citato più e più volte diverse fonti e aperto una sezione nella talk page, ma come puoi vedere un certo utente continua ad annullarle per ragioni senza senso, arrivando persino a definirmi un troll. Ti andrebbe di controllare la situazione o almeno partecipare alla discussione nella talk page? Grazie DavideVeloria88 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Italy's growth
Hello!

What is your objection to my use of the European Commission's economic forecast for the Italian economy's growth? KREOH (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * IMF is a better, more detailed source to link to. It is easy to find and read the relevant data. It is the same source from which the rest of the data reported in the infobox is taken. It is easy to check for changes and updates in the future. I think it's very handy, and I don't see any reason why changing a reliable good source like this one. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a good source, I use IMF databases constantly. I'm thinking the EC source would be even better because they update more frequently than the IMF. Also, I'm not changing the entire infobox, only the growth parameter. KREOH (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The IMF source is also frequently updated. I think that changing to the EC reference means ahving to change reference every time it's updated with a new PDF file. The link to the web page is way handier. Also, I believe the opposite as you say: if you want to use EC data for growth, then per consistency you should change the whole infobox (or the bigger part of it, at least all the GDP numbers) to refer to EC data. But that's not what I would do since I think IMF is just fine. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Could use this more direct link I guess Economic forecast for Italy. It would be best to use multiple sources instead of relying on just the one. KREOH (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, the EC data does not make a distinction between estimates and definitive data, like the IMF does. This link is better but there is (expectedly) a disagreement on the 2017 figures. Different sources can give different numbers, so one has to pick one and attain to it in the whole infobox, unless you want to list all of them. Then one should add World Bank, the Italian statistics institute (ISTAT), etc. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna leave the growth as is. KREOH (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Senates
Richie, we must respect the standards of Wikipedia. All the pages, not a single page about the Spanish Senate election, use that standard. All the pages about US Senates use that standard, regardless to the variable not contested seats. All the pages about assemblies with a partial election use that standard. Let’s be clear: I don’t support that standard, if you want to open a discussion to change that standard I’ll not oppose you, but if all other pages will remain on that standard, I will adequate the pages about Italy.--Barlafus (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Show me the place where it is written that what you refer to is a "standard" of Wikipedia. In Italy there are senators for life that can change the number of seats at any moment, so it does not make sense to write that the number of seats in the Senate is "x", because there can be any number of senators. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Even in Spain. And all the pages about Spain use that standard. If you want to change the Spanish pages I will not oppose you, but ”ceteris paribus” the pages about Spain and about Italy must be the same.--Barlafus (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No they must not. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Why? Any rationale reason?--Barlafus (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Because the Spanish Senate does not have life senators. Also there is no Wikipedia rule forcing the Italian politics pages to be on the same standard as the Spanish ones. Why not the opposite then, I might ask? I do not know of any "standard" about this, if you can show me that there is a Wikipedia policy about this I will agree. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Stop Richie, we are wasting time. You continue editing about thing you evidently did not know. There are no MP which changed side, there are candidates that the electoral law used to fill the list. There’s a universal standard used by all the pages of Wikipedia you must respect, other users are not obliged to search into 15 years of Wikipedia discussion. And remember that maths is not an opinion: you can’t edit adding erroneous sums.--Barlafus (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I repeat, there is no rule for that. There is no standard. Belgian Senate also does not have life senators. Also, you're mixing two different subjects. Regarding the results of the election, we need to list the seats obtained by each party by the vote counting, and not the membership of the people that actually go in the Parliament. These are two different things. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, the source you cite here is a sitting from October 1994, so far from being good for the "initial composition" of the Parliament, that had the first sitting in April 1994. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Found another source which confirms that I'm right: here just click on "mostra la composizione storica" and Ctrl-F "Lazzarini". Your eyes will notice that he was member of the Lega Nord group "dal 21 aprile 1994 al 19 dicembre 1994". --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem with fascism
To put it bluntly, the problem with not referring to fascism as a far-right ideology in the lede is that there are a lot of Conservatives who would like to call fascism leftist on the grounds that "It was called the National Socialist Party," and on Mussolini's pre-Fascist involvement with Marxism. And there are more than a few Centrists who think Doughnut Theory is a real thing and believe that far-left ideologies such as Anarchism and Bolshevism (yes! both of them!) are indistinguishable from Fascism. These opinions are not supported by scholarly sources, but they are very popular with a certain class of opinion columnist. Especially those opinion columnists who are uncomfortable with de-platforming and direct action as tactics to confront fascists on the basis of the concept of the Marketplace of ideas and an un-examined belief that Voltaire wrote the final word on civil rights.

So the problem here is not one of the dolphin being a grey mammal; rather, it's all the self-reported pescetarians trying to claim that dolphin is a fish. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You're mixing two different things, I think: that fascism is, among other things, right-wing as an attribute (and with this I agree, along with the RS), and that the fascism definition is that of a right-wing ultranationalism (and this is definitely debatable, in my view, for various reasons). What I would like to stress is that Wikipedia cannot be written with the thought in mind that there are people outside in the real world who are impartial.  That will always be the case, and I think users will still have to fight against people who think that fascism is left-wing.  Wikipedia instead should be universal and independent from all of this.  In other words, I am aware of what is going on in politics now, but the encyclopedic definition of fascism shouldn't depend on the current political situation. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with you. But the reason to put that fascism is a right-wing philosophy up front is in part because this is misunderstood by many readers. It's not universally understood, it is centrally important to an understanding of the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This is also why my reaction to "but the Atlantic says," is to say, "they are of no significance here." There's plenty of academic work, from the centrally important Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far-Right to my personal favourite history of fascism and anti-fascism Against the Fascist Creep that situates fascism as being a far-right ideology; what some journalist thinks because Antifa scares him shouldn't be relevant. But there are a few editors who believe it should be. And that's pretty much a constant assault on the page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
I'll put it simply. stop disrupting the page for Identity and Democracy and stop reverting my edits. Your removal of content has been in no way useful or helpful and has just caused conflict, also do not warn me about a three revert rule block when you too are guilty of repeated reversion of my edits. Ec1801011 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to discuss generated this situation. It caused no conflict at all, you are the only one pushing for the PVV to be in that table. As I explained many times, it should not be in the table because it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Finally, my reverts where only after I tried to discuss with you. Your reverts where associated to silence and refusal to participate in the discussion that I started for you in the talk page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a peek at the page in question and, gotta say, Ritchie appears correct. That's WP:CRYSTAL in that table. Brexit hasn't happened yet. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Reminder about the results for each constituency
Hi, the reminder on the 2019 European Parliament election page seems to me quite useless, I believe that the results for each constituency are not present for any other european election, then this reminder should be present on every page. This expansion is not necessary, if a user wants to write these results he is free to do so, but with this reminder the section seems incomplete, but it is not. --Wololoo (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is incomplete indeed, because technically there is no "Italian"-wide election. The seats gained by each party are picked based on the results for each constituency, and on the total number of seats available for each. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an "Italian"-wide election, the allocation of seats is another matter. This reminder is not present on the other pages, for consistency it must be present on all pages or none. But I don't think other users are interested in writing these results. If you are interested you should write them yourself, otherwise these reminders make these sections seem incomplete, when instead they are already ok.--Wololoo (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the reminder is wrong because the results of the individual constituencies should be written on specific pages, that page concerns only national results, therefore the section is complete.--Wololoo (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The results that matter for the seat-count are only the constituency results, not the nation-wide ones. The template should stay. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The page concerns only the national result, like all the other pages of parliamentary and European elections. The results referring to individual constituencies are always written in separate pages, therefore in any case that notice does not concern information to be included on that page. Why do you put that notice only on the 2019 European election page? And since nobody will write these results, why you don you not write them yourself? that warning is likely to remain there forever for information that should not even be written on that page.--Wololoo (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no national result in the European election in Italy, regarding the seat distribution. In order to make sense, there should be an indication of how each party went in each constituency, otherwise the numbers of seats for each party come from nowhere. Also, you can't possibly know if anybody will write something about it, and you also don't know if and when I will have time to do so. The template is not a warning; it's a reminder, it's nice to have it for completeness, and it does not mean that something's wrong with the article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The system of allocating seats and the national result are two different things... the page on "2019 European Parliament election in Italy" concerns the national result, results by constituency are usually written in separate pages. Your reasoning should cover all the European elections and all the elections for the Senate, but this reminder in present only on the 2019 European election page. In any case with a reminder a section always seems incomplete, and this does not seem very nice to see...--Wololoo (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The page concerns the European election in Italy, which includes the final composition of seats, ergo an explanation (i.e. a little more detail) on the distribution of seats per constituency is relevant. By your reasoning the table with the results by each country in 2019 European Parliament election should not be there, because that page should only show the overall European results... And by the way Wikipedia is a work in progress, so it is perfectly ok to have a small reminder of some undone work. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The reminder requires "detailed results for each constituency", not the distribution of seats per constituency (like the "2019 European Parliament election" page). And however the notice is present only on the 2019 European election page, while this problem would concern all the European elections since 1979...--Wololoo (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, other stuff exists... The existence of other pages is not a reason not to have something different (in this case additional details) on one page. Otherwise change would not happen anywhere until it's done in all pages of one category. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism
Edit against the talk page consensus again and you'll find yourself the subject of an AN/I report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no such a thing as consensus to edit in a talk page! What are you talking about? Consensus is about edits on the article page. You are being disruptive by archiving ongoing discussions because you don't like them! --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You're also violating the guidelines about archiving in a talk page. From WP:ARCHIVE: The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact. So it actually is debatable that you just archive ongoing discussions on a whim. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Except you are mischaracterizing what happened here. BMK was archiving discussions for which there was a consensus that, notwithstanding WP:DEADHORSE complaints from editors who repeatedly failed to produce satisfactory WP:RS to support their desired changes, were long since stale. In fact these tendentious discussions had staled to the point we needed to add an alert to the talk page about it. I'm sorry that you stridently disagree with consensus but keeping a bunch of stale threads live so that we can say, "please produce reliable sources," over and over forever is counter-productive. And you are very precariously close to WP:3RR on the issue - which I assure you does apply to talk pages. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The 3RR rule has possibly been violated already by BMK (,, and ). There is no dead horse here because that specific debate was active and not dying. And by the way WP:DEADHORSE is an essay, it is a suggestion on how to behave on talk pages, it is not a talk page guideline. The guideline instead says that archiving is allowed when the talk pages are very long or when a discussion is resolved or stale. In this case the ongoing discussion about the presence of "right-wing" in the lede (and, again, not about making it "left-wing", I'm not crazy), was not resolved and not stale at all. Also many of the other archived discussions were still active. This would qualify the edits of BMK as disruptive, not mine. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You know, if it weren't for the fact that the majority of editors who actually contribute beyond drive-by snark agreed with BMK's actions you might have a point. But contrary to your belief, consensus matters in article talk when it comes to archiving, hatting and deleting off-topic comments. And BMK's got consensus on this one. Furthermore I'm perfectly aware that WP:DEADHORSE is an essay. But WP:DE is not. And what I've been cautioning you about with talk of deceased equine mammals is that it is your insistence in rehashing dead debates, with no evidence you're actually bringing new sources to the table beyond the same tired parade of incident reports from American online dailies, that is disrupting article talk, and not BMK's custodianship. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * How do you determine that BMK has consensus on archiving those discussions? There's no such a thing! If we count the number of users archiving and the number of users reverting the archiving it's 2 to 2. But counting heads is not how consensus works, there are rules and guidelines that override consensus. And as I said, archiving discussions is permitted only in case of very long talk pages or in case of resolved/stale discussions. In this case it's none of the above, therefore BMK's edits qualify as disruptive. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Umpteenth edit war
Do you want to explain to me once and for all what taste we find to continually cancel irrelevant edits of other users? Even a kid would understand that those tables are totally useless, that they exhaust their goal when the results are there. Who cares to see the list of parties and see the same list with results immediately after? I believe only you. These tables are well established in all election pages: it is a huge nonsense, they are present only in the pages of the last 2 years.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please discuss in the relevant pages' talk pages. You don't get to decide alone how these articles should look, because you don't WP:OWN them. I left a warning on your page about your behaviour. Edit war is never justified, even if you think you are right, and you made a good edit. The principle is that if another editor disagrees with you, you should stop immediately and discuss, period. You are edit warring because you are pushing back to the state of your last edit, not me. I am just reverting to the status quo ante, in order to discuss about the actual thing. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This reply to my warning qualifies you, and confirm that you have no clue about Wikipedia rules. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not even you, since you've also been accused of edit war, even if you've deleted the warning from your talk page: you simply can't accuse me of blocking, and the edit wars are made by 2 users.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That warning was for a different matter, taday's warning has nothing to do with it. I didn't "accuse you of blocking" what does that even mean in English? --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You accuse that the others of modification were when you are always the first to begin hostilities. You didn't answer any of my questions and you justified the rollbacks with nonsense. Answer my question: why is it not a useless repetition? Do you know that these tables were entered before the results only to show the coalitions? Do you know that these tables are not present anywhere else?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Hostilities"? I just happen to disagree with your WP:BOLD edit and I revert it, that's all. This is not hostile behaviour, and I expect you to start a discussion afterwards, if you don't agree with the motivation in the comment. You must know this by now, since it's been ages that me and other editors like User:Checco have to deal with your way of reacting to disagreement, and I really hoped that you read the WP rules. Regarding your specific edit, as I already said, I won't discuss about it here, but only in the talk page relative to the articles. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bold??? Why have I removed a repetition?? Other editors?? Really only Checco and lately unfortunately you too. I asked you for explanations, you have 2 choices: either you answer me here or open a new discussion, otherwise I don't have time to waste, unlike you I have already explained why they must be removed, if you don't want to give reasons the problem is yours. But then your rollback would be unmotivated and I will remove those tables accordingly.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok apparently you don't even know what WP:BOLD means or is... Do you at least click on the pages I link in my replies? Do you care about WP rules? Or you only care about what you think is correct? First of all WP:There is no deadline: nobody is running to have the perfect Wikipedia today, so be patient. Second, as the WP:BRD policy suggests (and I warmly suggest you to read it), you should start a discussion, because you want to push that edit, not me. But since I am afraid you are helpless, and I actually really care for WP rules (even though sometimes I might violate them, but at least I recognize it), I will do it in your stead. Learn the rules please, and learn how to discuss with other editors. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that WP:BOLD means, indeed I have removed a simple repetition: maybe you're the one who showed you didn't know the rules, so don't give me lessons. You rollbacked my edits: or you give an explanation, here or elsewhere, or I will restore my version, a rollback must be accompanied by a valid reason, if you are not able to give me it, you acted for no reason. I've already given valid reasons (those table are de facto a repetition), you no! --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I obviously motivated my reverts in the comment section, but you feel you can decide which motivation you accept and which you don't, so it's useless to have a normal discussion with you. Anyway, I have started a discussion as you should have done in Talk:2019 Piedmontese regional election. You are very welcome. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

EP groups that are "part of the Commission"?
This is new to me, I've never seen that before. I knew that the largest grouping can propose a candidate for President of the Commission (which the Council can ignore), but the national governments propose candidates for Commissioner according to their national majority. Could you point me at a source or wiki article for that, please, if you have a moment? No worries if not, --Red King (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Commissioners usually come from the parties that support the Commission, but they are proposed by national governments. In case a nation has a government majority which does not support the Commission, than it's actually case by case: it might well be that the President of the Commission accepts a Commissioner from outside the majority, or the country just proposes an "independent" figure as Commissioner. Anyway, each Commissioner must be voted in by the EP, so it must be also approved by the majority of the parliamentary groups. See European Commission and the EU Parliament website. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Curious
What's the reason for |this reversion? The paragraph contained contradictory information which I believe was introduced in error. Deb (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Refer to the source cited there: here. Probably the latter sentence about Roma people (based on this source) should be put in context. Anyway also the first source talks about Roma people, and confirms that 90% of Serbian asylum-seekers in Germany were Roma people. However I don't think this automatically defines them as refugees, but I'm not sure. Probably a clarifying or a more general sentence (i.e. talking about asylum-seekers and not economic migrants) would be better. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I seem to have put my comment in the wrong place. Not sure how I managed that. My main problem with this is that I don't see how the majority of immigrants from Serbia can be both economic migrants and refugees fleeing discrimination. And I don't think the first source actually says that the majority of them are. Deb (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternative for Germany
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Alternative for Germany. Since you have long experience on the edit on various european party, I think your opinion on this issue can be very helpful to make progress on the discussion. Thank you. Jeff6045 01:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff6045 (talk • contribs)

November 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Benito Mussolini. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''Mussolini for sure was not Dictator since 1922. His dictatorship started in 1925-26, after the approval of the "leggi fascistissime"'' Anyway, I advise you to go to the talk page and discuss the issue, and stop introducing factual errors in the article. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Hi, thanks for the message. I think you are slightly failing to assume good faith, but ok I will follow your advice and open a discussion on the talk page. My edits had the purpose of restoring the words "dictator" and "fascist" in the definition of who Benito Mussolini was. As a matter of fact, it looks a bit weird to me that Mussolini is defined just as a "Prime Minister of Italy": he surely was, but the deeds he was and is famous for are his dictatorship and the foundation of fascism, and these two things appeared in the previous version and were deleted in the latest edits. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hallo Ritchie, and thanks for answering! I am perfectly sure about your good faith, but not about your knowledge of the object of this article :-) . After your edit the article says that Mussolini became dictator of Italy after 28 October 1922, and this is plainly wrong. His approach to dictatorship was much slower, and never complete. The other center of power in Italy was the king, and the first time that this thought seriously to overthrow him, he just did it, in parallel with the Gran Consiglio. It is better to open a thread to reword the introduction in order to introduce the concepts that you want to bring in. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Modifica Napoli
Guarda la cosa che più mi urta di tutto, è che ci siano persone che fanno modifiche su argomenti senza manco conoscere gli argomenti (e andando contro proprio a fonti grosse per giunte e per di più che dicono testualmente quello che è stato pubblicato. Questa è una eniclopedia libera e funziona così, non si fanno enciclopedie personali). Allora, prima di tutto la fonte è patrimonio mondiale e tu hai la benchè minima idea degli storici e degli studiosi che ci sono dietro per stabilire certi criteri? Si possono anche mettere altre fonti ma diverrebbe una enormità e una esagerazione a mio avviso.

Punto secondo Roma e Atene non c'entrano proprio nulla visto che nessuno sta dicendo che non abbiano avuto influenza, però mentre per loro non c'è bisogno di specificarlo visto che per esempio per roma solo se si dice che è stata capitale dello stato pontificio, si capisce bellamente che ha influenzato l'europa, nel caso di napoli bisogna specificarlo perchè dire che è stata capitale del ducato di napoli o regno di napoli non basta. Credimi dai prova proprio di fare capricci per nulla e di capirci poco o nulla di storia:

1 Contesti una fonte patrimoniomondiale 2 Dici cose senza senso 3 chiami in ballo Roma e Atene che non c'entrano nulla

Allora ti vuoi impuntare inutilmente o vuoi tornare ad occuparti di cose di cui ne comprendi davvero il significato? Grazie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.19.90.32 (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, please use English language when writing on English Wikipedia. Second, do NOT, never, use this tone and send accusations like these to anybody on Wikipedia. Third, do not assume everyone else is ignorant and you are the only expert here. Fourth, as you say, this is a free encyclopedia, so I am free to disagree.


 * Now going into the topic itself. Of course I agree that Naples has had a influence on European history, but this is the same as many other examples of European cities, and there is NO reason to specify this for Naples and not for the others. Not a single one. It's indeed clear from the rest of the introduction sentences that Naples has been an important city in history. Furthermore, your source is the website of the "Associazione Beni Italiani Patrimonio Mondiale"; it is for sure not an academic source, and even if you say that it's written by historians, it has by no means the purpose of a history book (and you even used the "cite book" template...) So please do not keep edit warring and discuss in the talk page of the article if you wish. Otherwise I will report, given also your bad tone and behavior towards other editors. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Guarda io non ho proprio nulla in contrario nel mettere fonti precise per ogni singola motivazione di profonda influenza che ha avuto Napoli sull'Europa, ma verrebbe una infinità. Punto secondo non sono per niente d'accordo nei confronti di quel tuo sminuire tale fonte, in cui i Principali interlocutori dell’Associazione sono i Ministeri competenti – in particolare il Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali- e la Commissione Nazionale Italiana per l’UNESCO. Allora in tal modo si mette in dubbio anche il centro storico di Napoli? Visto che secondo il tuo punto di vista ci vorrebbe una fonte più accademica? Come se poi non fosse abbastanza accademica quella che già c'è. La fonte l'ho inserita come se fosse una fonte libraria, ma questo non significa nulla, visto che non sono solito su wikipedia. Questo dato si può correggere bellamente.

Moderare toni in questi casi è veramente difficoltoso. Credimi. Punto 3 continui a non capire che se la gente legge "roma è stata capitale dello stato pontificio" (ossia del papato, della chiesa cattolica) è normale che questa abbia avuto una profonda influenza, ma leggere solo che napoli è stata capitale del regno di napoli o di quel o di quell'altro stato, non rende bene l'idea. Ecco perchè nel caso di Napoli andrebbe specificato (e in altri casi simili, qualora esistano). Aprire una discussione per nulla non mi sembra il caso. E cmq molte città europee hanno avuto influenza, certo, ma non profonda influenza come nel caso di Roma, Atene e Napoli appunto (come dice esattamente la fonte ma soprattutto la storia: il neoclassicismo, illuminismo, barocco, la battaglia di ostia contro gli arabi, la guerra austro-napoletana e il risorgimento, e mille altri motivi).

Una ennesima informazione esatta, e con fonti esatte, che non verrà pubblicata ma vedrà solo sterili discussioni o proposte di "aprire una discussione". Complimenti, ha vinto. Buona serata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.19.90.32 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

New message from Obi2canibe
Obi2canibe (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Fratelli 'Italia
There are clearly multiple sources, who describe Fratelli d'Italia as far right. What is is the justification to remove the statement that this perspective exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.128.95.39 (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "National-conservative" does not exclude "far-right". The first is the ideology (so better, more precise), the second is the position on the left-right spectrum. There's no need to add the position (right or far-right) in the first sentence when there is already a more precise description. And by the way you added that statement without including sources. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Valdostan regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regionalism. 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) 09:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

UK acting member of EU
Now that the empasse has been resolved amicably I will answer your question, what does "acting member" mean? Basically from now til end of the year at least, the UK will pay its dues to the EU as it did when it was a fully fledged member, and as a result, it enjoys all the benefits of EU membership, free movement for citizens, access to Common Market, duty free for Custom Union which is even expanded to include Turkey, full accepance internationally that the UK is still a member of the human race, and all of the wonderful wonderful things that the EU has given us for over 70 years now. Hope that answers your question. Anything you're unsure about regarding the EU, please feel free to ask me and I will explain it. Regards. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I know perfectly what the UK is still part of, but thanks for the explanation anyway. The problem is that your self-made expression "acting member of the EU" has no good definition, unless one lists all the programs and structures of which the UK is temporarily still a member. One might think that an "acting member" has seats in the Parliament, for example, or has the right to influence the EU decisions, which the UK unfortunately has not anymore. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right about the nitty-gritty but I was generally trying to explain the everyday essentials for the citizens of the EU and for the citizens of the UK. Anyhow, I actually like how the article stands and I am happy with how you changed the "moved" addition from me so I am pleased to say that we will not be engaging in any more back and forth add+remove activity. Thanks for your diplomacy throughout the dispute! --Tomb Blaster (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Revert
Can you properly explain why did you reverted my edit. Also it was a ProveIt edit.  ~Nick~  {talk} 21:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all it deleted a source (with no explanation) that was referred to also later in the article. Second (and most visibly), it broke the said reference in the main paragraph in the lead section. See the revision corresponding to your edit here, and you can see that something is wrong. --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * somethings wrong with that tool then.thanks for catching that. I'll report that to editor.
 *  ~Nick~  {talk} 00:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 in Italy
I'm impress with your work on the statistics for the coronavirus outbreak in Italy - the best summary available on the web. I thought I'd found an error until I realised that the protezionecivile split Trento and Bolzano. The numbers are very worrying. For Lombardia the death rate is currently 73*100/1820 = 4% and as many of the cases have only just been diagnosed, the number of deaths will certainly increase - some of the 209 in intensive care will not make it. The death rate is significantly higher than that reported for China where the overall rate was reported as 2.3% here. The higher death rate may be due to the greater proportion of old people in Italy. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Indeed the rate in Lombardy seems higher than average, but it's also true that they are currently only testing people who have symptoms and have been in contact with other infected people. So the number 1820 may be in reality much higher. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Ritchie92. I was checking for the correct number of total cases to correct the number a vandal had put in, up in the millions, and the Italian government site used as an inline ref still says 33,190. You got there ahead of me and made it 41,035, which agreed with the graphic below and with the entry in the main article. If some official gave that higher figure, how did the number of dead stay 3405 and recovered 4440? I understand it’s changing daily, but a source must be cited and the number should agree with that source. Keep up the good work! Edison (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Total confirmed cases is the sum of current active (33,190 ) + deaths (3,405) + recovered (4,440). This is how the Italian authorities communicate the data. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All good. Thanks. Edison (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: 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. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

For the future
You undo a removal when it's not justified. If a user remove a template with an explanation you might not agree it's rude and unnecessary to do what you did. Also, if you were worried about the reader say so since the beginning. Because if you do not understand but what is written in the summary is a sufficiently clear explanation (and as a user who studies Theoretical Physicis you know Gay-Lussac's law), it's fine. You can let another reader to decide if he or she does not understand and thinks that the source is not enough. I also remind you that I told you could remove if you disagreed. This is in agreement with what you wrote yourself hours ago here. So why you did not do that? Why you had to undo? Why adding this passage? What you were hoping to get? I was clear. You were clear, but you contradct yourself.

In other words, for the future we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to play a part. I know people like pattern, but they do not make you grow as an editor. You had two option 1) let other people decide 2) do what you said you expected to do and what was suggested by yourself few hours before and by muself as well. They were both fine, so why undoing? if you are one of these users who like these patterns, the undoing repeating the "remove templates if the issue is not resolved " look carefully because I was not stubborn. I was cooperative, you were not so much. There is no point in asking clarity when you behavior is contradictory and ambiguous. Bye.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I struggle to understand what you are writing, and I don't understand what do you want from me exactly, so I will just say what I could not say in a short edit message. Your edits were fine (a bit poor in grammar, but ok), and I don't see any problem in having a "clarify" template, it's not an insult to your work. That template can stay there for a few days until another editor finds a better way of wording a sentence, or else. I was waiting for that to happen, there is no hurry to eliminate full chunks of text just because there is a template next to it. That's why I was keeping it there, hoping that someone else would take the job of fixing what was not-so-clear in those sentences. So, chill, and peace. Nobody is playing any war, we are just working to keep this encyclopedia readable and understandable, also by readers (not necessarily editors) who are not fond of thermodynamics (to come to your note about the Gay Lussac law). --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You said yourself, if the issue is not resolved, you can remove the sentence. Now, there is no way to solve the issue for me like you ask, because they are clear. there is nothing I can do. If the oxygen pipeline freezing is in accordance to the sources and has sense for people with certain knowledge, it's just a technical sentence. Like tons of them here. it's purely arbitrary deciding what should be explained to more detail and what should not. I cannot discuss with this because it's arbitrary. i might add but in this case since it's not in detail in the sources I cannot. I am not pissed off because of that and I am therefore fine removing it. i am sorry for the reader maybe but (s)he will survive. In the end, there is no use for an experienced user for the template because (s)he will probably understand what is going on, and no use for an unexperienced reader because (s)he will simply either accept the sourced information per se or just have no interest in the whole section.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know.... You are making a lot of assumptions on the behaviour of the various readers of Wikipedia, based on I don't know what. I was just trying to say that some of those sentences were looking incomplete, unclear to read, missing some pieces, that could have been filled by someone (even myself, later) who had some time to do it; that's why I added the clarify template, which is fine, not a big deal. That template just signals that we acknowledge that the sentence is badly worded or missing some explanation, and it will hopefully be fixed soon. It's a maintenance template. For example one of these sentences mentioned "management of psychological aspects related to stress": what does this exactly mean? The psychological aspects of what? Of healthcare? Of humanity? An English reader who reads about coronavirus and healthcare in Italy to learn about it for the first time will surely remain baffled by this expression. Another example: "it was noted that COVID-19 patients consume a high level of oxygen, which can lead to pipeline freezing". This is also unclear and not intuitive to understand. A high level of oxygen consumption causes pipelines (which pipelines?) to freeze? How? This looks like something obvious but it's actually not, and surely one or two words more would have helped. Or as you did, one can just remove the sentence because it's really not necessary for the rest of the context. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the person making assumption was mostly you. I already asked three readers so far (one yesterday before removing it). They all understood the meaning of these sentences. You are not an English speaker, so next time you can wait for an English speaker to decide what is not clear, it's not where your effort get the best result. If such template is not a big deal, when people remove with a motivation, it's not even a big deal to keep the sentence as it is especially because you are not a native speaker. It was still a big deal to you, not to me. What you achieved so far is that one of the most important technical aspects (pipeline freezing, as pointed out in the sources) is now missing, and so is the most interesting source with a clear insight in the situation in Lombardy, actually the one more form people in the field and not from the newspapers,. Personally, I think the generic reader is loosing something, but I don't have time to adapt the sentence in a way you like because I suspect it does not exist (if it existed, you would have done it yourself). and no, it was not so impossible to understand because I find people who understands it. That's why I am fine. I am here mostly because I think that you will probably do it with somebody else and I want them to know if they find this discussion in this talk, I did my part to reduce the impact of this way of acting.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you are taking personal offence, and you are making assumptions on Wikipedia readership based on three people that you know. I don't care if you made a survey among your friends about your sentences on Wikipedia. This is not how things work here. English native speaker or not, this does not count. Those sentences were totally unclear to anyone who doesn't know about oxygen pipelines logistics in hospitals, and to people who speak English and obviously don't understand the meaning of the words "management of psychological aspects related to stress". They were clear to you and your friends, fine. They were not clear to me (funny story, I also asked 10 friends of mine before putting the template and they also said it was unclear!) and that's why I put the template, end of story. You don't remove templates unless the issue is solved, and since it was not solved, I restored the templates whenever you removed them. Now let's stop this discussion which will not bring to anything, because it's not producing anything interesting. If you want to put those sentences back there, please feel free to do it, but expect another template or large modifications if the wording is still not clear. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you asked ten people, because you had no time for an undo that quick (I did before my edit where i politely explained it was excessive) and if you did even in the next hours you would have proved it's personal for you. I asked three people I contacted about the sources in the previous days, it costed me few minutes to do so, because my personal thing here was to give a more insightful description of what is going on, so I reached out to many people who are my friends (with Ph.D.s) and are following closely the situation since days. It's also talking to them that I decided to add that paragraph (funny story, one is also a wikipedian and said, people with your attitude is why he does not want to edit too much, there is always a non native speaker acting like you do on enwiki :D). So, this is also to suggest you to cut the "taking offence" part, because I am giving you an advice. Don't act too much as you did, it's not what make the encyclopedia a better place.
 * Take the pipeline freezing. If you think you know what people think they need to read (and you make it quite clear, otherwise you wouldn't inisist on template and let other users decide it), write it yourself. And in this case you cannot say you do not understand. First of all, you are student of physics, o you know Gay-Lussac's law. In no way it will sound you odd to discover that gas exiting a tank freezes, one of my friend has your very same degree. Secondly, it's also in my summary, and you seemed to have read it because you commented it. So let me explain how it usually works in a cooperative environment: if you understand it, and you think you have a better knowledge of the language, you write yourself. If you did not do that, let me assume that is more important for you is to play with templates. They work sometimes, but they cannot work with this attitude. This is a interesting, IMHO. it's up to you to learn something for it or ignore it and go on assuming it's because "that guy took it personal". if you accept it, very productive things will come for it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Playing with templates" is called maintenance of this encyclopedia. You should write "I have friends with a PhD" in your edit message, so other editors note that and trust your edits. (This was a joke!) Anyway, those sentences were unclear and this is a fact, not an opinion. You don't need to explain to me how gases behave, I am editing for the readers, not for myself. Now please stop wasting your time writing here, it's not going to bring you or me anywhere, and as I already said if you wish to introduce those sentences again, do it yourself. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * you avoided the question. Was it clear to you how the pipeline freezes yes or no? because when you insisted on putting the template, you were in all position to change the sentence. You decided not to be cooperative. And this is a real fact. The pipeline sentence was solid, and if it was too technical that's how it was in the sources, so unless you know more than a national newspaper what readers want, you really exaggerated there. When it was pointed out, you undid without doubting too much. What I did so far it's proving that I tried to explain to you a key concept and I showed to future users that when you are in this mood, since this system partially encourages you to do so, you won't do otherwise. Your behavior is actually not good for Wikipedia but truth is, that it's actually a good thing for me. I am not kidding. I am not explaining to you how because you don't listen, you expect a certain established pattern and a different point of view in the discussion is not your cup of tea. So dig it further that way. This is not reverse psychology... please 1) keep using templates even when you can do things yourself or when they are excessive 2) keep undoing quickly even when people explain to you 3) keep being very generic about what you don't like, this way you can always point out something different at every passage 4) keep saying you do this in the interest on Wikipedia 5) keep making fun of what people tell you 6) keep assuming they take it personal, or whatever emotional aspect you want to highlight. Do it more. Bye--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Post-expand Include Size
Wikipedia has a limit on how much data can be included in pages that comes from template. This is called the Post-expand include size. Using the Graph:Chart and Medical cases chart templates on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy makes the page exceed that limit, which causes templates at the bottom of the page (including citations) to not be rendered properly, and causes the page to show up in the error category Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Do not revert any more of my edits without first previewing the page to make sure that the "Template size exceeded" error message does not appear at the top. If you don't like using Bar box and, your only other option is to remove the charts and graphs from the page altogether or replace them with PNG images. Both those formats, while taking up slightly more room in the source of the page, are just as editable as the templates without causing the page to have fundamental errors. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 16:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 16:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Before performing such big changes, you should discuss in the talk page first. This is an article that gets edited by multiple users every day, and needs fast and clear editability because it is about a current event, so I think your edits are still not optimal and I will revert them back to the established version. Please discuss first, and then edit. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The page was fundamentally broken before my edit. Period. If you revert, you are intentionally breaking the page to enforce a stylistic choice, which can be considered vandalism. If you feel that a certain template format in the source code is more important than the page actually working, you are free to discuss that on the article's talk page. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * The page is not broken, I can normally browse it. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES
Hi, please stop publishing unreferenced edits. You must discuss if you want re-add unreferenced facts, eliminating unreferenced edits must be done ex officio. Thanks!--Barlafus (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to give proof for your edits, which are destabilizing the former status quo. I was not the one editing without sources. (Yes, also removing stuff needs proof) --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edit on 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Italy
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Italy, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please check this link and read before making any edits. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory - You might get another warning if you keep reverting the last edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroic95 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * By applying 1st grade arithmetics, and the two concepts of "bigger than" and "smaller than", Italy is currently fourth for number of cases, and third for number of deaths. If you cared to read the numbers in the tables you would learn this instead of accusing editors of being disruptive. I expect apologies and your self revert. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the "Statistics" paragraph in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy, the information present before my edit was biased and drew wrong conclusions from the WSJ article cited (the only source there was). The article is biased, coarse and sensetionalist: the fact that two cities in Lombardy may have underestimated the number of deaths from coronavirus does not mean that the stats for Italy in general are "considered underestimates". Moreover, the first sentence does not have a source, probably because it is wrong. In fact, our death stats do include people who died outside of hospitals, even though, of course, many are missed. I modified my original edit, and removed my own analysis of the situation, to avoid violating the no original research policy. What is left is factual, indeed the notion that death toll has been severely underestimated in many European countries is well established and reported by Italian news outlets. You reverted my edit twice, accusing me of violating the no original research policy. I referenced every sentence I made, without including my own analysis. If you keep reverting my edits, putting your own opinions/views before the evidence I brought, you will be reported to an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oll.21 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that the WSJ article is biased is your personal opinion. Your edits instead, apart from being a form of edit warring, draw a conclusion which is the opposite than the one coming from a reliable (and third-party) source like the WSJ. You use a far-right nationalist newspaper as Il Primato Nazionale and the website today.it as source, which are far from being reliable (or as reliable as the WSJ), and – concerning the first one – of course having a partisan view. For such a delicate topic as a worldwide pandemic, I suggest using reliable sources, in this case I would rather use sources that are not Italian newspapers, which might have a second political intent to push for a certain view on the subject. Finally, I suggest you use the talk page of the article to discuss, instead of my talk page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind, but I have copied the above two posts concerning the disagreement over what wording should be used regarding the meaning of the statistics for the coronavirus pandemic in Italy to Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy. It gives other people visibility of the reasons for your disagreement, and might encourage other contributions. Toddy1 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"socio-economic threat"..?
Since you disagreed yesterday, with my explanation of that term, in European migrant crisis, I've had to place again the tag 'clarification needed' on it. So, it is explicitly a question and responsibility to you now, to answer that tag. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not how WP works, solving a problem with a bad solution is not actually solving it. So the tag stays there. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(in)civility
Please stop your uncivil behaviour, insulting other editors, as you did here on page 'European migrant crisis', or you might get into big trouble on Wikipedia. If you see a Wiki text that seems not right, or an edit or an edit summary (= motivation) that you disagree with, just say why you disagree, or why it seems not right. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about that, I should have not lost the patience (however I don't think I insulted you, but I do think your edits are not improving Wikipedia). I think that you are really pushing a lot of personally edited stuff on that page, you are editorializing a lot, making conclusions based on your self-made synthesis of what other sources say, without any regard of what should and should not go on Wikipedia, and let's not even talk about the writing style. Anyway, sorry for the reaction. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, let's then talk about my ('wretched'?) writing style: what's 'wrong' with that? I'm constructively and cooperatively trying to work on Wikipedia, and I receive positive feed-back enough for that. Of course as not-native English speaker I make mistakes in 'high standard use of English language', but almost never so bad that people don't understand the intended meaning. Every now and then, a (presumed) native speaker 'corrects' my edits into more 'proper' English, I don't mind about that at all. I myself also encounter a lot of 'horrendous' English on Wikipedia (much much worse than my own?), I don't condescend on those people, don't insult them, don't threaten them, I just respectfully correct their sentences and their well-meant contributions, into what I presume they were trying to say. --Corriebertus (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then another thing: it's rather 'stupid', and therefore insulting, to ask in that edit summary of yours: "Who said they are "tendentious"???" because it was very obvious that I said so. Of course that is a form of interpretation, that you may disagree with, but interprete, organise, 'label' etc. what we find in sources, is exactly what Wiki editors do, and have to do, all the time. Another editor now seems to have changed that section heading into 'Muslim immigration (surveys)', which of course is also a form of interpretation. And mind you, that I was the first one who introduced the word 'Muslim' into a subsection heading under Public opinion, so my meddling with that section may not have been 'perfect' but also seems to not have been completely useless and nonsense. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to avoid misunderstandings: the remark 'Who said they are "tendentious"???' was not the only, and not the main, reason why I consider(ed) your edit summary insulting. --Corriebertus (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I already said that I am sorry for that reaction, what else do you want? This discussion is over. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You say sorry but deny the main thing: that your edit summary(13 June, see top of this section) was insulting. Specific and respectful criticism on the work of others is always permitted, but to say generally (vaguely) that I don't "have [a] clue of what and how to write on Wikipedia" seems to me here an insult.
 * This talk section is not a tribunal, it's a warning and request and advise to you, to stop with what I see and feel as insult and incivility. It's okay to disagree with some edit, and then to change or remove it, but that does not yet prove that you are right or that my edit was (fully) wrong. Quite often, a third editor would find a compromise between two 'opposing' editors, as perhaps also happened after this conflict between us. I've no idea what you mean with "pushing a lot of personally edited stuff on that page" et cetera, and I'm not sure I want to know either. Each edit must be judged on its merits, and even if for three edits on a row you disagree, that does not prove that you are right three times, not even that you are right one time. And only such repetitive disagreement (therefore) seems to me no ground at all to state that the opposed editor "has no clue of what and how to write on Wikipedia". Just stop such incivility (or other unacceptable behaviour), against me or against others, or risk unpleasant consequences. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know what is not clear in the sentence "This discussion is over". I did (more than) my part, I apologized and explained my point to you, and that's the end of it. I appreciate your advices but there is no need of discussing anymore. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack or incivility
Just to inform you, that I’ve noticed another incident of presumed personal attack or uncivil behaviour, in this edit of yours on Talk:European migrant crisis, 4 June; in this case it seems 'personal attack' in Wikipedia terms, and on that Talk:Emc page I explained recently(29June) why I think it is. Personal attack and uncivil behaviour are not allowed and not tolerated on Wikipedia. (See also my warning to you, about your presumed incivility, on this your talk page, on 14 June.) Please start working politely, cooperatively and civilly, or (unpleasant) measures might be taken against you. --Corriebertus (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead and take the appropriate measures if you like (note that here and on all other places where we had an interaction the only editor that is using threats against the other is you). That one you cited here is definitely not a personal attack, but an example of criticism. If you can't handle criticism then this is not the right place for you, but I'm sorry that you feel that way. --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Europ. migr. crisis
Hello. In your edit summary of 27March,14:21, you removed my new lead sentence because "we don't start...". Strange argument: if no one ever has done so (which I haven't checked, anyway) that's no reason why it can't be done ever: new things can be done. The point is, that at least my lead sentence was describing what the article was and is doing, really. The old lead sentence, which is now back in place, is not sourced, so it is sort-of Original Research -- you don't mind about that, then? Wikipedia spreading their own invented statements, definitions? You also called my sentence "poor". That suggests, that you would agree with that sentence, if it had been phrased or worded better...? You give a link to WP:COMMON, which says: it is better to follow common sense than follow rules, but that tells me nothing if you don't say what is wrong in my given motivation (= my 'sense') and also don't say which 'rule' I'm following which I should better not follow. Perhaps most important: you say "crisis is overwhelmingly used", which I'm not denying, but my point is: if WE (Wikipedia) use 'crisis', we have to clearly tell WHAT exactly is the crisis - we're not responsible for others perhaps using the term crisis without defining it. (Also none of the other contributors in the talk section about 'Requested move' gave any sourced definition of what really is or was the "crisis".) --Corriebertus (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need (and it is not in the style of WP) to start an article of this encyclopedia by saying "This article is about..." It's more straightforward and easier to read to just start with "The European migrant crisis is ..."
 * There are plenty of sources cited in the current lead sentence, I don't know what you are talking about. WP:COMMON is about the title of the page, not about the content. So I guess you are mixing up a few issues. Do you still want to change the title of that page? If so, you are going against an overwhelming consensus, against WP:COMMON and against multiple Move requests done during the years. If you are instead against the lead sentence, you should in any case not remove the main title from the focus of the first sentence, i.e. the fact that the subject is called "European migrant crisis". Finally, if you really want to push your lead sentence, start another discussion in the talk page where every other editor can comment on your proposal. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot be serious :-) This is really bad Deb (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

complaint on WP:ANI
I’ve had to file a complaint about your behaviour,==unexplained removal of a section in "Next Italian general election"== Fair enough. However there was no need to revert the whole edit, you could have simply put the section back in, again. The reason why I removed it, is simple: it's unsourced and requires a constant updating not worth the effort, thus numbers risk on being different and to create a dissonance with real MPs current numbers. We already have to update the current MPs numbers for the parties in the template - which I did - and I think that's enough. Lone Internaut (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * OK but that's your opinion. The table is not unsourced, the numbers are taken from the current composition of the houses of Parliament. Such removal of a section would require a discussion in the talk page first. We (users who often edit Italian-politics articles) had discussions over this kind of tables already for similar articles, so I guess that a consensus would be needed first before removing that table. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Not exactly correct. I understand what you mean but in practice, as you can see, the numbers in the section do not reflect the correct ones in Legislature XVIII of Italy article. It's not only about keep updating the section constantly, one or two sources directly cited would be even better. You know someone else to call into the discussion to generate a consensus? Lone Internaut (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Just open a new section in Talk:Next Italian general election. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Economy of the European Union reversion
Hi, I saw you reverted my change to Economy of the European Union. Fair enough, if that's what you think the tables should show, but if so the 2012 figures are incorrect as they include Croatia. I'd also like to echo the comment above about there being no need to revert the whole edit. Mibblepedia (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry for that, but it was not the first time that someone removed the UK from the historical tables and graphs regarding the EU. We cannot erase the UK from the history of the EU. I can have a look at that later and fix/update the rest of the data. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "We cannot erase the UK from the history of the EU." - That's not what I was doing. I've posted on the talk page for clarification and further discussion. Mibblepedia (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie92, I'd like to ask for your opinion about a certain issue. It's about the behaviour of a user you already had to do with: Barefoot through the chollas. That's why I'm relying on you, not to ask you to intervene but just to tell me what you personally think about what I'm going to write. My doubt is whether he actually broke the rules relative to consensus, bordering on canvassing, or not. Here's what happened in short: he joined a survey about linguistics, strongly supporting his point of view, but since apparently he was the only one with that opinion he informed of the survey one more user, a user who made an edit according to his same point of view. Barefoot through the chollas knew that this user would support his opinion, because of that particular edit which Barefoot through the chollas restored after it was undone. In my humble opinion, this conduct is against the rules of consensus, because it's aimed to alter the consensus in that survey, in fact the user joined the survey and said exactly what Barefoot through the chollas argued. Is all this regular and legitimate for you? Isn't there anything in this conduct against the rules of Wikipedia? In case there's something wrong (as I think), what do you suggest me to do? Calling on a sysop, reporting his misconduct to the admins' noticeboard, or something else? Let me know your opinion, and please don't take action personally, I just need a piece of advice about how to deal with this thing, I've always edited as an anonymous and I've created this account only to talk with other users like you about this problem and its solutions. Thank you in advance if you give me a little help!--Setcori (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

unexplained removal of a section in "Next Italian general election"
Fair enough. However there was no need to revert the whole edit, you could have simply put the section back in, again. The reason why I removed it, is simple: it's unsourced and requires a constant updating not worth the effort, thus numbers risk on being different and to create a dissonance with real MPs current numbers. We already have to update the current MPs numbers for the parties in the template - which I did - and I think that's enough. Lone Internaut (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * OK but that's your opinion. The table is not unsourced, the numbers are taken from the current composition of the houses of Parliament. Such removal of a section would require a discussion in the talk page first. We (users who often edit Italian-politics articles) had discussions over this kind of tables already for similar articles, so I guess that a consensus would be needed first before removing that table. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Not exactly correct. I understand what you mean but in practice, as you can see, the numbers in the section do not reflect the correct ones in Legislature XVIII of Italy article. It's not only about keep updating the section constantly, one or two sources directly cited would be even better. You know someone else to call into the discussion to generate a consensus? Lone Internaut (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Just open a new section in Talk:Next Italian general election. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Economy of the European Union reversion
Hi, I saw you reverted my change to Economy of the European Union. Fair enough, if that's what you think the tables should show, but if so the 2012 figures are incorrect as they include Croatia. I'd also like to echo the comment above about there being no need to revert the whole edit. Mibblepedia (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry for that, but it was not the first time that someone removed the UK from the historical tables and graphs regarding the EU. We cannot erase the UK from the history of the EU. I can have a look at that later and fix/update the rest of the data. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "We cannot erase the UK from the history of the EU." - That's not what I was doing. I've posted on the talk page for clarification and further discussion. Mibblepedia (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)